What I really liked about this interview, is the sheer amount of "I don't know" that was said. We really don't know a lot of things about the past. We can make an educated guess, but not much more than that.
That's the thing about being a historian. The further back we go in time, the more muddled the picture gets. Even 'records' of events could perhaps be biased, or lies, written down by people who didn't know either. But what can we do? It's an interesting field of study, it's important, and I love it. But it's never going to be 100% accurate at all times because time and distance is a lense that muddles things. Just look at ukraine right now. So many posts images videos etc...and still we don't know the full picture of everything going on.
Spot on really like this channel but the reaction to movies videos sometimes annoys me based on how sure they are. Like to the point of the historian being visibly angry sometimes over certain things, I am always sat thinking you don't know enough to be that sure of yourself 100% of the time' no one does
That's a very good point. It always annoys me when historians, or actors playing historians, say something like "Caesar did X" instead of "We are told by Suetonius that Caesar did X" or "This is where the Anglo Saxons did such and such" instead of "We think the Anglo Saxons were here because of these finds". Absolute certainly outside of pure mathematics is not very useful, especially with history. Liberal or Conservative, just think about all the inaccurate reporting there is today where almost everything is documented by almost everyone. I remember when they found what they think are the remains of Richard III. And in some sort of anti-Shakespeare/anti-Tudor/pro-Plantagenet movement, there were all these comments (mostly from non-historians) slamming the Bard along the lines of "Ah ha! Richard III wasn't a HUNCHBACK you DOLT!!! He had severe scoliosis! That's TOTALLY DIFFERENT! The Tudor-era slanders against Richard are totally unfounded!" Well pardon me, I didn't realize Shakespeare having been born almost 80 years after the death of Richard III was supposed to be some kind of expert on spinal ailments. The correct historical view, assuming the bones were correctly attributed to the King, is to think "possibly the scoliosis present in the skeleton caused a hunched over posture and therefore influenced rumors over time which influenced Shakespeare. More research is to be done..." And besides, even if we assume the Tudors had a decades-long hatred of Tudor, and indeed that the Tudors were kinda nasty folks, that doesn't necessarily absolve Richard of his misdeeds. In short, they could have both been rotten. The point being that a historian might have his or her favorite eras of study or personalities, but a good historian doesn't take "sides". (I have to laugh as I am just now remembering some comment left under a video about Carthage, lamenting Hannibal's defeat and calling the Romans inferior to the Carthaginians...kind of a long time to hold a grudge I'd say) The job of the historian is to report facts as best as they can be lifted from the clearest available evidence. "I don't know." "It's unclear." "We're still examining the evidence." "We're not sure." are perfectly acceptable answers. Perhaps not the most exciting or satisfying, but it's honest.
Most historians don’t get involved in the technical issues and stick to where there are known facts and good, primary sources of information. There’s still a fair amount of don’t knows but, for example, we know that Julius Caesar attacks in Britain were punishment raids for those tribes support to those tribes in northern France.
Loved watching him since time commanders, there's a little on either history or smithsonian or some channel where he talks about roman weapons in a few videos but it's hard to dig and find ones he's in
@@chrismac2234 A historian, yes, but he was the interviewer in this setting. An interviewer can be a historian, you know. :) I agree entirely with Keeley though - it's a pleasure when an interviewer doesn't feel a need to constantly interject and instead lets the interviewee speak and get their point across properly.
I don't see how an interviewer/historian COULD interrupt and overtalk, when the interviewee is SO knowledgeable and fascinating to listen to... That WAS fascinating. Nobody would want to interrupt, and only then, to ask for more explanation, or to ask about a point not dealt with, WOULD you make a comment. He knows his subject, has a lifetime of research about him - you could probably give him 20 artefacts, start him up and come back 3 hours later, once he'd gone through the artefacts. A great way to spend 37 minutes.
As a British soldier I had an experience which has parallels with the choice of the battlefield. We had to move an infantry Battalion across a small river in late September, the crossing point had been surveyed well in advance. However it was a disaster, the height of the river level was too low making the riverbank too steep, the boats ,which were flat bottomed, went straight under when launched. I suspected the river was surveyed in Spring when it was much higher, I suspect the French chose the battlefield when the ground was dry, they didn't know when they would fight. By the time of the Battle Autumn rain had turned it into a bog, on the day it was chosen it was dry with a slight slope, perfect to attack down slope. Seems that lack of imagination as to the future conditions was to blame.
It wasn't this vid, but another one I watched a few years ago, credited the English victory with the fact that the area in which the French had to advance was too narrow. Of all the elements to this battle - or any other - the one that seems to be neglected most is the actual terrain, plus the weather conditions at the time. For years I couldn't figure out how or why the French lost so badly. It had to be more than their hubris and drunkenness. But when you consider the battlefield itself, that makes all the difference. And a wise commander knows how to use it accordingly. Know your enemy and know your battlefield. X's on a map don't mean a whole lot.
That does make sense. Also the French outnumbered the english by quite a bit. Be it cannae or be it agincourt, a lot of these commanders had the hubris of having the larger army.
@@whollybraille7043 I think this guy dismissed the 'shadow of arrows" theory as it came from Oliviers Henry Vth. I think the longbow would have been used at long range at a charging army who are constrained by a narrow battlefield. You can't miss then and every arrow finds a billet. I looked up the Agincourt battle after watching Branaghs Henry Vth. I was surprised they don't actually know where the battlefield is... they just know the general area?
I think the biggest myth is the assumption that having archers in your army meant you had a bunch of untrained peasants working for you. Which is absolutely untrue. The skill, discipline and work required to become proficient with a longbow would have been incredibly valuable at that time.
@@davestuddaman8127 It was said in England that to get a competent archer, you had to start with his grandfather. That statement tells the tale; it took a lifetime of training and practice to become an archer.
I think king Edward VII has to be thanked for that, thanks to his intensive exploits of the Paris nightlife he had excelent connections to negociate an allience between France and the UK. when the official diplomacy of both countries was very hesitent. Could also be his dislike for cousin Willy of Germany played a part.
@Dank Waifu It was not so much that Edward VII did the negotiations, that would be a violation of the constitution, but his relation netwerk enabled the diplomacy to make the right connections for negotiation,. It went against the grain for many oldfashioned staunce Englishmen on high placed to ally England with France were the tradition always had been to be allied with Germany. Of course the growing economic and militairy power of Germany made the English French Entente necessairy. The Entente Cordiale dates from 1904, just 6 years after the Fashoda incident that had brought England and France on the brik of a colonial war. A year after the signing of the Entente Cordiale the Kaiser tried to test it in the Tanger Incident.
@@tibsky1396 I think Victoria provided asylum to both monarchs as they were disposed. And I can imagine Vicky was not so friendly to the regimes that disposed those two monarchs. Victoria's policy of alliances was marry as much monarchs in her family. It did not actually work very well, there is a wagonload of cordial letters between the cousins Willy, Nicky and Eddy, but they went eagerly to war with eachother. Kind of family quarrel in their minds only taking as much soldiers as possible with them to the brawl.
love this historian. I've seen him in a lot of documentaries over the years. The way he talks you can tell he has a love and passion for history. Not that other historians don't. but you can really tell this guy loves it all.
Very interesting overview of Agincourt. I was similarly bowled over by Oliviers Henry V as a ten year old and am still enthralled. Years ago I visited the battlefield of Agincourt, there was just a board up which referred to the flower of French chivalry being cut down in the battle. Got more from Mikes interview thanks.
it's not. the point is that when enough arrows are shot, some will find some of the gaps in the armor. there is literally no blunt force trauma from arrows, they simply do not carry enough energy. he said it is kike a sledge hammer. he always says a lot of nonsense.
@@cleverusername9369 unfortunately he is an idiot. there is no blunt force trauma from arrows, they simply don't have enough energy. he said it is like a sledge hammer. complete and utter nonsense.
It's great listening to Mike, he makes things come to life. I had a teacher who had the same enthusiasm as Mike, he was the guy that got me to love history.
How good it is to hear someone who knows about a subject that much that he can describe a lot of nuances that have a lot of common sense in them , but that one would never think about , unless you knew that subject extremely well .
I'm a Paralympic Archer I competed in Tokyo 2020 last year. I have no fingers on my left bow hand. I was very impressed with his analysis of archers fatigue over time and over days. We shoot at 70 metres 72 arrows in ranking followed by a series of head to heads that can go up to 15 arrows a match. The two bows, Olympic style Recurve bows, I took to the Paralympics were 38 and 40 pounds respectively. In my final months before Tokyo were I was shooting somewhere between 1,500 arrows and 2,000 a week (not including competition weeks overseas where I would shoot much less for obvious reasons) it was critical with that high volume to take routine breaks and breathers. Maintaining fluids and keep non archery related muscles active. Also you would spend sometimes 30 minutes to a few hours massaging your muscles with trigger balls and deep tissue work to prevent the body from over fatiguing. Because once your shoulders fatigue it can take days, weeks or even months to recover. I myself am currently in that recovery period. Then you need to slowly build back with form work, elastic bands and light weight limbs e.g. 24lbs. This has happened to me a couple of times over the years but my mentor who helped me make most of my apparatuses to shoot actually blew out his rotator cuff in his bow shoulder completely shooting lighter warbows such as 120-150 pounds. And he can now barely shoot 24 pounds. So the rational of rotating the archers, giving them rests and then keeping them fresh was all very well explained. Also I have done a few re-enactment displays in earlier years and going from shooting large volumes to "fighting" can be incredibly exhausting and I'm athletically fit, can comfortably run 5km in just over 20 minutes. Everything about how this interview was done was enjoyable to listen to. I do respectfully disagree with him on the idea of limiting target distance to 50 yards there abouts. I could shoot selfbows and modern longbows accurately with power of about 100-150 arrows at 80 yards but I feel on volleys they would be devastating even to 150 yards. Would they be as punishing compared to 10-30 yards? Absolutely not, the arrow has a point where it reaches its perfect distance, and then drops speed over time. Though I still theorise it would have been a somewhat common practice for distance volleys. Never the less I can't fault his argument on that point.
There is a huge difference between a long bow and a modern bow used in competition. One is fine art, the other is brute force. If you are fatiguing firing a 38-40 pound bow, then I question your actual athletic value. I am an avid bow hunter (Grand Master 22 years continual) ...I use a Browning compound at 70-80lb draw weight...I use a far heavier arrow than you fire FIFA or competition. I never ever get sore shoulders...I can shoot all day all weekend with this weight at targets. One must keep their ranking...right? My arrow will still have power at 80+ meters where yours is dropping off at 60 meters. Volley shot with a long bow was used at 100 to 180 meters and then dropping off distance as the enemy closed. You are very right to question that at least. It used maximum velocity until peak and then used grain weight and drop to maintain effective penetration on armor at 180 meters. This guy is a total idiot to believe they started firing at 50 meters for "effective" shooting...that's a hunting range for individual targets...warfare was not fought that way...that's why they used 7000 archers...volley shots. If you began firing a 50 meters...you would be over run after first shot. Horses closed the gap very fast. This guys hypothesis is just that...he wasn't there...it was just his theory and hypothesis...what " he thought"! However...written history and eyewitness reports of the battle contradict his hypothesis at every turn. Does this guy have a time machine...think not...therefore this is just a you tube vidtorial in an attempt to make a name for himself...after all...Agincourt is so widely presented historically...that this guy has to sound like an idiot to try and debunk them. The French did not have enough archers to bring to bare effectively at Agincourt...they were a very rapidly assembled mass of knights, assistants and men at arms... they used crossbowmen as their archery base at this period of time. . They never really adopted the longbow fearing the simple but deadly weapon in peons hands. Therefore they never had the low bow at Agincourt. He is completely wrong there. Any modern archer with a background in military history would know this guy is full of BS. But...congrats on your achievements. Most people think archery is a slow sport without much fitness required. Healthy body health mind..... I am older now... but still a very healthy 120kg brute with a background in SF´s... so fitness was also a must for me on what was probably a much grander scale. Kudos! My personal view on Agincourt was a rushed attempt at interception by the French that led to a catastrophic cluster f*k due to so many misunderstanding and even weather. It was a very lucky fluke for the English...however...war is only about who wins.
@@sqnhunter it’s my understanding that the French were on foot, in mud, and well armored. Arrows dropping on pots of steel is not effective. Arrows flying horizontally into eye slits, shoulder joints, and other joints, are the best way to use them, and it’s hard to close 50 yards quickly in armor and mud.
@@docstockandbarrel Yes...the battle followed rain which caused mud...but my comment was for the long bow in general....the wonder weapon of the day would have been totally useless in a cavalry charge in clear time if its maximum range was 50 meters. One volley and run. At 180 meters...the damage was done with three and 4 rapid succession volleys. this is what broke the charges. The chances of eye slit and joint hits would be very minimal at least. Without armor piercing weight and heads, this bow would never have been so iconic. The mud is what most caused probably the defeat of the French in this circumstance...but it isnt a factor in other defeats. The long bow and its long heavy grain arrows and heads still has enough inertial energy at 180 meters to penetrate chest armor. It is actually this factor alone that made it so deadly.
