To get access to CuriosityStream for just 14.99 a Year use code sandrhoman: curiositystream.com/sandrhoman Using the link helps out our channel and gets you a 25% discount as well! edit: the Hobbes quote is used out of context. please ignore it; it was solely meant to illustrate the hard living conditions of the time not as some form of political statement.
Rather simple question. It all starts with existence of parasitic classes such as aristocracy, professional politicians, professional officers, clergy, red aristocracy, bilionaiers and such. Their harmfull existence is the sole reason for wars - and the existence of soldiers and armies. Also for those of You who are from 'develeoped countries' - be advised about 'army will protect us from politicians' trope. More often than not - army of given country is guilty of attacking it's citizens. It is true for almost every former soviet block country and also for majority of first world countries. And it happend not that long ago. We as humandkind are ultimately faced with simple, yet hard choice: devoid these parasites of power, money and freedom - or be faced with yet another slaugher - as we always are.
if out of context, the adjectives are no less fitting. Excellent TOPIC. Grateful for a system of evaluation of factors that (de)motivate soldiers to, and through WAR.
YES -I'm no expert, but the artistic representation of weapons, armor, dress - EVERYTHING appears to be very accurate, beautifully rendered. Truly enjoyable...
I know, Alatriste is a good movie but, if you want to live in the sixteenth century, watch the film by the italian director Ermanno Olmi....the title is "Il mestiere delle armi" ("The profession of arms") and is the only movie that really gives you the idea of 1500's warfare! It is the story of Giovanni (de'Medici) dalle bande nere trying to slow down Landsknechts army sent in Italy by the emperor Charles V. All history lovers will appreciate this unique work also present on youtube at least in parts.
@@yuribezmenovthegreat4705 Charles V, (born February 24, 1500, Ghent, Flanders [now in Belgium]-died September 21, 1558, San Jerónimo de Yuste, Spain), Holy Roman emperor (1519-56), king of Spain (as Charles I; 1516-56), and archduke of Austria (as Charles I; 1519-21). It seems that Charles V and Charles I (asking of Spain) are the same person.... and the siege was horrible indeed...I'm from Rome, we know they stole many works of art!
The Swiss: "We are the bravest soldiers in Europe" The Spanish: **start bombardment** The Swiss: "Oh no, our bravery is no match for their heavy cannons!"
Again, making a comparison with the hoplite era of Greek history, it was still very important to keep a stoic stance in face of danger. Just like in the pike and shot era, it was important to keep the cohesion even when running away. However, in the hoplite era there was less cavalry to worry about and once you discard your weapons and heavy armor, it was much easier to get away from the enemy. Thus the Greek assembled their phalanx by tribe, family and neighbors, giving extra reasons to the hoplite to keep their place in the line and holding still. Spartans had dinner in mess halls, and the men next to you would be the men next to you while fighting. Thebas kept the Holy Band, 150 couples who fought together. Special importance was given to the shield, which was very heavy but of crucial importance because it also protected the man to your left (a soldier donned helmet and breastplate for his own protection, but used his shield for his entire line). When fleeing it would be first thing to be throw away. So Spartan mothers and wifes asked their children and husband to come back with their shields.
AS a veteran who was deployed four times, its simple..money. I got paid extra to go and be deployed. Its always been a motivator. The second motivator is leaving home. That's why I went. I did not want to stay at home and do notihng like my classmates.
@Flu Kung Because dying for saudi and Israel is beneficial to the US as a whole. Nothing is free in this world. US dying for saudi and Israel comes at a coast.
@@sandrorass890 hmm true but off course the fun part about combat is you get to blow up others hehe Sad we don't have swordfighting anymore, that would be fun 😏
This applies to prisoners as well: I can't function in a normal culture's social hierarchy, so I'm going to get locked up where I can thrive under prison culture's far more brutal social hierarchy
And then along came the first conscripted soldiers. And the only way to have a chance against a conscripted army is to introduce conscription yourself. The need for huge amount of soldiers becomes so unforgiving and essential that people need a good excuse to not join a conflict. Ain't that an unbearable agony?
An interesting content of wars that are commonly less known. Also, the informative animation style really allows to understand the mechanics of battle. It is always a pleasure to watch these!
I never expected Alatriste (the film) to be known outside of Spain, as the actors talk in Spanish and the only way to understand the film is with subtitles for non-spanish speakers
Probably one day I'll feel different, but right now Ive sent my application to the army and am waiting for my service to begin, and I did that cause I just wasn't getting enough out of life in my regular career. Had a well-paying stable job and all, but felt unfulfilled. Learning how to fight, getting stronger, being part of an organization that can go out and influence the world physically, those things feel like they matter to me, more than anything else, which is itself something that took me a long time to come to terms with. I don't know if I'll hate it, don't know if I'll get traumatized or killed or something, those fears are all real and exist, but they're trumped by the fact that this FEELS worthwhile, enough to make me leave pretty much the entirety of my current life behind to start a new one. And I don't think I'm alone in this; I think some people choose the soldier's life because they just don't fit in otherwise.
I wish you good luck, and hope that you've considered the ways you'll be asked to "influence" the world before making this decision. Me, I just went back to school and took up kickboxing in my spare time.
Yes, it's brave of you to choose to willingly be cannon-fodder for rich men and corporations. In rich-man's war, the poor-men fight and die, it's always been this way. Good luck to you, you're following in the footsteps of countless thousands of peasants getting maimed or killed for rich-men who couldn't care less about you.