@@sqnhunter armor piercing was for mail mostly. Horses had armor too and can take a beating, arrows falling on them isn’t as devastating as taking it from the side or unarmored areas in the front. They were protected by spikes and trees. Many of them were in woods. They’re not volleying in the air.
excellent discussion by Mr. Loades. Also don't forget many of the arrows would of killed the horses in Agincourt . that is enough reason to employ these relatively cheap archers. and we have testing that these 130 joule arrows penetrate riveted mail+gambeson, shields, gambeson, brigandine and thin plate metal.
too many unknown variables in a real life battles to say arrows can penetrate armor , yes under ideal lab conditions an arrow can penetrate but these will be never reproduced in any meaningful quantity in a historical battle
@@andrewescocia2707 yes of course but the arrows will reliably penetrate flesh. This has been tested reliably. Horses and soldiers are not fully armoured
One thing many people fail to realize even today when looking at armor or modern body armor is deformation. As he describes a weapons projectile does not need to necessarily shoot straight through armor. The deformation of the armor can kill and injury, the extremities can be injured, they can lower mobility these are all part of the complicated combat that those outside of it glorify and misrepresent. What a great video!
GarandThumb did a review of an armour face mask where a lot of different pistols would kill someone because the deformation would smash a wearer’s skull in.
Fascinating interview. When you confront myths with reality. I'm French, love history, Shakespeare and ... Laurence Olivier's movie. It doesn't matter if it's not close to reality. I love myth and reality/history equally. Did not Winston Churchill said "History is written by victors.?, and Napoleon "What is history, but a fable agreed upon? "?
History is written by the survivors, I feel. Sometimes, even the losers can put a big "We woz 'ere" stamp on them. Napoleon pretty much kept his own myth burning by writing about his exploits when in exile, and both the English and French have left accounts of the 100 Years' War. But agreed, sometimes a theatrical presentation of an event can be more appealing than the truth. Preferably, one gets drawn in by the 'myth' or the glorified image, and then follow up with the truth as a 'so THAT is how it actually happened!'
Stayed longer than I thought. Not usually the format of interview i get history from. Great piece. Got lots of new insights on the reality of medieval politicking and mythologizing.
Mud needs to be seen more as a terrain type equivalent to mountains, hills and rivers in military history. The battle of Flodden was also greatly influenced by mud. Current events are as well, echoing the Second World War battles in the same place.
There was a very interesting documentary about mud at Agincourt. Basically, the authors have explored whether wearing boots, being barefoot or wrapping feet with cloth worked the same. Turned out that wearing boots would make you stuck for good, barefooted would not work as well while cloth would enable you to move without much problems. So, the thesis of documentary was that English won because they knew the trick while the French didn't.
@@ShamanKish English archers commonly wore cloth shoes so whether it was intentional or not (probably not since the French chose the battlefield) they were ideally equipped for the situation.
There is a war memorial that lists the archers at the battle of flodden, thought to be the oldest war memorial in Britain . It can be found in the stained glass windows of st.Leonard’s church , Middleton , Manchester.
You should read what author Bernard Cornwell - who wrote the "Saxon Chronicles" series of historical novels, which 'The Last Kingdom" is based upon - had to say about Agincourt, and also his excellent trilogy of novels about an English archer in England's wars in northern France, called "the Grail Quest" Trilogy.
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg I take my online/gaming name directly from those novels. When I first starting using it was in a very player political narrative, rpg game & after a few renames became a statement of intent in that game. I'm generally not a scorched earth fuck the enemy type player but this was a game where rl could bleed into online & the developers published 2 psychology papers about it in 2010.
Just watched Tod's Workshop do their testing of French armor vs an English longbow and it really looks like with a volume of arrows you are going to do real damage to any chainmail protected body part. Yes the plate held up perfectly, but with 300,000 arrows you're going to get a lot of 'lucky" shots that wound, kill, or otherwise eliminate someone from continuing.
and in a later video he came up with better results from the arrows once they sharpened and waxed the arrow heads and use the correct shaped arrow heads for armour piercing too.
I think the answer that Tod's video gives is that the arrow did not need to penetrate the plate armour in order to be a very effective ranged weapon. Arrow splinters riccocheting off in every direction would have disabled many of the French knights.
And the fate of a battle might come down to how many of your soldiers actually have plate armour, rather than chain or less. Horses would be vulnerable, too. If only a fifth of your army has plate, the longbow would be devastating, provided the archers were protected from cavalry or ranged weapons.
The new Video shows the majority plate armour could penetrate the armour, that shoulder armour was not as common and suddenly became common afterwards. It was a good test, but it's only a best guess test.
I like the Tod's Workshop video, it's really great. But as his video shows the armor's resilience, he keeps trying to defeat the armor with different ways. He did good test but they feel extremely slanted as he consistantly try to defeat the armor more and more. Almost feels like he's frustrated and will pull a M60 to finally pierce the breast plate.
The Long Bows recovered from chests on the Mary Rose ,Gave a lot of information about the Draw weight needed to Fire the Longbow. It was astounding think some of the bows were 170lb.
@@PumpkinTuna As the video seems to assert, punching through armour was possible only at reasonably close range. A range of perhaps 50 metres is being suggested in the video.
The technique is amazing to see, or ones for similarly powerful bows. Lot of back and lat and pulling in motion. Its amazing to see how someone else long ago wouldve worked it out
Astounding is an understatement. I'm not a small guy and my 50lb recurve bow is a bitch to repeatedly draw. However, at anything under 20-30 yards, plate armour would be like butter.
Good to see Mike back in action. Archery was strongly encouraged in English society from the 1200s onwards. French were raiding England during the 14th and 15th century, so the raids on France were part of the deal.
Mike Loades was a major inspiration for me in learning to shoot an English Longbow. Took me three years from scratch to get to 120Ib. It was tough; went through months of pain at times as my body adapted. The strength and conditioning needed to achieve it is like training for a marathon.
@@jarlborg1531 Hi. Probably not. The fable of the tortoise and the hare applies. Start with a light bow. For any complete beginner that might be a 25Ib bow or less. I can only give you general advice based on my own experience: Join a club if you can. Learn the basics of good form, release (and even etiquette) etc. Does not matter what type of bow. About three months of regular practice - concentrate on form/accuracy using a light bow. Build upto 40Ib. Once you can shoot a 40Ib bow all day effortlessly, then go for a longbow (that shoots 50Lb at 28 inches, but can draw to 32 inches. This will give you a good range of power to work into). This will be your formative bow. You use this bow until you can draw it effortlessly at full draw. Move up to say a 70Ib bow at 28inches and repeat. You should be able to get up to about 70-80ib towards the end of your first year with regular practice. (Based on my own experience as a 50 year old). You MUST condition yourself slowly; muscles, tendons, ligaments etc. The form for shooting heavy bows is different from lighter bows, but you tube has much info. You will find what works for you. Avoid the temptation to over exert yourself, it will only set you back with injury (I know!) Good luck and Cheers!
@@mikegregory2492 Oh wow, glad I asked. I'd have ended up with a bow that I couldn't have used for years. After reading stories of 160lb and 200lb bows, the 90lb seemed like a sensible option! lol Thanks, Mike.
@@jarlborg1531 just puts into perspective how massive and powerful the English and Nubian longbows truly are. and the fear it must've insighted into anyone across the battlefield from it.
Another great informative historical feature involving two of the best and enthusiastic British historians: Dan Snow and Mike Loades, discussing and dissecting the truths and reality behind the magnificent English victory at Agincourt in 1415.
Many years ago as a member of the Sealed Knot (English Civil War re-enactment) I was struck on the head by a lose pike. I was wearing a Pot Morion with some padding bit was still knocked out and had to be carried off the field. A few years later I got cut on the forehead and with blood spewing everywhere I staggered around for a minute blind. In a real battle I would have died both times from any enemy that saw my vulnerability and in both cases from really light basic injuries. I love Mike, and he has kindly responded to several letters from me in the past.
The Scots a Loudoun Hill used funnelling terrain. There is also a traffic effect of acceleration and density increase. So if one horse goes down, you get a pile up. The Scots used ditches and stakes, the infantry behind the defences uses pikes/sarisas. The pike-men probably doubled as light infantry, after the cavalry charge was broken.
I’m enjoying listening to him. He def knows the history. It’s funny that a movie was accepted as fact. When you think about it, archers were just the musket men of their time. An arching arrow has almost no power. It had to be a straight shot, and not too far a distance. Well explained, sir. Thank you
Just recall Robert Hardy AKA Siegfried Farnon was one of the foremost experts on Medieval Longbows. He was a consultant wyen the Mary Rose was raised regarding the bows found on board.
About the thumping and blunt force of arrows on armor: I can tell from personal experience as a Roman re-enactor that there is indeed to much of an obsession with arrow-penetration in ancient and medieval warfare. Arrows don't need to penetrate in order to be effective. As part of our regular roman-army training we perform the murum formation, wich is kind of like a static roman shield wall as a defence against projectile weapons such as slings and bows. We've shot at the murum formation with rubber blunt arrows from 30 to max 40 lbs bows. I can tell you, being clobbered with even a few of those relatively low-powered arrows doesn't make you feel good about yourself, even when sitting behind a big Roman square shield, in proper Roman armor. Each hit feels (and sounds) like a hammer-blow. Just imagine being shot with arrows that have 3 to 4 times the power, not on your shield, but directly on your breastplate and your helmet. That'll drain you in a hurry, penetration or not. Also: nationalism sucks and is dumb and we shouldn't be fooled by it. The 100 years war, and pretty much every war, is just a bunch of rich bastards beefing over terf at the expanse of the common people.
Youre speaking from the armchair of hind sight there captain kirk, looking back into a skewered history from pages in a book, comfy, well fed, clothed and sheltered. Your opinion is corrupted from reality on the fraility of life from the minds of men enduring the brutality of a apex predator trained in warfare.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 Yeah yeah mr. alpha male. Very well pointed out. Now go back fantasising about hard men, in hard times. And let the adults in the room discuss actuall history.
@@VRSVLVS um, just look at the inmates in a maximum security prison doing life. I think prisons are a fairly recent invention. I know in recent history they use too have brutal public executions to....i think they still do, stoning to death, playing polo with severed head....or has that stopped.
One thing I was taught about, and I am not sure if it is universally accepted, is the crowd dynamics. People often say that the French got "stuck" in the mud, but don't elaborate on what that would have meant. The implication of having a lot of people in a small place, with thick and deep mud, is a crowd collapse scenario. As the first lines would have marched forwards, some would have gradually got stuck and fallen over, causing the people behind to fall over them. With the panic of battle, it is likely there would have been a chaotic and horrible scene as people are bunched together and asphyxiate from the pressure of the people around them, or are crushed to death underfoot. This is what happens in modern crush scenarios, at music festivals and so on. It would have been brutal and a sad, pathetic element of an apparently "glorious" battle.
Which is why the English preferred to fight on a hill top with their flanks protected by terrain and with a diminishing front that compressed the attacking army. Add to that archers on teh flanks whose arrow shot would also tend to drive those on teh enemy flanks towards their centre.
No battles LOOK glorious, the glory is in people beating the odds and surviving despite the circumstances. Anyone who glamorized war never seen drone footage of the real thing.
Henry V, tired of waiting, ordered his army to move forward and replant the stakes within bowshot range. Time was not on the English side as they would starve, unless they won the day, whereas the French could get all the supplies they needed. Another night in the open and the English would be finished. Also the French would be able to bring up more men, possibly including their own unused archers. Not only did Henry take good advantage of the ground, he took the initiative and caught the French on the hop. There is a good account of it in Juliet Barker's book Agincourt. Personally, I think Henry V should be given credit for brilliant generalship in the battle, right up there with Wellington. The account of the battle says that the archers moved to bowshot range, presumably longer range, otherwise they would have been too vulnerable, while replanting their stakes. This suggests that the English archers were shooting arcing volleys at fairly long range. Surely, on the very muddy ground, this would have induced chaos in the French cavalry and also the dismounted men at arms. Perhaps that is why the French had held off, until they were attacked by the English? They did not like the look of the ground. Perhaps they were even thinking of keeping the English waiting until the next day? The more I think about it, the more I think that Henry played a blinder, at the management level.
@@ifv2089 And they definitely don't hold the highest record of military victory and are certainly not the major reason of the foundation of the country full of not loud-mouthed ungrateful simpleton with no knowledge of history treating them as despicable cowards due to a not propaganda from their pretty not imperialist government .
@18:00 A good exemple of a cavalry charge on an undefended archer position is the battle of Patay, which saw the English longbowmen destroyed by the French vanguard, because scouts had spotted them before they were entrenched.