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002yea almost like once we became more “advanced” we started to realize those we plunder from more often than not are either A. The military or B. Normality citizens who don’t really give a shit about the way? Like obvisiuly whatever country their in it’s gonna be nationalistic but if they seriously gave a shit is what matters you
Hobbes was referring to how man would live in a world with no strong, central governments and being in perpetual war with every other man in a state of anarchy. Be careful not to misquote people as your videos are high quality in general, especially your pike and shot series.
Got a few issues here... Firstly- although casualties from warfare increased overall during the pike and shot era, it was also a time when a) populations overall were growing fast in Europe and b) army sizes were growing at an even faster rate. There's a lot of evidence that the percentage of combatants killed in warfare actually fell during this period- battles were usually won by maneuver and forcing the enemy to retreat, rather than annihilating or capturing the enemy force. Fleeing in disarray has ALWAYS been a great way to get massacred, and isn't remotely unique to Early Modern warfare. Most losses on campaign in the pike and shot era were from disease, even more so than in the medieval era, when armies tended to be smaller and in the modern era where supply lines and logistics were more developed and it became easier to supply fighting men with adequate nutrition, sanitation and medical care. It's arguable whether warfare really became more dangerous or whether it's just that more people were exposed to warfare. Secondly: The stress on the idea that most soldiers during this era were illiterate is probably true... but is still odd and potentially misleading. Soldiers during the pike and shot era had a low literacy level by today's standard, but were still the most literate that Europe had seen in centuries, at least since the heyday of the Roman Empire. The invention of the printing press in the 15th century had produced an explosion of literacy and an explosion in public consumption of literature. Soldiers in the pike and shot era were far more likely to be directly influenced by ideologies than those of previous generations. That's why there was a surge of religious warfare between Catholic and Protestant factions during the period. People from all over Europe travelled hundreds of miles to volunteer in religious conflicts, according to their personal beliefs, in a way that would have been impossible before- e.g. English Catholics and Protestants volunteered on opposite sides of the Eighty Years War and the Thirty Years War. The very basis of modern nation states was laid during this period- the Peace of Westphalia (1648) is frequently held up as a crucial step in the development of the modern concept of national sovereignty and the attendant diplomatic system. Ideology and nationality weren't irrelevant during this period- they were the most relevant they'd been in centuries. It's really strange to talk about an era where they became much more important in warfare as if the concepts were minor sideshow issues.
If you do end up watching Alatriste don't pay too much attention to the plot. For some reason they tried to cram the entire book series into one film, even though some weren't even published by the time the movie was made, and some have yet to be written
3 года назад+5
You chose a very good subject on this video, because in this period of history, the reasons are varied and interesting. On the other hand, I would like to seen you make a top of the best movies to seen the renaissance war like "Alatriste" movie; in order of historic accuracy, for type of conflicts or something like this. XD
Good video - interesting subject. Back in the day the first born son inherited the farm/land/business. The rest of the males more often had the choice of a confined life as a tradesman/farmhand or to go adventuring, either by going to sea or joining the military. This type of societal structure is still a thing in large parts of the World.
My favorite historical channel on YT. Waiting with great curiosity for your upcoming material about my country, very happy someone gives credit to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Cheers mate and thank you.
My father was a WWII combat veteran. (Ist RCR, Sicily, Italy and Holland) He joined because the military provided better than what civilian life could, for him. 3 square meals, clean clothes, roof overhead. (subject to change, ha). So that's why he joined. I toyed with the idea of joining the military, that would have been back in the late 70's, when I was trying to get life on track and I was fed up being educated at, so college or university didn't appeal to me in the short term. I needed a break. There were no good reasons, in the final analysis, to join the military, for me. Except one: to see if I could measure up to my dad. I have to wonder how many sons (and now daughters) join the military for that reason, throughout history.
One thing I wanna know is how the soldiers in the first row of the lines felt, or was there a preference for each soldier where they are placed in the batte.
@@Rohv I don't know, maybe the ones with highest pay and best armour where in the first line? I think he said in another video that the soldiers with better equipment got better pay.
Most guys: "We like the money" Some guys: "I want to defend my country" Some other guys: "I want to test my skills" The dude in the back: "I just wanna kill"
@@runakovacs4759 Sadly that is more common than you'd think, I encountered a lot of people that should have gotten help and rehabilitation instead of potential added trauma, but the governments need bodies for their wars so what do they care, just look at the treatment of veterans, more often than not it is lacking at best.
Military or Civilian life? What I've read into with military history, ancient or even into the modern era, if the fighting is serious, Civilians were often the most worse off. To the point that the bulk of the dying are by civilians either caught in the fighting, massacred, or starved to death.
"Nichol proposed to a woman, but she refused because she didn't want to be with a common soldier. He swears he'll get promoted to leading a hundred men soon and propose again. He doesn't care how risky it'll be in battle. Well, I guess everyone's staked themselves on lost causes. So when I look out there, at the Band's campfires, it's like each one of those lights contains tiny hopes and dreams."
A good book that addresses why men throughout history have gone to war, despite all its horrors is "War" by Sébastien Junger. He goes beyond the typical social factors that are ordinarily brought up and addresses the biological, evolutionary roots of men's desire to fight, and their ability to completely disregard risk to life and limb.. Another good book in a similar vein is "The Way of Men."
Interestingly the Allied crossing of the Rhine and invasion of Germany was called "Operation Plunder". It lead to the biggest jewel heist in history, in which Albert Speer got caught, by coincidence.
A. People do what people do. That is what some people do. They are natural soldiers. B. They wanted adventure. C. To get away from a previous life. D. For genuine ideological reasons. E. For the money. LOL F. To prove something. G. To be part of a 'special' group. Probably one or two other reasons as well.
Cheers for mentioning the story of Europe, I saw the ZDF sign. Going to watch it on you tube after I've watched your part. It's in German but since I speak the languages of my neighbours, no need for curiosity stream! Love the Chanel for the same reason, goes all over Europe even the smaller Dutch battles have come by!
Small critcism: I think what is missing here to be mentioned, is that there were involuntary/"conscript" soldiers during that time too. (in some areas called "Landesaufgebot")
Martin Luther was a spark for protestant revolt but not the 1st in europe, 1st was Jan Hus and then Hussite revolt which actually succeeded. Jan Hus was taking his thoughts from John Wicliffe...
@SandRhoman, sorry, but that reference to the battle at Bicoca... The German landsknechts did not serve "the Spanish", but a Flemish that had the Crown of the Holly Roman Empire, the crowns of the county of Ghent (his birthplace) and other Flemish counties, the crowns of several kingdoms in Spain an Italy... The Spanish arcabusiers at Bicoca served their king for a salary, like the Germans, Italians, Flemish and people from other countries too. The Spansish tercios only were a minor part in the armies serving the Habsburgs, although they were an important part. In fact, almost all the wars that the Habsburg kings made were not in the interest of the Spanish people, who only got poverty. Because of this mismatch in the interest of the people and the interest of the monarch, the Portuguese elected another king in 1640 and began to get richer and richer, as they had not to pay wars in Central Europe that didn't benefit any Portuguese person. In 1755 Portugal was the richest kingdom in Europe. (Then the great Earthquake of Lisbon ruined the country). Meanwhile the Spanish declined gradually until the Treaty of Utrecht and became a backward country in many aspects until the middle 18th century.
Was going to complain until I saw the comment about hobbes being used out of context! Very out of context, considering he was actually arguing that life OUTSIDE of this wartorn society was solitary, etc.
where and how? A citizen soldier requires a family and a nation and that's precisely what's being slowly erroded away since the french revolution and gained a ghastly pace since the end of the second world war
tl;dw it's ALWAYS about the money. Seriously, it is. I was in the military. For all the patriotic veneer on the surface, at the end of the day the universal sentiment among literally everyone I served with was that if something like a Federal budget crisis or whatever disrupted our paychecks, they'd instantly stop showing up to work and go get a civilian job from someone who could actually pay.
I would add that the *religious conviction would be hugely important* for the ultimate fate in war: *death.* When you are reassured that your vehement belief that after you die, you will be received into, or waiting on Heaven in the peaceful side of Hades, it can make the weary, miserable military life and prospect of death seem like a gift. Because once you die, all of your suffering ends... provided you are on the correct side of beliefs.
What about hate ? the will to simply destroy the disliked other or stranger. And of course, there's also revenge (from being a plundered victim to become a plunderer...!) Plus, but for a very small part, a broken love could also be a push factor, by despair going to war to forget and eventually be killed as much as suicide was prohibited and taboo. Those are very common powerful human's motivations (no judgement here). Btw, the movie Alatriste is nice indeed !
Most of these young guys probably grew up in some bunk ass village that was small and stifling. They would have grown up hearing about stories of battle, which were both horrible but also incredibly exciting. Excitement is like a drug; people love excitement. War is Exciting! And besides, lots of guys actually come home in all one piece, so its worth taking the odds to get out and see the world and have excitement!
The Hobbes quote at the start is taken out of context. That description is attributed to his theoretical "state of nature", and not everyday life for people in his time (or possibly any time since the dawn of civilization).
Sure but it consisted of many polities. It gives the wrong impression to label it as one coherent empire. The historical situation was more complex than that, labelling it as consisting of different states is a common means to render obvious that complexity.
That Hobbes quote in the intro about life being "nasty, brutish and short" actually refers to humans in a 'State of Nature', i.e. without law or civilization. It did NOT refer to contemporary conditions, but rather what life would supposedly return to should people reject the prevailing power structures and throw them off cavalierly without regard to a legitimate foundation for the exercise of authority through violence. It's essentially the most politically conservative statement that it's possible to make. Please do your research before presenting such misleading interpretations.
You are correct. I do not know if SandRhoman knew that or not but if anything, the quote is equally applicable to the harsh realities of warfare. So I don't think it is a big issue ArchEnema.
I believe he was referring to human life in general, because he then narrows down his focus in the next two sentences to war and then war in the pike and shot era. As in, why would humanity resort to a state of violence like that of pre-societal humanity? At least that's how I took it.
@@Bookmann117 I didn't say it was a big issue, but Hobbes was distinctly anti-Humanist and against revolution, protest, and even reform from below. The fundamentals of classical liberal democracy associated with Locke were formulated in direct response to Hobbes' Medieval 'conservatism'. So, in that very important sense of the development of Western culture, they got this one exactly backwards. Again, not a big deal, but a mistake professional historians shouldn't be making in public, and one it's completely legitimate to call them on.
criticism received. we actually didn‘t follow up on the quote. we took it from the secondary literature (same context / meaning). we write these videos over several weeks, so sometimes stuff like that is bound to happen. nevertheless, you‘re right with your criticism. by the way, it was not intended as some form of political statement. i will add something to the pinned comment about this.