Great discussion about arrow damage. Puncture aside, the mere bludgeoning of an object against a body, esp a head (even covered in metal), can destabilize, knock out or kill someone.
As a lot of folk say, Long bows could be used to cover distance with a buzzing hail of arrows, even if the archer wasn’t that accurate. It was distance that counted.
Not too thrilled about his horsemanship. Should know that horses hate having fallen things in front of them due to their forelegs easily breaking, ie if there's fallen horses and men in arms in front of your horse, it will immediately balk and refuse to go forward. Funny how the obvious is overlooked...
I've always enjoyed and learned from Mike Loades' knowledge and expertise when it comes to all sorts of mediaeval matters. This is another great addition to this long list! Thanks very much!
In addition to the medieval art, I would mention that the chronicle of Crecy describes the majority of casualties from the archery being around 15 feet so close range.
Yeah horses would have been killed first, then at close range arrows would be poking and punching through armor, if not damaging armor to the point it would impede movement. On top of that the mud, the French knights would effectively be fumbling about at best.
I would suggest the Historian is some what Drawing a Long Bow at some of his suggestions on Warfare.For an instance much of body Armour of the time was concentrated on a frontal attack, therefore the front rank of Archers would be firing at an almost horizontal trajectory(front on) then ranks 2,3 etc etc would be firing at much higher trajectorys enabling the arrows to fall from above not only at the less well armoured areas but also to unease the Enemy and cause panic. The reason for the archers covering the flanks not only contains the enemy trying to out flank but to give the flanking archers an opportunity to fire along the Enemy's ranks(Enfilades).
I really enjoyed this. Read Delbruck’s analysis of Agincourt years ago - very similar tactical assessment. I liked the discussion of the physicality of men in combat.
Really enjoyed this and a lot of great knowledge here. I’ve often wondered myself why contemporary artists painted archers as firing horizontally and not in the air to come down. I do disagree with it not being an important battle though, had Henry V not died so young himself from illness, the history of France and England would have been significantly different - the battle of Agincourt gave him the negotiating power to be next in line to the French crown and vast control over French lands.
I think Agincourt was important even if some of the history of it is a myth. Henry won, that's extremely important! And yes, had he lived, history would have been so different!! His son was the only King of England to be crowned king of France, in FRANCE!! Yes, Henry VI was a disaster, but if Henry V had lived, oh wow...
@@cindysuecox1 Agincourt ( Azincourt in french...for a french village ) was a battle of the one hundred years war . And so you forget the treaty of Picquigny ...talking about succession...you have to read .... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Picquigny
@@bartonwishart9994 I actually DID forget about Picquiny- but I am a fan of Edward IV- maybe not a fan of his marriage, but of him, he was also a Warrior. A great one imo
Oh, the interesting part is this is specific to English culture and probably some others I don't know about, for example we have very widespread surnames that are equivalents of: Smith (Kowal), Taylor (Kravitz), Fisher (Rybak), but nothing for Fletcher.
I love how honest and down to earth he is. If you see tests with long bow, all kind of metal tips , poundages and shotting at different armor french have at that time you can se he is 100% right. Arrows for long bow are even now to expensive to be shoot without serious aiming..
"serious aiming" In modern clout shoots people aim at a target 180 yards away and hit it 90% of the time. Olympic archers hit 6" targets at 90m! Of course they were aiming seriously .. their lives depended on it . Doesn't mean they waited until 20m to shoot though :P
@@mikebyford5258 Modern bows have aiming instruments and are lightweight tho, and their targets stand still and don't try to actively kill them. I doubt a medieval archer would be able to land such accurate shots, instead firing at targets as soon as they could distinguish their targets.
@@the_tactician9858 sorry you are wrong . Modern bows are not lightweight in all cases many shoot 50# .. yes they are more efficient and project arrows faster . Barebow does not have aiming devices , Horsebows which predate Welsh longbows by many centuries do not have "aiming devices" although both Barebow and horse bow do aim using a variety of methods . Modern horsebow archers mounted can hit the gold of a target 30-40 m away at full gallop and fire an arrow every 5 seconds. I am sure the ancient archers were better than this .Persian recurve archers used to rain fire on armies a hundred yards plus away to great effect. I can hit a ring 3ft diameter at 180m without a sight or "aiming device" I am sure someone trained for life to draw longbows up to 120# could also .. ps they also used aiming device like marks on the bowstave as do modern longbow archers who use elastic bands for the same purpose . They would also have information about landmarks on the battle field and their distance from the archers so could wit until the enemy arrived at the distance they were primed to shoot at . At 70m the flight time of an arrow is around 1 second .. even running the target would still be in range . In many cases of course the targets were horses .. a rather large target .
@@mikebyford5258 Well, I stand corrected in that case. Of course it is a lot of speculation, and I have to say I'm more used to the characteristics of muskets in terms of accuracy, so forgive my miscalculations. I knew bows were relatively accurate, but never knew the true scale.
Arrows were manufactured in the period on an industrial scale with millions being made each year. After a battle, provided you had driven the enemy off the field at least half of the arrows were retrievable,.
@@HistoryHit Well I know in the Battle of Towtown the Lancastrian arrows were falling short because of being fired into the wind. There are reports of the Yorkists line moving forward to recover their arrows to shoot back. That was in the winter. If the ground hadn't frozen or if the snow was deep enough to absorb the arrows I'm sure that played a part. Probably not a reliable thing to hope for though.
Tod of Tods workshop (youtube channel) has a series of tests on this very issue. And what they found is, that an arrow that hits plate armour will simply shatter... Ofc all the arrows that miss and flew past everyone, can be recovered, but a lot of arrows simply breaks because of the great power that is being transfered upon impact.
I always love it when common sense is placed next to myth. As mr. Loades stated mythical images set far more easier in the mind and memory then the reality. Such as the knight's armor was so heavy he had to be hauled into the sadle. That is as realistic as hauling a firefighter up the ladder as the average equipment of a firefighter is about the same weight as that of a knight.
Wearing Knights armour would seriously hinder your mobility in general.. it only allows movement in a relatively limited manner so needing help to get on a horse is pretty likely. It's not just weight making it difficult.
Just bearing in mind you want to go and fight.. you don't want to already have broken a sweat getting up on your horse. My point is it may well have been a thing to get hoisted on your horse, regardless of whether or not it's possible to get up unassisted
Also worth considering the reality that falling from a horse while wearing armour could put you out of action immediately.. not only through injury but damage to the armour. If you can easily reduce the chance of resource losses before the battle even starts you would utilise that.
@@jimstartup2729 But still if that was so, the developing of full cover harnass and armor started in the middle of the MiddleAges and culminated in the Late MeiddelAges early Renaiisance. Early MiddleAges we see the mailskirts prevail, which less hindered mobility. saw a video of a reconstruction of the life of Richard III using a young fellow, who has the same degree of scoliosis ( hunchback) as Richard III had. He managed very well in the reconstructed armor without signs of being hindered by it. I think it is bad acting and badly designed movie armor that give the image of inmobility.
@@HistoryHit, I’ve got a masters degree in military history, and your work Dan Snow is first rate and well presented. Keep it up, there’s a hunger out there for this content.
The fact that longbowmen can and DID fight in melee is an extremely overlooked aspect. It’s not like they only relied on the 1/5 or so of their army that was composed of men at arms for melee. That’s what contributed to making them so useful, they could do both. They also didn’t wear peasant rags, they wore armour, albeit lighter armour.
I studied this battle in particular at University with special emphasis on the accuracy of Shakespeare, and as Mike also notes, apart from the dramatic licence etc, it is surprisingly accurate; especially since Shakespeare used the French Chronicler Froissart's and English monastic chroniclers -who accompanied the army- accounts of the battle. The exchequer rolls from this time also still exist and are an excellent account of the cost and more precisely, who and what they took with them. Other documentaries showing "experimentation" with arrows against plate armour is something of a moot point also, as Henry V well knew about plate armour long before the battle at Agincourt. He was a seasoned campaigner and had an expert eye for terrain and tactics learned whilst campaigning in Wales. He also knew the tactical importance and deadly effect of skilled bowmen. His army at Agincourt comprised of what? 11,000 men 6,000 of whom were archers who, according to the chronicles DID fire flight after flight of Bodkin tipped arrows not straight on but in a high arc so that they would fall like a deadly rain, not on armoured Knights, but on their mostly unprotected horses. Gravity generates velocity so the horses fell heavily, and so did the heavily armoured knights into a boggy quagmire of churned up field, from which, because of the gloopy mud they could not get up easily and so the same archers fell on these stranded Knights with their lead-axes and daggers and did their deadly work! What many sources also claim lost the battle for the French was the fact that they would not use their peasantry in any form as the English did, -their aristocracy despised them- and all the political squabbling and in-fighting and the French Cvil War that had been raging.
I have been loving Mike’s work for years and he still never disappoints. I may not always agree 100% with everything he says, but he is certainly far more knowledgable than me so I always listen to him. And I always appreciate his thoughtfulness and open-mindedness when we don’t have data points, and his attempts to fill those gaps. I hope we get to have his presence on this earth a good while longer.
In reference to the repetitive hitting being just as effective as penetration, the veterans I know with modern armor have said more than once that even if the bullet doesn't penetrate, getting hit multiple times, especially in the helmet, can be incapacitating...granted, the soldier can get back into the fight with bruised and busted ribs much faster than from an actual GSW, it still hurts and affects your ability to fight efficiently
Loved this interview. I always like when Mike Loades enters in where Historical battles are concerned.👍🏻 One of the recent, best and wonderful RUclips videos on the longbowmen at Argicourt, was organized by Tod Todoschini on "Tod's Workshop". Where he gets some real experts in their own fields together: Dr. Tobias Capwell (Wallace Collection Curator/Jouster) Joe Gibbs (Archer & Bowyer) Will Sherman (Fletcher) Kevin Legg (Armourer) Chrissi Carnie (Fabric Armour). It is called "ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Medieval Myth Busting".✌🏻
Totally disagree .... they based their findings on arrows aimed at plate armour thereby discrediting the effect of archers. They ignored plunging fire from large flights of arrows dropping vertically. They ignored lateral fire from archers on the flanks. Those archers were not stupid,they knew that most arrows were ineffectual against steel plate so would have aimed at horses or in the case of armoured knights at potential gaps or weaknesses,armpits,groin,neck,back of thighs. Their 'tests' were designed to fit their narrative,it was not objective research done to find out how archers destroyed French armies on multiple occasions.
@@christopherfranklin972 the paintings show archers at agincourt shor straight not arching. 6000 arrows means a few are going to hit. I doubt they were aiming that much. Also knights would have been advancing straight at them not just leave them alone.
@@lordwellingtonthethird8486 The paintings that illustrate the battle of Agincourt are not by eye-witnesses,they are stylised representations of a generic battle of the period,many illustrations of that period show archers,crossbowmen,handgonners aiming straight simply because the artists knew nothing about trajectory and the fact that you have to hold over to allow for drop. The archers were located on the flanks while the main French attack was aimed at the 'battles' consisting of men-at-arms,knights and royalty,they were therefore vulnerable to flanking fire.
@@christopherfranklin972 I'm aware of the battle formations. But if you think no soldiers attempted to march at the archers that would be an error. The effects on an arcing shot is useless compared to straight firing. Of course they would have aimed slightly higher at first but those arrows wouldn't harm an armoured Knight. But 7000 archers firing means and 1 or 2 arrows might find a gap.
I found that compelling and fascinating. I've been a fan of Mick Loades since his exploration of Wootz blades. Dan Snow always asks the pertinent and insightful questions.
Wonderful discussion! If armor was useless against arrows, it would not have been used (heavy, poor visibility, etc.). But: it takes a square-on arrow shot to penetrate the metal. Most arrows were deflected by armor.
Surprisingly that’s not hard to get done. Would only take about 200-250 of them working for a year to get that done 225 times 365 times 25 is over 2 mil
If medieval battles were just a massive clobbering match, that would explain the relatively low casualty rates compared to warfare before or since. The vast majority of men who went into battle survived. This was an era in which it was very difficult to kill someone, which made for warfare biased in favour of the offence because offence is about getting somewhere the enemy doesn't want you to go, defence is about stopping the enemy before he gets somewhere you don't want him to go.
The average death rate was close to 20% in medieval times. Melee warfare was brutal, death rates were very high when compared to today (6-7%) but the worst of it was the injuries that left people maimed for life!
That's not true at all. The casualty rates were usually low *for the victors* but the losing side could have up to 75% casualty rates in a single battle from their men being hunted down during a rout. At Agincourt, the English took 10% casualties, and the French took 33%, and this was only the numbers of men *killed* and not counting wounded. To use the contemporary Siege of Orleans, casualties (including wounded) were *80%* for the losing English and *25%* for the winning French. Comparatively, 100-200 years later during the Early Modern Period, the normal kill rate for the losing side was around 10%, and total casualties 25% in an absolute slaughterfest due to the introduction of gunpowder weapons and tactical changes that reduced casualties. The Mediaeval period was one of the most dangerous times to go to battle until the beginnings of modern warfare in the Napoleonic wars that saw a dramatic increase in battlefield casualty rates.