While it is important that a formation would keep soldiers alive this cannot have been all that kept a soldier on the field. Take a man who crosses paths with a dangerous animal in the forests or on an open plain. The proper response may be to not run away. It is to stay calm, look unafraid, and not run away. It may be proper to simply stand or to back away slowly, that matters little here - do not run away. Yet there are countless cases of men losing one's nerve, men who should know better, turning around and running from the animal. These men were not kept on the field, so to speak, despite knowing what the right reaction is. Of course the terrors of changing upon bear, wolf, or boar are not the same as those faced on the field. When the enemy draws closer and weapons clash, when men scream as they fall, is this any less terrifying than the sight of a beast? One factor is the safety if a formation - did I not just dismiss this as a minor factor? I did not. When a "battle" consists of ten men either side then one may feel just as vulnerable as when meeting the beast; a formation with a dozen men to either side, two rows to the front and one more to the back, that gives a soldier reassurance. The feeling is not one of "if I run I die" - a man fleeing in terror hardly cares! The feeling is more aptly expressed as "I'm here, but everyone else is here too. I'm safe with them." Soldiers in masses are soldiers less afraid. There of course are other factors. If a man has bonded with those whom he fights with he wishes not to abandon them. I believe that feelings such as "I cannot run and leave Wallace here to die!" hardly need an explanation for why they arise and how then a soldier remains standing. How much this applies in the era of Pike and Shot I know not, I know little of camp practices or such back then. The video was enjoyable nonetheless but I would have preferred a deeper dive into the psychology of not turning tail.
To get access to CuriosityStream for just 14.99 a Year use code sandrhoman: curiositystream.com/sandrhoman
Using the link helps out our channel and gets you a 25% discount as well!
edit: the Hobbes quote is used out of context. please ignore it; it was solely meant to illustrate the hard living conditions of the time not as some form of political statement.
What music do you use in your videos? I've been searching for it for a while now
Rather simple question. It all starts with existence of parasitic classes such as aristocracy, professional politicians, professional officers, clergy, red aristocracy, bilionaiers and such. Their harmfull existence is the sole reason for wars - and the existence of soldiers and armies.
Also for those of You who are from 'develeoped countries' - be advised about 'army will protect us from politicians' trope. More often than not - army of given country is guilty of attacking it's citizens. It is true for almost every former soviet block country and also for majority of first world countries. And it happend not that long ago.
We as humandkind are ultimately faced with simple, yet hard choice: devoid these parasites of power, money and freedom - or be faced with yet another slaugher - as we always are.
ruclips.net/video/PiFwrRedQ6A/видео.html
if out of context, the adjectives are no less fitting. Excellent TOPIC. Grateful for a system of evaluation of factors that (de)motivate soldiers to, and through WAR.
can i get a shout out?
Stunning visuals once more!
YES -I'm no expert, but the artistic representation of weapons, armor, dress - EVERYTHING appears to be very accurate, beautifully rendered. Truly enjoyable...
I know, Alatriste is a good movie but, if you want to live in the sixteenth century, watch the film by the italian director Ermanno Olmi....the title is "Il mestiere delle armi" ("The profession of arms") and is the only movie that really gives you the idea of 1500's warfare! It is the story of Giovanni (de'Medici) dalle bande nere trying to slow down Landsknechts army sent in Italy by the emperor Charles V.
All history lovers will appreciate this unique work also present on youtube at least in parts.
Thank you
Is CARLOS THE FIRST OF SPAIN NOT CARLOS 5 OF HASBURG.
And that siege was horrible. Fk the landsknechts that did that.
@@yuribezmenovthegreat4705 Charles V, (born February 24, 1500, Ghent, Flanders [now in Belgium]-died September 21, 1558, San Jerónimo de Yuste, Spain), Holy Roman emperor (1519-56), king of Spain (as Charles I; 1516-56), and archduke of Austria (as Charles I; 1519-21).
It seems that Charles V and Charles I (asking of Spain) are the same person....
and the siege was horrible indeed...I'm from Rome, we know they stole many works of art!
The Swiss: "We are the bravest soldiers in Europe"
The Spanish: **start bombardment**
The Swiss: "Oh no, our bravery is no match for their heavy cannons!"
Also the French in ww1 and Germans in ww2
I think the continuous stress of the bombardment destroy the soliders nerve and will to fight
Again, making a comparison with the hoplite era of Greek history, it was still very important to keep a stoic stance in face of danger. Just like in the pike and shot era, it was important to keep the cohesion even when running away. However, in the hoplite era there was less cavalry to worry about and once you discard your weapons and heavy armor, it was much easier to get away from the enemy. Thus the Greek assembled their phalanx by tribe, family and neighbors, giving extra reasons to the hoplite to keep their place in the line and holding still. Spartans had dinner in mess halls, and the men next to you would be the men next to you while fighting. Thebas kept the Holy Band, 150 couples who fought together. Special importance was given to the shield, which was very heavy but of crucial importance because it also protected the man to your left (a soldier donned helmet and breastplate for his own protection, but used his shield for his entire line). When fleeing it would be first thing to be throw away. So Spartan mothers and wifes asked their children and husband to come back with their shields.
What if you hated the men next to you? Can a misantropist be a good Spartan fighter?
BTW, not sure among the Spartans but among the very comparable Zulus, losing your shield meant execution.
@@LuisAldamiz It doesn't matter how you personally feel about the men next to you, you gotta keep them alive just as they try to keep you alive.
@@CollinBuckman If you hate each other very much neither is a priority anymore, rather a bad outcome.
@@LuisAldamiz The complete Spartan Mother's Charge To Sons was "Come Back With Your Shield, Or Upon It!"