@@therat1117 Agincourt as an argument, that’s like using the bombing of nagano as an example! Please do recheck the stats, across the board I am correct but please do use exceptions to the rule as your baseline 🙄😅😂
@@TheBreechie Agincourt is a very average Mediaeval battle. Sorry you want to think of it as some sort of one-sided slaughter lol, I even said its casualties were not that high compared to other notable battles, like say, the Ager Sanguinis, or Bannockburn.
I'd also add that you don't have to penetrate the armor of a mounted knight if you can shoot his horse out from under him at speed. Suddenly falling from 2 meters up in the air is no fun. Especially when your friends behind you can't stop their horse from trampling you. And if your men are on foot...they're a slow moving target, so the archers have plenty of time to find every crack. And in a battle line you can't really evade.
It takes a lot to kill a horse. But yes, even if the horse isn't killed I wouldn't fancy riding one amongst hundreds peppered with arrows. Can't imagine the chaos
The Battle of Agincourt is proof that plate armour worked. Longbow was good against Peasant's and more than devastating against horses The dismounted knights slowed down by the mud must have been easy targets. But still a lot of them manage to reach push enemy lines.
I'd be fascinated if you did an interview with the author of "Ghosts of Cannae" Robert O'Connell in this same way. He gets into great detail about just *how* much work it takes to fight and maim and keep going across hours, and the mental toll that must take.
is this recent? i love this guy i crafted my 1st bow because of him good to see he well I remember my friends laughing saying it was going to break and terrified when I shot and the arrow went beyond the corner of our street to the middle of the other. My hands get blistered from the tools My mother threatened to hide my bow because my left forearm was constantly turning purple from the accidental impact of the string the arrow is harder to craft than the bow.
Great interview! Loved to see the word 'propaganda' come out. It's usually very hard for English's, Americans, etc. to face it. Other countries are normally much more critical of their own history. I mean critical in the sense of analytical, not denigrating or something like that, because facing the truth only leads to better decision making for the future.
This is a very practical assessment of events. In conflict (National or local) it is mostly geography, quality of weapons, Logistics, weather conditions, sight lines and basic tactical choices that decide what happens. Sometimes people either choose to, or are forced to, fight in the wrong place. But bad tactics can always loose the day.
I've fought in armour for an entire day, recreationally. If I had spent my entire childhood, adolescence and young adulthood dedicated to fighting I could fight for hours on end, add in the "I don't want to die" aspect rather than just "This is a great time!" then I expect there is a lot less swapping people out than you expect. Particularly as well-fitted armour is practically weightless and actually can be used to support your body, allowing you to fight for even longer than one would expect. Another note, that I disagree with needing to hit as hard as a heavyweight boxer. The impact may be a similar strength, but thanks to technique and mechanical advantage from your weapon of choice it's actually quite a lot easier swinging a sword than punching someone. You have to remember as well, that the men at arms would go back to camp, eat, give their gear a once over then into bed. There would be very little chance of men post-battle going back to camp for a roll with the camp girls, that was more of a siege camp endeavour rather than a campaign camp scenario.
I've always been curious . Is the armor you use the same weight as the original ones ? I worked in a museum for a while, and those old cast iron plates looked incredible heavy. But i guess one get used to everything with enough training.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 Generally speaking, yes. Different weights for different people's choices in armour type, from wax hardened leather to particularly strong plastic, to chain mail over a modern impact-absorbing material to protect soft tissues. I've known people to fight in plate, or decked out as Landsknechte.
@@Lumen_Obscurum That sounds pretty intense ! . But we humans are indeed capable to build up huge stamina when it's done overtime. I teach Roman history, and it's incredible how these guys could march with full gear and equipment day in, day out.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 late medieval armor, like full plate, weighted about as much as modern marine's backpack with gear, just more evenly spread. Other armor was LIGHTER, and they often had horses for transport instead of being crammed into an APC (that's why you can see soldiers often riding on top of a BTR in real war nowadays). So people overstimate loads placed on older time warriors, but underestimate how it is on battlefield today. And there might be no rotation for months or even years, and constant shelling overhead, nobody before 20th century was in wars as brutal as now.
Using a boxing analogy, the French ran a mile or two to the boxing ring (mud), allowed the British to reign body blows for the first round (arrows), and then only start fighting in the second round, but your left and right arms are not coordinated. FYI, I am in the middle of reading War Bow.
Just put it on my TBR list. Another book I like is Agincourt, by Bernard Cornwell. It's fiction, but it's well researched. It's told from the point of view of an English Longbowman.
Archery training camp in West Wales called Fagwyr Fran. Henry V stopped at Fagwyr Lwyd on his way to Bosworth to pick up Welsh archers and horses off the Preseli hills
WOW this was an enthralling engaging video. Informative, educational and highly entertaining. One point missed in the discussion was that Olivier's film was produced during The Second World War and was of course intended to be a rousing piece of propaganda. I've no doubt the depiction of the French in the battle was coloured by the recent Fall of France and subsequent myths attributed to that stunning defeat. History Hit is producing excellent video presentations.
The myth of Henry V's leadership is even more damaging to our perception of History. One of the main reasons Henry was successful was his planning and operational management. These factors are often overlooked in evaluating his success.
@@victornewman9904 I believe it’s tactics. Because strategy is big picture using logistics. But that sentiment is true, that’s why I believe Grant was better then Lee And that esinhower was one of the best generals of ww2
@@fredbarker9201 yep that’s my point. While lee might have been able to out maneuver grant on the battlefield (although not all the time). Grant totally outclassed him when it came to strategy. And in my opinion strategy is more important then logistics so that’s why I believe grant is better
@@Strawberry-12. if you swapped them round Lee would fare a lot better in Grants position than Grant would in Lees. So I think it’s unfair to claim Grant the superior, I’m a big fan of Ulysses Grant, practically my favourite American (I’m English) but can we really call him a better general than Lee? I don’t think so, purely because he was in the somewhat easier scenario, But Grant was the perfect fit for the union army where so many had failed
While modern scholarship is useful, our ancestors weren't stupid. The longbow had a fearsome reputation at the time for a reason. It was bloody effective. Not convinced by the "bashing" theory. Agincourt was a massive victory, it wasn't 7,500 vs 7,500, it was 1,500 knights/Men-at-arms vs 7,500. The difference was the longbow, just as at Crecy 100 years before. Longbows were found on the Mary Rose, 100 years later, hardly a redundant weapon. Revisionist history has many caveats.
Being hit by a war bows arrow from 20 yards was like being punched by a middleweight boxer …8 times a minute and so the french knights are cut , hurt and confused even within their plate armour …nervous tension , pain and the need to close with the English meant that there exhaustion level was never far away …..when those barrel chested longbow men run out of arrows they throw down their bows and pick up their stake hammers , war hammers and maces and unlike their french rivals they are very mobile … The English got sick of waiting for the french to attack and so lifted there stakes and moved on mass forward before re planting their stakes and firing at distance at the french lines …this must of caused casualties among the french knights as it caused them then to attack …..
I feel like a fool. I never enjoyed Mr Snow’s efforts on the telly, too much ‘personality’ not enough history. Rethinking this, it was probably down to producers who tend to underestimate their audience and, to be fair, not underestimate them. Someone only peripherally interested in the history might prefer a bit of eye candy (no doubting the attraction of a fit young man to many people!). Anyway, I’ve never liked the cults of personality that seem to dominate our media landscape and, to my shame, I tended to blame the obvious target, the personality, for this. But since Mr Snow has been running his own show the quality has been high, the focus has been on the history and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed everything I’ve seen on the net. And now I see he has two different editions of Bob Katz’s Mastering Audio, the Art and the Science. To my knowledge this is not a commonly known book but it is one of my favourites and was close to my bible when I worked as a studio audio engineer (before such roles mostly ended). It’s one of those books highly revered in a specialist world that only those ‘in the know’ would have owned. And to have two editions (as I do!). So, I take it all back. I’m sure he doesn’t care, and neither should he, but in my opinion Mr Snow Jr is one of the most impressive millennials I’ve come across. Please keep up the good work!
So much more interesting than the irritating clickbait title suggests. Every podcast now "debunks" or "destorys" the myths of the past. But this was full of fascinating information. It's surely a pity that Shakespeare did not include the battles of Crécy and Poitiers in his History plays, as these also contributed to the iconic status of the longbow as an English weapon, especially in the 100 Years War.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
What I really liked about this interview, is the sheer amount of "I don't know" that was said.
We really don't know a lot of things about the past. We can make an educated guess, but not much more than that.
That's the thing about being a historian. The further back we go in time, the more muddled the picture gets. Even 'records' of events could perhaps be biased, or lies, written down by people who didn't know either. But what can we do? It's an interesting field of study, it's important, and I love it. But it's never going to be 100% accurate at all times because time and distance is a lense that muddles things. Just look at ukraine right now. So many posts images videos etc...and still we don't know the full picture of everything going on.
Spot on really like this channel but the reaction to movies videos sometimes annoys me based on how sure they are. Like to the point of the historian being visibly angry sometimes over certain things, I am always sat thinking you don't know enough to be that sure of yourself 100% of the time' no one does
That's a very good point. It always annoys me when historians, or actors playing historians, say something like "Caesar did X" instead of "We are told by Suetonius that Caesar did X" or "This is where the Anglo Saxons did such and such" instead of "We think the Anglo Saxons were here because of these finds". Absolute certainly outside of pure mathematics is not very useful, especially with history. Liberal or Conservative, just think about all the inaccurate reporting there is today where almost everything is documented by almost everyone.
I remember when they found what they think are the remains of Richard III. And in some sort of anti-Shakespeare/anti-Tudor/pro-Plantagenet movement, there were all these comments (mostly from non-historians) slamming the Bard along the lines of "Ah ha! Richard III wasn't a HUNCHBACK you DOLT!!! He had severe scoliosis! That's TOTALLY DIFFERENT! The Tudor-era slanders against Richard are totally unfounded!"
Well pardon me, I didn't realize Shakespeare having been born almost 80 years after the death of Richard III was supposed to be some kind of expert on spinal ailments. The correct historical view, assuming the bones were correctly attributed to the King, is to think "possibly the scoliosis present in the skeleton caused a hunched over posture and therefore influenced rumors over time which influenced Shakespeare. More research is to be done..." And besides, even if we assume the Tudors had a decades-long hatred of Tudor, and indeed that the Tudors were kinda nasty folks, that doesn't necessarily absolve Richard of his misdeeds. In short, they could have both been rotten. The point being that a historian might have his or her favorite eras of study or personalities, but a good historian doesn't take "sides". (I have to laugh as I am just now remembering some comment left under a video about Carthage, lamenting Hannibal's defeat and calling the Romans inferior to the Carthaginians...kind of a long time to hold a grudge I'd say) The job of the historian is to report facts as best as they can be lifted from the clearest available evidence. "I don't know." "It's unclear." "We're still examining the evidence." "We're not sure." are perfectly acceptable answers. Perhaps not the most exciting or satisfying, but it's honest.
It is refreshing for someone to be honest about what is known and what isn't.
Most historians don’t get involved in the technical issues and stick to where there are known facts and good, primary sources of information. There’s still a fair amount of don’t knows but, for example, we know that Julius Caesar attacks in Britain were punishment raids for those tribes support to those tribes in northern France.
I can’t get enough of Mike Loades, his enthusiasm for history is infectious
Loved watching him since time commanders, there's a little on either history or smithsonian or some channel where he talks about roman weapons in a few videos but it's hard to dig and find ones he's in
Love how he uses that middle finger also!! 😂
Couldn't agree more!
@@Nick_Jarrett looked for this comment, time commanders is where I knew him from, legend.
Came here after the video games breakdown
Wow, that was fascinating! And what a great interviewer! He asked the question then let Mr. Loades answer without interrupting him. Fabulous!
Glad you enjoyed Keeley!
It's not really an interviewer. He is historian Dan Snow.
@@chrismac2234 A historian, yes, but he was the interviewer in this setting.
An interviewer can be a historian, you know. :)
I agree entirely with Keeley though - it's a pleasure when an interviewer doesn't feel a need to constantly interject and instead lets the interviewee speak and get their point across properly.
It's a revolutionary interviewing technique.. maybe it will catch on..
I don't see how an interviewer/historian COULD interrupt and overtalk, when the interviewee is SO knowledgeable and fascinating to listen to...
That WAS fascinating.
Nobody would want to interrupt, and only then, to ask for more explanation, or to ask about a point not dealt with, WOULD you make a comment.