AS a veteran who was deployed four times, its simple..money. I got paid extra to go and be deployed. Its always been a motivator. The second motivator is leaving home. That's why I went. I did not want to stay at home and do notihng like my classmates.
@Flu Kung Because dying for saudi and Israel is beneficial to the US as a whole. Nothing is free in this world. US dying for saudi and Israel comes at a coast.
But is risking your life, your limbs or your sanity worth it? I rather have 10 fingers than more money in my pockets
@@sandrorass890 since we didnt get paid all that well and we really didnt have a choice...well there yago
@Flu Kung Oh yeas the famous US politicians that have dual citizenship to Israel and saudi Arabia such as.
@@sandrorass890 hmm true but off course the fun part about combat is you get to blow up others hehe
Sad we don't have swordfighting anymore, that would be fun 😏
Recruits then: I want to escape strict social hierarchy To function properly
Recruits now: I need strict social hierarchy to function properly
This applies to prisoners as well: I can't function in a normal culture's social hierarchy, so I'm going to get locked up where I can thrive under prison culture's far more brutal social hierarchy
@@i-never-look-at-replies-lol yup some do that, I'd argue it's rare though
Well yeah life had many more certainties back then nowadays it's just chaos all around.
And then along came the first conscripted soldiers. And the only way to have a chance against a conscripted army is to introduce conscription yourself. The need for huge amount of soldiers becomes so unforgiving and essential that people need a good excuse to not join a conflict. Ain't that an unbearable agony?
Maybe it is a sign of early industrialisation as well? It become possible to equip hundreds of thousands of soldiers with standardised weapons.
@@alicelund147 Certainly!
@@alicelund147 also just the increase in state capacity that it was able to fund, supply, and oversee an army of such size
@@Taurox220
Ha! I now imagine a medieval Lord overseeing an army of forty thousand with nothing but five literate bureaucrats to aid him.
I mean forms of conscription have been around long before gunpowder weapons
An interesting content of wars that are commonly less known. Also, the informative animation style really allows to understand the mechanics of battle. It is always a pleasure to watch these!
SandRhoman History:How did a soldier in the seventeenth century fight?👍😏
Spectators: Beautiful graphics👊😎
I never expected Alatriste (the film) to be known outside of Spain, as the actors talk in Spanish and the only way to understand the film is with subtitles for non-spanish speakers
isn't it with Viggo Mortensen?
@@Siegbert85 yeah but Viggo speaks Spanish with an strange accent and they didn't make an English version of the film.
@@albertmont3411 I can't believe that... at least for the German market they dub absolutely everything
Probably one day I'll feel different, but right now Ive sent my application to the army and am waiting for my service to begin, and I did that cause I just wasn't getting enough out of life in my regular career. Had a well-paying stable job and all, but felt unfulfilled. Learning how to fight, getting stronger, being part of an organization that can go out and influence the world physically, those things feel like they matter to me, more than anything else, which is itself something that took me a long time to come to terms with. I don't know if I'll hate it, don't know if I'll get traumatized or killed or something, those fears are all real and exist, but they're trumped by the fact that this FEELS worthwhile, enough to make me leave pretty much the entirety of my current life behind to start a new one. And I don't think I'm alone in this; I think some people choose the soldier's life because they just don't fit in otherwise.
Humans adapt. One day you will wake up and that will feel like your normal life to you from that point on.
I wish I could've chosen not to go in the army. It's was just a giant waste of time for me.
Getting indoctrinated into killing machines is not really a positive thing to do but good luck though.
I wish you good luck, and hope that you've considered the ways you'll be asked to "influence" the world before making this decision. Me, I just went back to school and took up kickboxing in my spare time.
Yes, it's brave of you to choose to willingly be cannon-fodder for rich men and corporations. In rich-man's war, the poor-men fight and die, it's always been this way. Good luck to you, you're following in the footsteps of countless thousands of peasants getting maimed or killed for rich-men who couldn't care less about you.
Damn talk about timing, just found your channel and watched the Spanish Tercio video and got roped in immediately
Yeah, that's how they get you.
It's called tactical acquisition of assets and not plunder.
forceful acquisition for war expenses work just as fine, and it's weird to know looting became more frowned upon from the early modern period onwards.
Looting is looting. These ephemisms are the reason of why some humans make wars.
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002yea almost like once we became more “advanced” we started to realize those we plunder from more often than not are either A. The military or B. Normality citizens who don’t really give a shit about the way? Like obvisiuly whatever country their in it’s gonna be nationalistic but if they seriously gave a shit is what matters you
It's not shitting, it's the careful discharge of feces.
Gee, I wonder when "strategic repopulation" would ever come back into style (Hopefully Never).
Brilliant. Maybe a deep dive into Alatriste at some point?
Hobbes was referring to how man would live in a world with no strong, central governments and being in perpetual war with every other man in a state of anarchy. Be careful not to misquote people as your videos are high quality in general, especially your pike and shot series.
Yeah, other's have pointed it out as well. It was sloppy. I added a clarification to the pinned comment!
Got a few issues here... Firstly- although casualties from warfare increased overall during the pike and shot era, it was also a time when a) populations overall were growing fast in Europe and b) army sizes were growing at an even faster rate. There's a lot of evidence that the percentage of combatants killed in warfare actually fell during this period- battles were usually won by maneuver and forcing the enemy to retreat, rather than annihilating or capturing the enemy force. Fleeing in disarray has ALWAYS been a great way to get massacred, and isn't remotely unique to Early Modern warfare. Most losses on campaign in the pike and shot era were from disease, even more so than in the medieval era, when armies tended to be smaller and in the modern era where supply lines and logistics were more developed and it became easier to supply fighting men with adequate nutrition, sanitation and medical care. It's arguable whether warfare really became more dangerous or whether it's just that more people were exposed to warfare.