He knows his subject, has a lifetime of research about him - you could probably give him 20 artefacts, start him up and come back 3 hours later, once he'd gone through the artefacts.
A great way to spend 37 minutes.
As a British soldier I had an experience which has parallels with the choice of the battlefield. We had to move an infantry Battalion across a small river in late September, the crossing point had been surveyed well in advance. However it was a disaster, the height of the river level was too low making the riverbank too steep, the boats ,which were flat bottomed, went straight under when launched. I suspected the river was surveyed in Spring when it was much higher, I suspect the French chose the battlefield when the ground was dry, they didn't know when they would fight. By the time of the Battle Autumn rain had turned it into a bog, on the day it was chosen it was dry with a slight slope, perfect to attack down slope. Seems that lack of imagination as to the future conditions was to blame.
I think that the historian Mr Sloan would have appreciated that comment.
It wasn't this vid, but another one I watched a few years ago, credited the English victory with the fact that the area in which the French had to advance was too narrow. Of all the elements to this battle - or any other - the one that seems to be neglected most is the actual terrain, plus the weather conditions at the time. For years I couldn't figure out how or why the French lost so badly. It had to be more than their hubris and drunkenness. But when you consider the battlefield itself, that makes all the difference. And a wise commander knows how to use it accordingly. Know your enemy and know your battlefield. X's on a map don't mean a whole lot.
You have no parallels with 14th century warfare, you clown
That does make sense. Also the French outnumbered the english by quite a bit. Be it cannae or be it agincourt, a lot of these commanders had the hubris of having the larger army.
@@whollybraille7043 I think this guy dismissed the 'shadow of arrows" theory as it came from Oliviers Henry Vth. I think the longbow would have been used at long range at a charging army who are constrained by a narrow battlefield. You can't miss then and every arrow finds a billet.
I looked up the Agincourt battle after watching Branaghs Henry Vth. I was surprised they don't actually know where the battlefield is... they just know the general area?
I think the biggest myth is the assumption that having archers in your army meant you had a bunch of untrained peasants working for you. Which is absolutely untrue. The skill, discipline and work required to become proficient with a longbow would have been incredibly valuable at that time.
Easier them teaching them to be swordsmen
Training was required. But nowhere near the extent
@@davestuddaman8127 It was said in England that to get a competent archer, you had to start with his grandfather. That statement tells the tale; it took a lifetime of training and practice to become an archer.
@@boydgrandy5769It didn't though. The reason it took so long was that they were training peasants in their off time, on Sundays primarily.
@@TzunSu it was declared law to train on a Sunday but I'm sure they didn't just train on Sundays....
@@alexwinter6720Why wouldn't they? They worked every other day of the week.
As a French, Im happy to have the British as an ally today. Great video.
I think king Edward VII has to be thanked for that, thanks to his intensive exploits of the Paris nightlife he had excelent connections to negociate an allience between France and the UK. when the official diplomacy of both countries was very hesitent. Could also be his dislike for cousin Willy of Germany played a part.
@Dank Waifu It was not so much that Edward VII did the negotiations, that would be a violation of the constitution, but his relation netwerk enabled the diplomacy to make the right connections for negotiation,. It went against the grain for many oldfashioned staunce Englishmen on high placed to ally England with France were the tradition always had been to be allied with Germany. Of course the growing economic and militairy power of Germany made the English French Entente necessairy. The Entente Cordiale dates from 1904, just 6 years after the Fashoda incident that had brought England and France on the brik of a colonial war.
A year after the signing of the Entente Cordiale the Kaiser tried to test it in the Tanger Incident.
@@kamion53 I thought it was from Queen Victoria. It seems to me she maintained a good friendship with both Louis-Phillipe I, and Napoleon III.
@@tibsky1396 I think Victoria provided asylum to both monarchs as they were disposed. And I can imagine Vicky was not so friendly to the regimes that disposed those two monarchs. Victoria's policy of alliances was marry as much monarchs in her family.
It did not actually work very well, there is a wagonload of cordial letters between the cousins Willy, Nicky and Eddy, but they went eagerly to war with eachother. Kind of family quarrel in their minds only taking as much soldiers as possible with them to the brawl.
As a Franco British, wake up from your naïveté… the English still consider us as major rivals rather than allies 😏
Mike is a legend. Extremely enthusiastic. He's the chap who would happily grab medieval weaponry and give a demonstration. Brilliant.
It’s so strange to see him so still! He’s normally so energized and running all around like
love this historian. I've seen him in a lot of documentaries over the years. The way he talks you can tell he has a love and passion for history. Not that other historians don't. but you can really tell this guy loves it all.
Very interesting overview of Agincourt. I was similarly bowled over by Oliviers Henry V as a ten year old and am still enthralled. Years ago I visited the battlefield of Agincourt, there was just a board up which referred to the flower of French chivalry being cut down in the battle. Got more from Mikes interview thanks.
Thanks Dan and Mike!
I could listen to you two dissecting a battle all day. Very engrossing, and clearly Mike’s knowledge is substantial.
it's not. the point is that when enough arrows are shot, some will find some of the gaps in the armor. there is literally no blunt force trauma from arrows, they simply do not carry enough energy. he said it is kike a sledge hammer. he always says a lot of nonsense.
I've seen Mike on shows for years. Great to see him again. He's very good at demonstrating techniques too.
He's so energetic and so has such a talent for speaking knowledgeably and in such an engaging manner. His passion draws you in.
@@cleverusername9369 unfortunately he is an idiot. there is no blunt force trauma from arrows, they simply don't have enough energy. he said it is like a sledge hammer. complete and utter nonsense.
It's great listening to Mike, he makes things come to life. I had a teacher who had the same enthusiasm as Mike, he was the guy that got me to love history.
How good it is to hear someone who knows about a subject that much that he can describe a lot of nuances that have a lot of common sense in them , but that one would never think about , unless you knew that subject extremely well .
Can we get a guard detail around mike to make sure 2022 doesn’t get ideas. Love this man’s energy and knowledge. Could watch him all day
I'm a Paralympic Archer I competed in Tokyo 2020 last year. I have no fingers on my left bow hand. I was very impressed with his analysis of archers fatigue over time and over days. We shoot at 70 metres 72 arrows in ranking followed by a series of head to heads that can go up to 15 arrows a match.
The two bows, Olympic style Recurve bows, I took to the Paralympics were 38 and 40 pounds respectively. In my final months before Tokyo were I was shooting somewhere between 1,500 arrows and 2,000 a week (not including competition weeks overseas where I would shoot much less for obvious reasons) it was critical with that high volume to take routine breaks and breathers. Maintaining fluids and keep non archery related muscles active. Also you would spend sometimes 30 minutes to a few hours massaging your muscles with trigger balls and deep tissue work to prevent the body from over fatiguing. Because once your shoulders fatigue it can take days, weeks or even months to recover. I myself am currently in that recovery period. Then you need to slowly build back with form work, elastic bands and light weight limbs e.g. 24lbs. This has happened to me a couple of times over the years but my mentor who helped me make most of my apparatuses to shoot actually blew out his rotator cuff in his bow shoulder completely shooting lighter warbows such as 120-150 pounds. And he can now barely shoot 24 pounds.
So the rational of rotating the archers, giving them rests and then keeping them fresh was all very well explained. Also I have done a few re-enactment displays in earlier years and going from shooting large volumes to "fighting" can be incredibly exhausting and I'm athletically fit, can comfortably run 5km in just over 20 minutes. Everything about how this interview was done was enjoyable to listen to.
I do respectfully disagree with him on the idea of limiting target distance to 50 yards there abouts. I could shoot selfbows and modern longbows accurately with power of about 100-150 arrows at 80 yards but I feel on volleys they would be devastating even to 150 yards. Would they be as punishing compared to 10-30 yards? Absolutely not, the arrow has a point where it reaches its perfect distance, and then drops speed over time. Though I still theorise it would have been a somewhat common practice for distance volleys. Never the less I can't fault his argument on that point.
Very interesting input, thanks for that Taymon.
There is a huge difference between a long bow and a modern bow used in competition. One is fine art, the other is brute force. If you are fatiguing firing a 38-40 pound bow, then I question your actual athletic value. I am an avid bow hunter (Grand Master 22 years continual) ...I use a Browning compound at 70-80lb draw weight...I use a far heavier arrow than you fire FIFA or competition. I never ever get sore shoulders...I can shoot all day all weekend with this weight at targets. One must keep their ranking...right? My arrow will still have power at 80+ meters where yours is dropping off at 60 meters. Volley shot with a long bow was used at 100 to 180 meters and then dropping off distance as the enemy closed. You are very right to question that at least. It used maximum velocity until peak and then used grain weight and drop to maintain effective penetration on armor at 180 meters. This guy is a total idiot to believe they started firing at 50 meters for "effective" shooting...that's a hunting range for individual targets...warfare was not fought that way...that's why they used 7000 archers...volley shots. If you began firing a 50 meters...you would be over run after first shot. Horses closed the gap very fast. This guys hypothesis is just that...he wasn't there...it was just his theory and hypothesis...what " he thought"! However...written history and eyewitness reports of the battle contradict his hypothesis at every turn. Does this guy have a time machine...think not...therefore this is just a you tube vidtorial in an attempt to make a name for himself...after all...Agincourt is so widely presented historically...that this guy has to sound like an idiot to try and debunk them. The French did not have enough archers to bring to bare effectively at Agincourt...they were a very rapidly assembled mass of knights, assistants and men at arms... they used crossbowmen as their archery base at this period of time. . They never really adopted the longbow fearing the simple but deadly weapon in peons hands. Therefore they never had the low bow at Agincourt. He is completely wrong there. Any modern archer with a background in military history would know this guy is full of BS. But...congrats on your achievements. Most people think archery is a slow sport without much fitness required. Healthy body health mind..... I am older now... but still a very healthy 120kg brute with a background in SF´s... so fitness was also a must for me on what was probably a much grander scale. Kudos! My personal view on Agincourt was a rushed attempt at interception by the French that led to a catastrophic cluster f*k due to so many misunderstanding and even weather. It was a very lucky fluke for the English...however...war is only about who wins.
@@sqnhunter it’s my understanding that the French were on foot, in mud, and well armored. Arrows dropping on pots of steel is not effective. Arrows flying horizontally into eye slits, shoulder joints, and other joints, are the best way to use them, and it’s hard to close 50 yards quickly in armor and mud.
@@docstockandbarrel Yes...the battle followed rain which caused mud...but my comment was for the long bow in general....the wonder weapon of the day would have been totally useless in a cavalry charge in clear time if its maximum range was 50 meters. One volley and run. At 180 meters...the damage was done with three and 4 rapid succession volleys. this is what broke the charges. The chances of eye slit and joint hits would be very minimal at least. Without armor piercing weight and heads, this bow would never have been so iconic. The mud is what most caused probably the defeat of the French in this circumstance...but it isnt a factor in other defeats. The long bow and its long heavy grain arrows and heads still has enough inertial energy at 180 meters to penetrate chest armor. It is actually this factor alone that made it so deadly.
@@sqnhunter armor piercing was for mail mostly. Horses had armor too and can take a beating, arrows falling on them isn’t as devastating as taking it from the side or unarmored areas in the front. They were protected by spikes and trees. Many of them were in woods. They’re not volleying in the air.
This is the calmest I’ve ever seen Mike Loades. Still, I love his enthusiasm.
My thoughts exactly!
Mike Loades is a most eccentric gentleman and has such excitement for the subject you cant help but smile like a maniac whilst watching him.
excellent discussion by Mr. Loades. Also don't forget many of the arrows would of killed the horses in Agincourt . that is enough reason to employ these relatively cheap archers. and we have testing that these 130 joule arrows penetrate riveted mail+gambeson, shields, gambeson, brigandine and thin plate metal.
too many unknown variables in a real life battles to say arrows can penetrate armor , yes under ideal lab conditions an arrow can penetrate but these will be never reproduced in any meaningful quantity in a historical battle
@@andrewescocia2707 yes of course but the arrows will reliably penetrate flesh. This has been tested reliably. Horses and soldiers are not fully armoured
@@HistoricalWeapons shifting the goal posts from your original comment slightly
Would of = would have
@@andrewescocia2707 From my perspective the goal posts haven't moved
One thing many people fail to realize even today when looking at armor or modern body armor is deformation. As he describes a weapons projectile does not need to necessarily shoot straight through armor. The deformation of the armor can kill and injury, the extremities can be injured, they can lower mobility these are all part of the complicated combat that those outside of it glorify and misrepresent. What a great video!
not only that, deflected arrows and/or the splinters from arrows breaking against armors can injure and sometimes even kill if they get into gaps.
GarandThumb did a review of an armour face mask where a lot of different pistols would kill someone because the deformation would smash a wearer’s skull in.
@@WellBattle6 yeah he has a good video and many other do. Deformation and Spalling are not rememberd very often yet very important to armor.
Besides there is no guarantee that an arrow will hit the heavily armored chest piece
And this is why they had shields. Keep that deformation as far from the chest as possible.
😁
Fascinating interview. When you confront myths with reality. I'm French, love history, Shakespeare and ... Laurence Olivier's movie. It doesn't matter if it's not close to reality. I love myth and reality/history equally. Did not Winston Churchill said "History is written by victors.?, and Napoleon "What is history, but a fable agreed upon? "?
History is written by the survivors, I feel. Sometimes, even the losers can put a big "We woz 'ere" stamp on them. Napoleon pretty much kept his own myth burning by writing about his exploits when in exile, and both the English and French have left accounts of the 100 Years' War.
But agreed, sometimes a theatrical presentation of an event can be more appealing than the truth. Preferably, one gets drawn in by the 'myth' or the glorified image, and then follow up with the truth as a 'so THAT is how it actually happened!'
really interesting and well presented. Some fascinating speculation and discussions.
thanks so much!
you have good videos btw
You're a fuckin legend mate
@@HavanaSyndrome69 Beautifully expressed
Stayed longer than I thought. Not usually the format of interview i get history from. Great piece. Got lots of new insights on the reality of medieval politicking and mythologizing.
This is tragically under-viewed. An absolute gold mine of current insight.
thanks Greg!
Mud needs to be seen more as a terrain type equivalent to mountains, hills and rivers in military history. The battle of Flodden was also greatly influenced by mud. Current events are as well, echoing the Second World War battles in the same place.
There was a very interesting documentary about mud at Agincourt. Basically, the authors have explored whether wearing boots, being barefoot or wrapping feet with cloth worked the same. Turned out that wearing boots would make you stuck for good, barefooted would not work as well while cloth would enable you to move without much problems. So, the thesis of documentary was that English won because they knew the trick while the French didn't.
@@ShamanKish I saw that documentary, too. Very interesting and a significant factor in the battle, imo.
@@ShamanKish English archers commonly wore cloth shoes so whether it was intentional or not (probably not since the French chose the battlefield) they were ideally equipped for the situation.
There is a war memorial that lists the archers at the battle of flodden, thought to be the oldest war memorial in Britain . It can be found in the stained glass windows of st.Leonard’s church , Middleton , Manchester.
Mod seems to be ally of English almost as often as for us in Ukraine.
Dan, an authority on history gets an educated opinion on history. I love it. Well placed humility.
Mike Loads reminds me so of Father Beocca from "The Last Kingdom" . Love medieval history. Certainly neither dark nor boring.
Morally dark or a dark comedy maybe!
You should read what author Bernard Cornwell - who wrote the "Saxon Chronicles" series of historical novels, which 'The Last Kingdom" is based upon - had to say about Agincourt, and also his excellent trilogy of novels about an English archer in England's wars in northern France, called "the Grail Quest" Trilogy.
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg wyrd bið ful aræd
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg I take my online/gaming name directly from those novels. When I first starting using it was in a very player political narrative, rpg game & after a few renames became a statement of intent in that game.
I'm generally not a scorched earth fuck the enemy type player but this was a game where rl could bleed into online & the developers published 2 psychology papers about it in 2010.
Listening to Mike Loades is always a pleasure. An intense, passionate, yet measured and articulate man.
Just watched Tod's Workshop do their testing of French armor vs an English longbow and it really looks like with a volume of arrows you are going to do real damage to any chainmail protected body part. Yes the plate held up perfectly, but with 300,000 arrows you're going to get a lot of 'lucky" shots that wound, kill, or otherwise eliminate someone from continuing.
and in a later video he came up with better results from the arrows once they sharpened and waxed the arrow heads and use the correct shaped arrow heads for armour piercing too.
I think the answer that Tod's video gives is that the arrow did not need to penetrate the plate armour in order to be a very effective ranged weapon. Arrow splinters riccocheting off in every direction would have disabled many of the French knights.
And the fate of a battle might come down to how many of your soldiers actually have plate armour, rather than chain or less. Horses would be vulnerable, too. If only a fifth of your army has plate, the longbow would be devastating, provided the archers were protected from cavalry or ranged weapons.
The new Video shows the majority plate armour could penetrate the armour, that shoulder armour was not as common and suddenly became common afterwards. It was a good test, but it's only a best guess test.
I like the Tod's Workshop video, it's really great. But as his video shows the armor's resilience, he keeps trying to defeat the armor with different ways. He did good test but they feel extremely slanted as he consistantly try to defeat the armor more and more. Almost feels like he's frustrated and will pull a M60 to finally pierce the breast plate.
The Long Bows recovered from chests on the Mary Rose ,Gave a lot of information about the Draw weight needed to Fire the Longbow.
It was astounding think some of the bows were 170lb.
Yep. firing an arrow as thick as your thumb, with a tip designed to punch through armor.
@@PumpkinTuna As the video seems to assert, punching through armour was possible only at reasonably close range. A range of perhaps 50 metres is being suggested in the video.
The technique is amazing to see, or ones for similarly powerful bows. Lot of back and lat and pulling in motion. Its amazing to see how someone else long ago wouldve worked it out
Astounding is an understatement. I'm not a small guy and my 50lb recurve bow is a bitch to repeatedly draw. However, at anything under 20-30 yards, plate armour would be like butter.
@dylanpiazza6358 But they did .don't pretend to understand. HOW but from battles recorded they seem to. 🤔. I've No idea.
Never thought that the guy who taught me stage fighting techniques over 30 years ago would become so well known!
Good to see Mike back in action.
Archery was strongly encouraged in English society from the 1200s onwards.
French were raiding England during the 14th and 15th century, so the raids on France were part of the deal.
LOVE anything with Mike Loads in it. His jousting video is wonderful as well. Any documentary with him is a pure gold!!!💪 MORE PLEASE🤘
Forever been a fan of Mike Loades, this is quickly becoming one of my favourite history channels.
Mike Loades was a major inspiration for me in learning to shoot an English Longbow. Took me three years from scratch to get to 120Ib. It was tough; went through months of pain at times as my body adapted. The strength and conditioning needed to achieve it is like training for a marathon.
What bow should I get as a beginner? I'm 6.3" and fairly strong, can I start with a 90lb? Cheers
@@jarlborg1531 Hi. Probably not. The fable of the tortoise and the hare applies. Start with a light bow.
For any complete beginner that might be a 25Ib bow or less. I can only give you general advice based on my own experience:
Join a club if you can. Learn the basics of good form, release (and even etiquette) etc. Does not matter what type of bow.
About three months of regular practice - concentrate on form/accuracy using a light bow.
Build upto 40Ib. Once you can shoot a 40Ib bow all day effortlessly, then go for a longbow (that shoots 50Lb at 28 inches, but can draw to 32 inches. This will give you a good range of power to work into).
This will be your formative bow. You use this bow until you can draw it effortlessly at full draw.
Move up to say a 70Ib bow at 28inches and repeat.
You should be able to get up to about 70-80ib towards the end of your first year with regular practice. (Based on my own experience as a 50 year old).
You MUST condition yourself slowly; muscles, tendons, ligaments etc.
The form for shooting heavy bows is different from lighter bows, but you tube has much info. You will find what works for you.
Avoid the temptation to over exert yourself, it will only set you back with injury (I know!) Good luck and Cheers!
No it’s really not
@@mikegregory2492 Oh wow, glad I asked. I'd have ended up with a bow that I couldn't have used for years. After reading stories of 160lb and 200lb bows, the 90lb seemed like a sensible option! lol Thanks, Mike.
@@jarlborg1531 just puts into perspective how massive and powerful the English and Nubian longbows truly are. and the fear it must've insighted into anyone across the battlefield from it.
Another great informative historical feature involving two of the best and enthusiastic British historians: Dan Snow and Mike Loades, discussing and dissecting the truths and reality behind the magnificent English victory at Agincourt in 1415.
Many years ago as a member of the Sealed Knot (English Civil War re-enactment) I was struck on the head by a lose pike. I was wearing a Pot Morion with some padding bit was still knocked out and had to be carried off the field. A few years later I got cut on the forehead and with blood spewing everywhere I staggered around for a minute blind. In a real battle I would have died both times from any enemy that saw my vulnerability and in both cases from really light basic injuries. I love Mike, and he has kindly responded to several letters from me in the past.
A loose Pike or is that a term I don't understand Lose Pike?
Awesome fun.
Two very similar armies met at the Battle of Patay, but ended very differently for the English longbowman. :D
Similar armies but totally different set up. Its like bringing an airplane and expecting it to do well by just having it stay and fight on the ground.
The Scots a Loudoun Hill used funnelling terrain. There is also a traffic effect of acceleration and density increase. So if one horse goes down, you get a pile up. The Scots used ditches and stakes, the infantry behind the defences uses pikes/sarisas. The pike-men probably doubled as light infantry, after the cavalry charge was broken.
The English at Crecy, Poitiers and Azincourt did the same.
I’m enjoying listening to him. He def knows the history. It’s funny that a movie was accepted as fact. When you think about it, archers were just the musket men of their time. An arching arrow has almost no power. It had to be a straight shot, and not too far a distance. Well explained, sir. Thank you
Just recall Robert Hardy AKA Siegfried Farnon was one of the foremost experts on Medieval Longbows. He was a consultant wyen the Mary Rose was raised regarding the bows found on board.
About the thumping and blunt force of arrows on armor: I can tell from personal experience as a Roman re-enactor that there is indeed to much of an obsession with arrow-penetration in ancient and medieval warfare. Arrows don't need to penetrate in order to be effective.
As part of our regular roman-army training we perform the murum formation, wich is kind of like a static roman shield wall as a defence against projectile weapons such as slings and bows. We've shot at the murum formation with rubber blunt arrows from 30 to max 40 lbs bows. I can tell you, being clobbered with even a few of those relatively low-powered arrows doesn't make you feel good about yourself, even when sitting behind a big Roman square shield, in proper Roman armor. Each hit feels (and sounds) like a hammer-blow. Just imagine being shot with arrows that have 3 to 4 times the power, not on your shield, but directly on your breastplate and your helmet. That'll drain you in a hurry, penetration or not.
Also: nationalism sucks and is dumb and we shouldn't be fooled by it. The 100 years war, and pretty much every war, is just a bunch of rich bastards beefing over terf at the expanse of the common people.
I take my hat of to you, I shoot a 50lb Crossbow and it packs a punch, Well done.
Youre speaking from the armchair of hind sight there captain kirk, looking back into a skewered history from pages in a book, comfy, well fed, clothed and sheltered. Your opinion is corrupted from reality on the fraility of life from the minds of men enduring the brutality of a apex predator trained in warfare.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 Yeah yeah mr. alpha male. Very well pointed out. Now go back fantasising about hard men, in hard times. And let the adults in the room discuss actuall history.
@@VRSVLVS um, just look at the inmates in a maximum security prison doing life.
I think prisons are a fairly recent invention. I know in recent history they use too have brutal public executions to....i think they still do, stoning to death, playing polo with severed head....or has that stopped.
I dont think in alpha beta terms, i think in looking at the physical evidence as you are pointing out.
One thing I was taught about, and I am not sure if it is universally accepted, is the crowd dynamics.
People often say that the French got "stuck" in the mud, but don't elaborate on what that would have meant. The implication of having a lot of people in a small place, with thick and deep mud, is a crowd collapse scenario. As the first lines would have marched forwards, some would have gradually got stuck and fallen over, causing the people behind to fall over them. With the panic of battle, it is likely there would have been a chaotic and horrible scene as people are bunched together and asphyxiate from the pressure of the people around them, or are crushed to death underfoot. This is what happens in modern crush scenarios, at music festivals and so on. It would have been brutal and a sad, pathetic element of an apparently "glorious" battle.
Which is why the English preferred to fight on a hill top with their flanks protected by terrain and with a diminishing front that compressed the attacking army. Add to that archers on teh flanks whose arrow shot would also tend to drive those on teh enemy flanks towards their centre.
No battles LOOK glorious, the glory is in people beating the odds and surviving despite the circumstances. Anyone who glamorized war never seen drone footage of the real thing.
Henry V, tired of waiting, ordered his army to move forward and replant the stakes within bowshot range. Time was not on the English side as they would starve, unless they won the day, whereas the French could get all the supplies they needed. Another night in the open and the English would be finished. Also the French would be able to bring up more men, possibly including their own unused archers. Not only did Henry take good advantage of the ground, he took the initiative and caught the French on the hop. There is a good account of it in Juliet Barker's book Agincourt. Personally, I think Henry V should be given credit for brilliant generalship in the battle, right up there with Wellington.
The account of the battle says that the archers moved to bowshot range, presumably longer range, otherwise they would have been too vulnerable, while replanting their stakes. This suggests that the English archers were shooting arcing volleys at fairly long range. Surely, on the very muddy ground, this would have induced chaos in the French cavalry and also the dismounted men at arms. Perhaps that is why the French had held off, until they were attacked by the English? They did not like the look of the ground. Perhaps they were even thinking of keeping the English waiting until the next day? The more I think about it, the more I think that Henry played a blinder, at the management level.