Secondly: The stress on the idea that most soldiers during this era were illiterate is probably true... but is still odd and potentially misleading. Soldiers during the pike and shot era had a low literacy level by today's standard, but were still the most literate that Europe had seen in centuries, at least since the heyday of the Roman Empire. The invention of the printing press in the 15th century had produced an explosion of literacy and an explosion in public consumption of literature. Soldiers in the pike and shot era were far more likely to be directly influenced by ideologies than those of previous generations. That's why there was a surge of religious warfare between Catholic and Protestant factions during the period. People from all over Europe travelled hundreds of miles to volunteer in religious conflicts, according to their personal beliefs, in a way that would have been impossible before- e.g. English Catholics and Protestants volunteered on opposite sides of the Eighty Years War and the Thirty Years War.
The very basis of modern nation states was laid during this period- the Peace of Westphalia (1648) is frequently held up as a crucial step in the development of the modern concept of national sovereignty and the attendant diplomatic system. Ideology and nationality weren't irrelevant during this period- they were the most relevant they'd been in centuries. It's really strange to talk about an era where they became much more important in warfare as if the concepts were minor sideshow issues.
What about Luxembourg?
The animations are top notch!
06:48: I didn't know that some soldiers from the pike and shot era even came as far as Hyrule. ;-)
If you do end up watching Alatriste don't pay too much attention to the plot. For some reason they tried to cram the entire book series into one film, even though some weren't even published by the time the movie was made, and some have yet to be written
You chose a very good subject on this video, because in this period of history, the reasons are varied and interesting. On the other hand, I would like to seen you make a top of the best movies to seen the renaissance war like "Alatriste" movie; in order of historic accuracy, for type of conflicts or something like this. XD
soldiers were recruited by drink, gold and promises of glory and riches beyond ever they could hope to gain on a farm in a nutshell
Good video - interesting subject. Back in the day the first born son inherited the farm/land/business. The rest of the males more often had the choice of a confined life as a tradesman/farmhand or to go adventuring, either by going to sea or joining the military. This type of societal structure is still a thing in large parts of the World.
It was a thing in Europe even 75 years ago, all changed when the parents were robbed of their right to decide who inherits what.
My favorite historical channel on YT. Waiting with great curiosity for your upcoming material about my country, very happy someone gives credit to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Cheers mate and thank you.
My father was a WWII combat veteran. (Ist RCR, Sicily, Italy and Holland) He joined because the military provided better than what civilian life could, for him. 3 square meals, clean clothes, roof overhead. (subject to change, ha). So that's why he joined. I toyed with the idea of joining the military, that would have been back in the late 70's, when I was trying to get life on track and I was fed up being educated at, so college or university didn't appeal to me in the short term. I needed a break. There were no good reasons, in the final analysis, to join the military, for me. Except one: to see if I could measure up to my dad. I have to wonder how many sons (and now daughters) join the military for that reason, throughout history.
Ok boomer
@@prestons9305 Wow you're so funny definitely got the whole squad laughing 🙄
One thing I wanna know is how the soldiers in the first row of the lines felt, or was there a preference for each soldier where they are placed in the batte.
I think they rotated? Taking turns reloading their rifles?
@@alicelund147 but what about the pikemen?
@@Rohv I don't know, maybe the ones with highest pay and best armour where in the first line? I think he said in another video that the soldiers with better equipment got better pay.
Think the pay was better for more dangerous jobs
Most guys: "We like the money"
Some guys: "I want to defend my country"
Some other guys: "I want to test my skills"
The dude in the back: "I just wanna kill"
I mean if it works it works 🤣
Either you are a cynic and sarcastic veteran or a civilian with a Hollywood understanding of soldiers/warriors.
Then that random, "I want to get away from my family. I feel safer getting shot at than putting up with my abusive parents one day longer."
@@runakovacs4759 Sadly that is more common than you'd think, I encountered a lot of people that should have gotten help and rehabilitation instead of potential added trauma, but the governments need bodies for their wars so what do they care, just look at the treatment of veterans, more often than not it is lacking at best.
Me: "I got conscripted".
Please a video of the battle of Lepanto and the siege of Castelnouvo..........
This channel is so underrated it’s criminal!
Military or Civilian life? What I've read into with military history, ancient or even into the modern era, if the fighting is serious, Civilians were often the most worse off. To the point that the bulk of the dying are by civilians either caught in the fighting, massacred, or starved to death.
I'm so glad to have new content on a sunday! Lots of channels dont drop anything today!
"Nichol proposed to a woman, but she refused because she didn't want to be with a common soldier. He swears he'll get promoted to leading a hundred men soon and propose again. He doesn't care how risky it'll be in battle. Well, I guess everyone's staked themselves on lost causes. So when I look out there, at the Band's campfires, it's like each one of those lights contains tiny hopes and dreams."
"Like a bonfire of dreams"
I mean this question can be answered in modern sense: I couldn't do any trades and i am dirt poor, let's join the army!
Tbh in the modern era the army is a pretty stable and routine job, unless you get deployed, or a war or major s**t happens.
I have been thinking about this lately, so perfectly timed video!