@Angela Bronckhurst just like Waterloo they are also famous for never surrendering and there mad Cows
you gotta give it to the english tho
Henry's decision to defeat the the French in detail ( before they could attack en masse) was genius.
@@ifv2089 And they definitely don't hold the highest record of military victory and are certainly not the major reason of the foundation of the country full of not loud-mouthed ungrateful simpleton with no knowledge of history treating them as despicable cowards due to a not propaganda from their pretty not imperialist government .
@@SirBojo4 u ok u seem offended, good heavens I'm terribly sorry I find that funny u did it to yourself
Quite simply the best piece of insight into historical battles, glued to this.
@18:00 A good exemple of a cavalry charge on an undefended archer position is the battle of Patay, which saw the English longbowmen destroyed by the French vanguard, because scouts had spotted them before they were entrenched.
Great discussion about arrow damage. Puncture aside, the mere bludgeoning of an object against a body, esp a head (even covered in metal), can destabilize, knock out or kill someone.
As a lot of folk say, Long bows could be used to cover distance with a buzzing hail of arrows, even if the archer wasn’t that accurate. It was distance that counted.
Man I can’t get enough of Mike Loades- Going Midevil is another great documentary.
Not too thrilled about his horsemanship. Should know that horses hate having fallen things in front of them due to their forelegs easily breaking, ie if there's fallen horses and men in arms in front of your horse, it will immediately balk and refuse to go forward. Funny how the obvious is overlooked...
I've always enjoyed and learned from Mike Loades' knowledge and expertise when it comes to all sorts of mediaeval matters. This is another great addition to this long list! Thanks very much!
In addition to the medieval art, I would mention that the chronicle of Crecy describes the majority of casualties from the archery being around 15 feet so close range.
Yeah horses would have been killed first, then at close range arrows would be poking and punching through armor, if not damaging armor to the point it would impede movement.
On top of that the mud, the French knights would effectively be fumbling about at best.
I would suggest the Historian is some what Drawing a Long Bow at some of his suggestions on Warfare.For an instance much of body Armour of the time was concentrated on a frontal attack, therefore the front rank of Archers would be firing at an almost horizontal trajectory(front on) then ranks 2,3 etc etc would be firing at much higher trajectorys enabling the arrows to fall from above not only at the less well armoured areas but also to unease the Enemy and cause panic.
The reason for the archers covering the flanks not only contains the enemy trying to out flank but to give the flanking archers an opportunity to fire along the Enemy's ranks(Enfilades).
I really enjoyed this. Read Delbruck’s analysis of Agincourt years ago - very similar tactical assessment. I liked the discussion of the physicality of men in combat.
Really enjoyed this and a lot of great knowledge here. I’ve often wondered myself why contemporary artists painted archers as firing horizontally and not in the air to come down. I do disagree with it not being an important battle though, had Henry V not died so young himself from illness, the history of France and England would have been significantly different - the battle of Agincourt gave him the negotiating power to be next in line to the French crown and vast control over French lands.
I think Agincourt was important even if some of the history of it is a myth. Henry won, that's extremely important! And yes, had he lived, history would have been so different!! His son was the only King of England to be crowned king of France, in FRANCE!! Yes, Henry VI was a disaster, but if Henry V had lived, oh wow...
@@cindysuecox1 Absolutely Cindy, I totally agree
@@cindysuecox1 Agincourt ( Azincourt in french...for a french village ) was a battle of the one hundred years war . And so you forget the treaty of Picquigny ...talking about succession...you have to read ....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Picquigny
@@bartonwishart9994 I actually DID forget about Picquiny- but I am a fan of Edward IV- maybe not a fan of his marriage, but of him, he was also a Warrior. A great one imo
@@cindysuecox1 no offense Cindy ...but we are talking about an invasion ....and i can't imagine you’re a fan of Napoleon , Hitler or..... Putin .
"A medieval arrow is a very sophisticated and expensive piece of ammunition." Guess why there are so many people named Fletcher.
Oh, the interesting part is this is specific to English culture and probably some others I don't know about, for example we have very widespread surnames that are equivalents of: Smith (Kowal), Taylor (Kravitz), Fisher (Rybak), but nothing for Fletcher.
I LOVE MIKE LOADES! He always puts his all into the presentation of historical knowledge with PASSION. Man's is a blessing.
I love how honest and down to earth he is. If you see tests with long bow, all kind of metal tips , poundages and shotting at different armor french have at that time you can se he is 100% right. Arrows for long bow are even now to expensive to be shoot without serious aiming..
"serious aiming" In modern clout shoots people aim at a target 180 yards away and hit it 90% of the time. Olympic archers hit 6" targets at 90m! Of course they were aiming seriously .. their lives depended on it . Doesn't mean they waited until 20m to shoot though :P
@@mikebyford5258 Modern bows have aiming instruments and are lightweight tho, and their targets stand still and don't try to actively kill them. I doubt a medieval archer would be able to land such accurate shots, instead firing at targets as soon as they could distinguish their targets.
@@the_tactician9858 sorry you are wrong . Modern bows are not lightweight in all cases many shoot 50# .. yes they are more efficient and project arrows faster . Barebow does not have aiming devices , Horsebows which predate Welsh longbows by many centuries do not have "aiming devices" although both Barebow and horse bow do aim using a variety of methods . Modern horsebow archers mounted can hit the gold of a target 30-40 m away at full gallop and fire an arrow every 5 seconds. I am sure the ancient archers were better than this .Persian recurve archers used to rain fire on armies a hundred yards plus away to great effect. I can hit a ring 3ft diameter at 180m without a sight or "aiming device" I am sure someone trained for life to draw longbows up to 120# could also .. ps they also used aiming device like marks on the bowstave as do modern longbow archers who use elastic bands for the same purpose . They would also have information about landmarks on the battle field and their distance from the archers so could wit until the enemy arrived at the distance they were primed to shoot at . At 70m the flight time of an arrow is around 1 second .. even running the target would still be in range . In many cases of course the targets were horses .. a rather large target .
@@mikebyford5258 Well, I stand corrected in that case. Of course it is a lot of speculation, and I have to say I'm more used to the characteristics of muskets in terms of accuracy, so forgive my miscalculations. I knew bows were relatively accurate, but never knew the true scale.
Arrows were manufactured in the period on an industrial scale with millions being made each year. After a battle, provided you had driven the enemy off the field at least half of the arrows were retrievable,.
Love the discussion about husbanding your supply of arrows. Anybody have an idea of how many (percent) could be recovered and reused after a battle.
let us know if you find out!
@@HistoryHit Well I know in the Battle of Towtown the Lancastrian arrows were falling short because of being fired into the wind. There are reports of the Yorkists line moving forward to recover their arrows to shoot back. That was in the winter. If the ground hadn't frozen or if the snow was deep enough to absorb the arrows I'm sure that played a part. Probably not a reliable thing to hope for though.
Tod of Tods workshop (youtube channel) has a series of tests on this very issue. And what they found is, that an arrow that hits plate armour will simply shatter...
Ofc all the arrows that miss and flew past everyone, can be recovered, but a lot of arrows simply breaks because of the great power that is being transfered upon impact.
I love mike loades his infectious excitement and descriptions are amazing it really makes you feel that we are there with him .
Fantastic video! A pleasure to watch a discussion not bogged down with historical myths and inaccuracies.
Every unbiased account on these matters always sounds very commendable, albeit very rare. Spot on.
Great to hear historians giving an in depth view.. and helping to dispel a few myths.
I always love it when common sense is placed next to myth.
As mr. Loades stated mythical images set far more easier in the mind and memory then the reality.
Such as the knight's armor was so heavy he had to be hauled into the sadle.
That is as realistic as hauling a firefighter up the ladder as the average equipment of a firefighter is about the same weight as that of a knight.
Just look at how romanticism is set around the sword, despite polearms, clubs and such existing
Wearing Knights armour would seriously hinder your mobility in general.. it only allows movement in a relatively limited manner so needing help to get on a horse is pretty likely. It's not just weight making it difficult.
Just bearing in mind you want to go and fight.. you don't want to already have broken a sweat getting up on your horse. My point is it may well have been a thing to get hoisted on your horse, regardless of whether or not it's possible to get up unassisted
Also worth considering the reality that falling from a horse while wearing armour could put you out of action immediately.. not only through injury but damage to the armour. If you can easily reduce the chance of resource losses before the battle even starts you would utilise that.
@@jimstartup2729 But still if that was so, the developing of full cover harnass and armor started in the middle of the MiddleAges and culminated in the Late MeiddelAges early Renaiisance. Early MiddleAges we see the mailskirts prevail, which less hindered mobility.
saw a video of a reconstruction of the life of Richard III using a young fellow, who has the same degree of scoliosis ( hunchback) as Richard III had. He managed very well in the reconstructed armor without signs of being hindered by it.
I think it is bad acting and badly designed movie armor that give the image of inmobility.
I have just found this channel, and I’m thrilled. The quality of the content is first rate. Well done.
Thanks!
@@HistoryHit, I’ve got a masters degree in military history, and your work Dan Snow is first rate and well presented. Keep it up, there’s a hunger out there for this content.
One of the best historical reviews of a battle that I have viewed on the internet - can't wait to view another of your works - keep it up!
The fact that longbowmen can and DID fight in melee is an extremely overlooked aspect. It’s not like they only relied on the 1/5 or so of their army that was composed of men at arms for melee. That’s what contributed to making them so useful, they could do both. They also didn’t wear peasant rags, they wore armour, albeit lighter armour.
Loved watching Mike on Time Commanders back in the day. Great listening to him again.
I studied this battle in particular at University with special emphasis on the accuracy of Shakespeare, and as Mike also notes, apart from the dramatic licence etc, it is surprisingly accurate; especially since Shakespeare used the French Chronicler Froissart's and English monastic chroniclers -who accompanied the army- accounts of the battle. The exchequer rolls from this time also still exist and are an excellent account of the cost and more precisely, who and what they took with them. Other documentaries showing "experimentation" with arrows against plate armour is something of a moot point also, as Henry V well knew about plate armour long before the battle at Agincourt. He was a seasoned campaigner and had an expert eye for terrain and tactics learned whilst campaigning in Wales. He also knew the tactical importance and deadly effect of skilled bowmen. His army at Agincourt comprised of what? 11,000 men 6,000 of whom were archers who, according to the chronicles DID fire flight after flight of Bodkin tipped arrows not straight on but in a high arc so that they would fall like a deadly rain, not on armoured Knights, but on their mostly unprotected horses. Gravity generates velocity so the horses fell heavily, and so did the heavily armoured knights into a boggy quagmire of churned up field, from which, because of the gloopy mud they could not get up easily and so the same archers fell on these stranded Knights with their lead-axes and daggers and did their deadly work! What many sources also claim lost the battle for the French was the fact that they would not use their peasantry in any form as the English did, -their aristocracy despised them- and all the political squabbling and in-fighting and the French Cvil War that had been raging.
Arrows don't actually gain energy in an arch though they'd come down with the same energy they lost going up.
I have been loving Mike’s work for years and he still never disappoints. I may not always agree 100% with everything he says, but he is certainly far more knowledgable than me so I always listen to him. And I always appreciate his thoughtfulness and open-mindedness when we don’t have data points, and his attempts to fill those gaps. I hope we get to have his presence on this earth a good while longer.
In reference to the repetitive hitting being just as effective as penetration, the veterans I know with modern armor have said more than once that even if the bullet doesn't penetrate, getting hit multiple times, especially in the helmet, can be incapacitating...granted, the soldier can get back into the fight with bruised and busted ribs much faster than from an actual GSW, it still hurts and affects your ability to fight efficiently
One of my favorite historic battles. What a great discussion.
Really wonderful interview here! Loades paints such a vivid picture of both warfare and contemporary life of the time.
Loved this interview.
I always like when Mike Loades enters in where Historical battles are concerned.👍🏻
One of the recent, best and wonderful RUclips videos on the longbowmen at Argicourt, was organized by Tod Todoschini on "Tod's Workshop". Where he gets some real experts in their own fields together:
Dr. Tobias Capwell (Wallace Collection Curator/Jouster)
Joe Gibbs (Archer & Bowyer)
Will Sherman (Fletcher)
Kevin Legg (Armourer)
Chrissi Carnie (Fabric Armour).
It is called "ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Medieval Myth Busting".✌🏻
Just about to link it to the same thing!
Totally disagree .... they based their findings on arrows aimed at plate armour thereby discrediting the effect of archers.
They ignored plunging fire from large flights of arrows dropping vertically.
They ignored lateral fire from archers on the flanks.
Those archers were not stupid,they knew that most arrows were ineffectual against steel plate so would have aimed at horses or in the case of armoured knights at potential gaps or weaknesses,armpits,groin,neck,back of thighs.
Their 'tests' were designed to fit their narrative,it was not objective research done to find out how archers destroyed French armies on multiple occasions.
@@christopherfranklin972 the paintings show archers at agincourt shor straight not arching. 6000 arrows means a few are going to hit.
I doubt they were aiming that much. Also knights would have been advancing straight at them not just leave them alone.
@@lordwellingtonthethird8486 The paintings that illustrate the battle of Agincourt are not by eye-witnesses,they are stylised representations of a generic battle of the period,many illustrations of that period show archers,crossbowmen,handgonners aiming straight simply because the artists knew nothing about trajectory and the fact that you have to hold over to allow for drop.
The archers were located on the flanks while the main French attack was aimed at the 'battles' consisting of men-at-arms,knights and royalty,they were therefore vulnerable to flanking fire.
@@christopherfranklin972 I'm aware of the battle formations. But if you think no soldiers attempted to march at the archers that would be an error.
The effects on an arcing shot is useless compared to straight firing. Of course they would have aimed slightly higher at first but those arrows wouldn't harm an armoured Knight. But 7000 archers firing means and 1 or 2 arrows might find a gap.
I found that compelling and fascinating. I've been a fan of Mick Loades since his exploration of Wootz blades. Dan Snow always asks the pertinent and insightful questions.
Sunday morning, have my tea and egg and sitting listening to this while looking out at my garden.
Wonderful discussion! If armor was useless against arrows, it would not have been used (heavy, poor visibility, etc.). But: it takes a square-on arrow shot to penetrate the metal. Most arrows were deflected by armor.
All and all like modern body armor it is used because it is very useful.
The English took an estimated 2millions arrows to Agincourt. It took a blacksmith a day to make about 25 arrow heads... the logistics! 🤯
Surprisingly that’s not hard to get done. Would only take about 200-250 of them working for a year to get that done
225 times 365 times 25 is over 2 mil
If medieval battles were just a massive clobbering match, that would explain the relatively low casualty rates compared to warfare before or since. The vast majority of men who went into battle survived. This was an era in which it was very difficult to kill someone, which made for warfare biased in favour of the offence because offence is about getting somewhere the enemy doesn't want you to go, defence is about stopping the enemy before he gets somewhere you don't want him to go.
The average death rate was close to 20% in medieval times. Melee warfare was brutal, death rates were very high when compared to today (6-7%) but the worst of it was the injuries that left people maimed for life!
That's not true at all. The casualty rates were usually low *for the victors* but the losing side could have up to 75% casualty rates in a single battle from their men being hunted down during a rout. At Agincourt, the English took 10% casualties, and the French took 33%, and this was only the numbers of men *killed* and not counting wounded. To use the contemporary Siege of Orleans, casualties (including wounded) were *80%* for the losing English and *25%* for the winning French. Comparatively, 100-200 years later during the Early Modern Period, the normal kill rate for the losing side was around 10%, and total casualties 25% in an absolute slaughterfest due to the introduction of gunpowder weapons and tactical changes that reduced casualties. The Mediaeval period was one of the most dangerous times to go to battle until the beginnings of modern warfare in the Napoleonic wars that saw a dramatic increase in battlefield casualty rates.
@@therat1117 Agincourt as an argument, that’s like using the bombing of nagano as an example!
Please do recheck the stats, across the board I am correct but please do use exceptions to the rule as your baseline 🙄😅😂
@@TheBreechie Agincourt is a very average Mediaeval battle. Sorry you want to think of it as some sort of one-sided slaughter lol, I even said its casualties were not that high compared to other notable battles, like say, the Ager Sanguinis, or Bannockburn.
I'd also add that you don't have to penetrate the armor of a mounted knight if you can shoot his horse out from under him at speed. Suddenly falling from 2 meters up in the air is no fun. Especially when your friends behind you can't stop their horse from trampling you.
And if your men are on foot...they're a slow moving target, so the archers have plenty of time to find every crack. And in a battle line you can't really evade.
It takes a lot to kill a horse. But yes, even if the horse isn't killed I wouldn't fancy riding one amongst hundreds peppered with arrows. Can't imagine the chaos
The Battle of Agincourt is proof that plate armour worked.
Longbow was good against Peasant's and more than devastating against horses
The dismounted knights slowed down by the mud must have been easy targets.
But still a lot of them manage to reach push enemy lines.
Mike Loades is always fantastic to listen to!
Love listening to Mike. He's so passionate about history.
I'd be fascinated if you did an interview with the author of "Ghosts of Cannae" Robert O'Connell in this same way. He gets into great detail about just *how* much work it takes to fight and maim and keep going across hours, and the mental toll that must take.
is this recent? i love this guy
i crafted my 1st bow because of him
good to see he well
I remember my friends laughing saying it was going to break and terrified when I shot and the arrow went beyond the corner of our street to the middle of the other. My hands get blistered from the tools
My mother threatened to hide my bow because my left forearm was constantly turning purple from the accidental impact of the string
the arrow is harder to craft than the bow.
_"the arrow went beyond the corner of our street to the middle of the other"_
You were shooting arrows in the middle of a fucking street?
lucianosschlieper Of Locksley??
@@jesperburns Now THAT'S a rough neighbourhood.
Great interview! Loved to see the word 'propaganda' come out. It's usually very hard for English's, Americans, etc. to face it. Other countries are normally much more critical of their own history. I mean critical in the sense of analytical, not denigrating or something like that, because facing the truth only leads to better decision making for the future.
This is a very practical assessment of events. In conflict (National or local) it is mostly geography, quality of weapons, Logistics, weather conditions, sight lines and basic tactical choices that decide what happens. Sometimes people either choose to, or are forced to, fight in the wrong place. But bad tactics can always loose the day.
I've fought in armour for an entire day, recreationally. If I had spent my entire childhood, adolescence and young adulthood dedicated to fighting I could fight for hours on end, add in the "I don't want to die" aspect rather than just "This is a great time!" then I expect there is a lot less swapping people out than you expect. Particularly as well-fitted armour is practically weightless and actually can be used to support your body, allowing you to fight for even longer than one would expect. Another note, that I disagree with needing to hit as hard as a heavyweight boxer. The impact may be a similar strength, but thanks to technique and mechanical advantage from your weapon of choice it's actually quite a lot easier swinging a sword than punching someone. You have to remember as well, that the men at arms would go back to camp, eat, give their gear a once over then into bed. There would be very little chance of men post-battle going back to camp for a roll with the camp girls, that was more of a siege camp endeavour rather than a campaign camp scenario.
I've always been curious . Is the armor you use the same weight as the original ones ? I worked in a museum for a while, and those old cast iron plates looked incredible heavy. But i guess one get used to everything with enough training.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 Generally speaking, yes. Different weights for different people's choices in armour type, from wax hardened leather to particularly strong plastic, to chain mail over a modern impact-absorbing material to protect soft tissues. I've known people to fight in plate, or decked out as Landsknechte.
@@Lumen_Obscurum That sounds pretty intense ! . But we humans are indeed capable to build up huge stamina when it's done overtime. I teach Roman history, and it's incredible how these guys could march with full gear and equipment day in, day out.
@@Lumen_Obscurum Landsknechte?? That's awesome.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 late medieval armor, like full plate, weighted about as much as modern marine's backpack with gear, just more evenly spread. Other armor was LIGHTER, and they often had horses for transport instead of being crammed into an APC (that's why you can see soldiers often riding on top of a BTR in real war nowadays). So people overstimate loads placed on older time warriors, but underestimate how it is on battlefield today. And there might be no rotation for months or even years, and constant shelling overhead, nobody before 20th century was in wars as brutal as now.
Using a boxing analogy, the French ran a mile or two to the boxing ring (mud), allowed the British to reign body blows for the first round (arrows), and then only start fighting in the second round, but your left and right arms are not coordinated.
FYI, I am in the middle of reading War Bow.
The English didn't see themselves as British yet. That came about later thanks to the Welsh Tudors control of England. The Welsh are THEE British!!!
A book I like, which includes a description of Agincourt from a soldier's perspective, is The Face of Battle by John Keegan.
Just put it on my TBR list. Another book I like is Agincourt, by Bernard Cornwell. It's fiction, but it's well researched. It's told from the point of view of an English Longbowman.
Archery training camp in West Wales called Fagwyr Fran. Henry V stopped at Fagwyr Lwyd on his way to Bosworth to pick up Welsh archers and horses off the Preseli hills
Bosworth? Do you mean Henry Tudor, later Henry VII?
WOW this was an enthralling engaging video. Informative, educational and highly entertaining. One point missed in the discussion was that Olivier's film was produced during The Second World War and was of course intended to be a rousing piece of propaganda. I've no doubt the depiction of the French in the battle was coloured by the recent Fall of France and subsequent myths attributed to that stunning defeat. History Hit is producing excellent video presentations.
Mike Loades is an utter legend.
Very informative,Mike's enthusiasm,passion & knowledge is infectious.
The myth of Henry V's leadership is even more damaging to our perception of History. One of the main reasons Henry was successful was his planning and operational management. These factors are often overlooked in evaluating his success.
: so it's not a myth. How does it go: amateurs talk strategy & professionals talk logistics.?
@@victornewman9904 I believe it’s tactics. Because strategy is big picture using logistics. But that sentiment is true, that’s why I believe Grant was better then Lee And that esinhower was one of the best generals of ww2
@@Strawberry-12. In a battle involving tactical manoeuvring, Lee is better. Grant does have the masterpiece of the Vicksburgs campaign though.
@@fredbarker9201 yep that’s my point. While lee might have been able to out maneuver grant on the battlefield (although not all the time). Grant totally outclassed him when it came to strategy. And in my opinion strategy is more important then logistics so that’s why I believe grant is better
@@Strawberry-12. if you swapped them round Lee would fare a lot better in Grants position than Grant would in Lees. So I think it’s unfair to claim Grant the superior, I’m a big fan of Ulysses Grant, practically my favourite American (I’m English) but can we really call him a better general than Lee? I don’t think so, purely because he was in the somewhat easier scenario, But Grant was the perfect fit for the union army where so many had failed
While modern scholarship is useful, our ancestors weren't stupid. The longbow had a fearsome reputation at the time for a reason. It was bloody effective. Not convinced by the "bashing" theory. Agincourt was a massive victory, it wasn't 7,500 vs 7,500, it was 1,500 knights/Men-at-arms vs 7,500. The difference was the longbow, just as at Crecy 100 years before.
Longbows were found on the Mary Rose, 100 years later, hardly a redundant weapon. Revisionist history has many caveats.
Excellent interview and a wonderfully engaging analysis by Mike.
Being hit by a war bows arrow from 20 yards was like being punched by a middleweight boxer …8 times a minute and so the french knights are cut , hurt and confused even within their plate armour …nervous tension , pain and the need to close with the English meant that there exhaustion level was never far away …..when those barrel chested longbow men run out of arrows they throw down their bows and pick up their stake hammers , war hammers and maces and unlike their french rivals they are very mobile …
The English got sick of waiting for the french to attack and so lifted there stakes and moved on mass forward before re planting their stakes and firing at distance at the french lines …this must of caused casualties among the french knights as it caused them then to attack …..
Dan clearly loves his job which makes his content more amazing
@@seanmoran6510 why
I feel like a fool. I never enjoyed Mr Snow’s efforts on the telly, too much ‘personality’ not enough history. Rethinking this, it was probably down to producers who tend to underestimate their audience and, to be fair, not underestimate them. Someone only peripherally interested in the history might prefer a bit of eye candy (no doubting the attraction of a fit young man to many people!). Anyway, I’ve never liked the cults of personality that seem to dominate our media landscape and, to my shame, I tended to blame the obvious target, the personality, for this. But since Mr Snow has been running his own show the quality has been high, the focus has been on the history and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed everything I’ve seen on the net. And now I see he has two different editions of Bob Katz’s Mastering Audio, the Art and the Science. To my knowledge this is not a commonly known book but it is one of my favourites and was close to my bible when I worked as a studio audio engineer (before such roles mostly ended). It’s one of those books highly revered in a specialist world that only those ‘in the know’ would have owned. And to have two editions (as I do!). So, I take it all back. I’m sure he doesn’t care, and neither should he, but in my opinion Mr Snow Jr is one of the most impressive millennials I’ve come across. Please keep up the good work!
So much more interesting than the irritating clickbait title suggests. Every podcast now "debunks" or "destorys" the myths of the past. But this was full of fascinating information. It's surely a pity that Shakespeare did not include the battles of Crécy and Poitiers in his History plays, as these also contributed to the iconic status of the longbow as an English weapon, especially in the 100 Years War.
The 120lbs draw and much heavier arrows than we use in modern times must haveade getting hit by one, even in plate armour, awfully painful.