Dude these graphics are pretty awesome. Seeing this channel grow is pretty awesome!
Really enjoying this series!
The same Question with "Why human eat?"
A good book that addresses why men throughout history have gone to war, despite all its horrors is "War" by Sébastien Junger. He goes beyond the typical social factors that are ordinarily brought up and addresses the biological, evolutionary roots of men's desire to fight, and their ability to completely disregard risk to life and limb.. Another good book in a similar vein is "The Way of Men."
One word: Prosperity
(Or looting)
@@DasKaiserManfred
"You know, looting is an old wartime tradition!"
-George Gordon Haggard Jr.
222nd army battalion.
Interestingly the Allied crossing of the Rhine and invasion of Germany was called "Operation Plunder". It lead to the biggest jewel heist in history, in which Albert Speer got caught, by coincidence.
Another great video. I am always pleased to see a new one from you. Thanks.
Poverty and low social status is often the primary reason why man turn to life of soldiery, it's like a societal escape valve
love you guys!! keep it up! great content!
Missed the chance to symbolize the push factors with a pike.
A. People do what people do. That is what some people do. They are natural soldiers.
B. They wanted adventure.
C. To get away from a previous life.
D. For genuine ideological reasons.
E. For the money. LOL
F. To prove something.
G. To be part of a 'special' group.
Probably one or two other reasons as well.
These kind of formations are mindblowing to the modern mind.
Cheers for mentioning the story of Europe, I saw the ZDF sign.
Going to watch it on you tube after I've watched your part.
It's in German but since I speak the languages of my neighbours, no need for curiosity stream!
Love the Chanel for the same reason, goes all over Europe even the smaller Dutch battles have come by!
"A Fleeing dog cannot bite"
- proverb?
Great video, but the captions not matching what's actually being said is driving me insane
"If you're out of luck or out of work / We can send you to Johannesburg."
Itallian guy is my favorite character
Small critcism: I think what is missing here to be mentioned, is that there were involuntary/"conscript" soldiers during that time too. (in some areas called "Landesaufgebot")
The Hobbes quote is a huge leap from the original context (which is about the state of nature) I don't think it's apropriate here
It seems, the mentioned movie Alatriste is available on RUclips also...
Dennis Showalter would be a good competitor to Jack Nicholson for the Joker role, with such a broad grin. :]
Can you make a viedoseries about all types of fortifications and viedos about napoleon bonaparte and how to win wars !!!
Love this series keep it going!
Love the channel! Thanks 🙏
Martin Luther was a spark for protestant revolt but not the 1st in europe, 1st was Jan Hus and then Hussite revolt which actually succeeded. Jan Hus was taking his thoughts from John Wicliffe...
@SandRhoman, sorry, but that reference to the battle at Bicoca...
The German landsknechts did not serve "the Spanish", but a Flemish that had the Crown of the Holly Roman Empire, the crowns of the county of Ghent (his birthplace) and other Flemish counties, the crowns of several kingdoms in Spain an Italy...
The Spanish arcabusiers at Bicoca served their king for a salary, like the Germans, Italians, Flemish and people from other countries too. The Spansish tercios only were a minor part in the armies serving the Habsburgs, although they were an important part.
In fact, almost all the wars that the Habsburg kings made were not in the interest of the Spanish people, who only got poverty.
Because of this mismatch in the interest of the people and the interest of the monarch, the Portuguese elected another king in 1640 and began to get richer and richer, as they had not to pay wars in Central Europe that didn't benefit any Portuguese person. In 1755 Portugal was the richest kingdom in Europe. (Then the great Earthquake of Lisbon ruined the country).
Meanwhile the Spanish declined gradually until the Treaty of Utrecht and became a backward country in many aspects until the middle 18th century.
The Holly Roman Empire was neither holly, nor Roman, nor an empire.
@@ANDROLOMA They were Roman wannabes.
Was going to complain until I saw the comment about hobbes being used out of context! Very out of context, considering he was actually arguing that life OUTSIDE of this wartorn society was solitary, etc.
We still joined for the same reasons. I joined the navy to see the world, adventure, and money
I became a citizen volunteer to escape a strict social hierarchy. I came from a small community. That’s the truth on it
I misunderstood the title.
I thought "Why they fight" as in say US soldiers getting in a fist fight with eachother.
This was waaay better.
Won’t be long until the reemergence of the citizen soldier.
where and how? A citizen soldier requires a family and a nation and that's precisely what's being slowly erroded away since the french revolution and gained a ghastly pace since the end of the second world war
Citizen soldiers already exist in the reserve forces of most militaries
This is like my 12th video I've watched, I should probably just Subscribe.
tl;dw it's ALWAYS about the money.
Seriously, it is.
I was in the military. For all the patriotic veneer on the surface, at the end of the day the universal sentiment among literally everyone I served with was that if something like a Federal budget crisis or whatever disrupted our paychecks, they'd instantly stop showing up to work and go get a civilian job from someone who could actually pay.
In adition to "Glory, god and gold" you can always add the Virginia Company as a motivation :D
I love ur videos, they're like textbooks come to life.
Great video, such an interesting time in history
Thats a pretty cool breakdown
I would add that the *religious conviction would be hugely important* for the ultimate fate in war: *death.*
When you are reassured that your vehement belief that after you die, you will be received into, or waiting on Heaven in the peaceful side of Hades, it can make the weary, miserable military life and prospect of death seem like a gift. Because once you die, all of your suffering ends... provided you are on the correct side of beliefs.
Very interesting!
Who asked this question and how dense can they possibly be
Love the art as always
What about hate ? the will to simply destroy the disliked other or stranger.
And of course, there's also revenge (from being a plundered victim to become a plunderer...!)
Plus, but for a very small part, a broken love could also be a push factor, by despair going to war to forget and eventually be killed as much as suicide was prohibited and taboo.
Those are very common powerful human's motivations (no judgement here).
Btw, the movie Alatriste is nice indeed !
Money.
Women.
Personal honor.
Religion.
Ideology.
Probably in that order.
Some guys like a fight for the adrenaline rush.
Makes complete sense.
Booty but not in the modern sense: well maybe.
Thanks for another very interesting video.
Most of these young guys probably grew up in some bunk ass village that was small and stifling. They would have grown up hearing about stories of battle, which were both horrible but also incredibly exciting. Excitement is like a drug; people love excitement. War is Exciting! And besides, lots of guys actually come home in all one piece, so its worth taking the odds to get out and see the world and have excitement!
As a soldier, I’ll say that we fight because it’s fun.
I don't think keyboard warriors are included
Gonna have to doubt that youre a soldier
3:35 just like the Australian fighting in Gallipoli against Turks because a Serb shot and Austrian a year ago....
Why did soldiers fight?
Mr. Krabs: MONEYYYY
Not much though. Conscripts in early modern times were usually underpaid.
Nice video
The Hobbes quote at the start is taken out of context. That description is attributed to his theoretical "state of nature", and not everyday life for people in his time (or possibly any time since the dawn of civilization).
This time period is what influenced Zap Brannigans battle tactic of sending wave after wave of men at the enemy 😁
Makes sense.
Will You do more video's on the Dutch 80 years war?
To put it in a nutshell : They fight because it is ( like motor-cycling ) great fun. Until you get hit.
It's like 95% marching and being hungry. And when you're in combat you can get seriously injured and suffer a lot.
Thanks mate
Is the mentioned movie, Alatriste, the one starring Viggo Mortensen, or another one?
What's with the "various German states"? The HRE was very much intact at the time.
Sure but it consisted of many polities. It gives the wrong impression to label it as one coherent empire. The historical situation was more complex than that, labelling it as consisting of different states is a common means to render obvious that complexity.
2:40 Green Austria? HERESY! It has to be white!!
That Hobbes quote in the intro about life being "nasty, brutish and short" actually refers to humans in a 'State of Nature', i.e. without law or civilization. It did NOT refer to contemporary conditions, but rather what life would supposedly return to should people reject the prevailing power structures and throw them off cavalierly without regard to a legitimate foundation for the exercise of authority through violence. It's essentially the most politically conservative statement that it's possible to make.
Please do your research before presenting such misleading interpretations.
You are correct. I do not know if SandRhoman knew that or not but if anything, the quote is equally applicable to the harsh realities of warfare. So I don't think it is a big issue ArchEnema.
I believe he was referring to human life in general, because he then narrows down his focus in the next two sentences to war and then war in the pike and shot era. As in, why would humanity resort to a state of violence like that of pre-societal humanity? At least that's how I took it.
@@Bookmann117 I didn't say it was a big issue, but Hobbes was distinctly anti-Humanist and against revolution, protest, and even reform from below. The fundamentals of classical liberal democracy associated with Locke were formulated in direct response to Hobbes' Medieval 'conservatism'. So, in that very important sense of the development of Western culture, they got this one exactly backwards. Again, not a big deal, but a mistake professional historians shouldn't be making in public, and one it's completely legitimate to call them on.
criticism received. we actually didn‘t follow up on the quote. we took it from the secondary literature (same context / meaning). we write these videos over several weeks, so sometimes stuff like that is bound to happen. nevertheless, you‘re right with your criticism.
by the way, it was not intended as some form of political statement. i will add something to the pinned comment about this.
Mostly for money and a better life.
I love your videos
Could anyone tell me what the tracks used in SandRhomans videos are called?
While it is important that a formation would keep soldiers alive this cannot have been all that kept a soldier on the field.
Take a man who crosses paths with a dangerous animal in the forests or on an open plain. The proper response may be to not run away. It is to stay calm, look unafraid, and not run away. It may be proper to simply stand or to back away slowly, that matters little here - do not run away. Yet there are countless cases of men losing one's nerve, men who should know better, turning around and running from the animal. These men were not kept on the field, so to speak, despite knowing what the right reaction is.
Of course the terrors of changing upon bear, wolf, or boar are not the same as those faced on the field. When the enemy draws closer and weapons clash, when men scream as they fall, is this any less terrifying than the sight of a beast?
One factor is the safety if a formation - did I not just dismiss this as a minor factor? I did not. When a "battle" consists of ten men either side then one may feel just as vulnerable as when meeting the beast; a formation with a dozen men to either side, two rows to the front and one more to the back, that gives a soldier reassurance. The feeling is not one of "if I run I die" - a man fleeing in terror hardly cares! The feeling is more aptly expressed as "I'm here, but everyone else is here too. I'm safe with them." Soldiers in masses are soldiers less afraid.
There of course are other factors. If a man has bonded with those whom he fights with he wishes not to abandon them. I believe that feelings such as "I cannot run and leave Wallace here to die!" hardly need an explanation for why they arise and how then a soldier remains standing. How much this applies in the era of Pike and Shot I know not, I know little of camp practices or such back then.
The video was enjoyable nonetheless but I would have preferred a deeper dive into the psychology of not turning tail.
Why do people fight in general
yay, new video :)