Swiss Mercenaries: The End of Cavalry Superiority in the Late Middle Ages
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2023
- In this video we discuss how the cavalry’s long-held dominant position on the battlefield was challenged by pure infantry armies in the 15th century. To show this in an exemplary way we will look at the role the Old Swiss Confederacy played in this development. Before we continue: none of this means that the later French Gendarmes, Winged Hussars or German Black Riders were ineffective or unimportant, but from the 15th century, heavy cavalry no longer reigned supreme on the battlefield in the same way they did in the centuries before.
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Paypal (thank you: www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
Some must read mlitary history books:
Ambrose, S. E., Band of Brothers: E Company, 2001. amzn.to/438ltvZ
Baime, A. J., The Accidental President: Harry S. Truman, 2017. amzn.to/3TcDGUj
Beard, M., Emperor of Rome: Ruling the Ancient Roman World, 2023. amzn.to/49L2olR
Bevoor, A., Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, 1999. amzn.to/4a4rqwe
Beevor, A., The Second World War, 2013. amzn.to/3wNFITu
Brennan, P+D., Gettysburg in Color, 2022. amzn.to/48LGldG
Clausewitz, C., On War, 2010. amzn.to/3Vblf5
Kaushik, R., A Global History of Pre-Modern Warfare: 10,000 BCE-1500 CE, 2021. amzn.to/49Mtqt7
McPherson, J., Battle Cry of Freedom, The Civil War Era, 2021. amzn.to/3TseYAW
Tsu, S., The Art of War, 2007, amzn.to/3TuknHA
Sledge. E. B., With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa, 2008. amzn.to/439olIK
Pomerantsev, P., How to Win an Information War, 2024. amzn.to/3Ts0YqQ
Bibliography:
Bane, M., "English Longbow Testing against various armor circa 1400", 2006.
Ayton, A., / Price, J. L., (Hrsg.), The Medieval Military Revolution. State, Society and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, 199J. Black, A Military Revolution? Military Change and European Society 1550-1800, 1991.
Czouz-Tornare, s.v. "Reisläufer" in Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz.
Devries, K., Medieval Military Technology, 1994.
Dierk, W., s.v. ‘Heeresreform’, in: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit
Ortenburg, G., Waffe und Waffengebrauch im Zeitalter der Landsknechte (Heerwesen der Neuzeit, Abt. 1, Bd. 1) Koblenz 1984.
Magier, Mariusz; Nowak, Adrian; et al. ,. "Numerical Analysis of English Bows used in Battle of Crécy". Problemy Techniki Uzbrojenia. 142 (2), 2017, 69-85.
Meumann, M., s.v. ‘Military Revolution’, in: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit.
Parker G., The »Military Revolution«, 1560-1660 - a Myth?, in: Journal of Modern History 48.2, 1976, 196-214
Parker, G., Die militärische Revolution. Die Kriegskunst und der Aufstieg des Westens 1500-1800, 1990 (engl. 1988)Roberts, M.: The military revolution, 1560-1660. In: Clifford J. Rogers: The military revolution debate. Readings on the military transformation of early modern Europe. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 1995, S. 13-35.Rogers, C.J. / Tallet F. (editors), European Warfare, 1350-1750, 2010.
Rogers, C.J., The Efficacy of the English Longbow, 1998.
Schmidtchen, Volker, Kriegswesen im späten Mittelalter. Technik, Taktik, Theorie, Weinheim 1990.
Senn, s.v. "Kriegführung" in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz.
Soar, H., Gibbs, J., Jury, C., Stretton, M., Secrets of the English War Bow. Westholme, 2010, pp. 127-151.
This is a revised version of an older video of ours. In fact the original video was one of our very first videos covering miltiary history. It was lacking both in terms of visuals and nuance, so we deicided to delete it a while back but then we thought there's nothing similar on RUclips, so we refined the argument a little bit (it's still true to wha the original was) and changed most visuals to better reflect the time periods we talk about (ancient Greece, late medieval Europe, early modern Europe). We've pretty much redone all the visuals from ground up and added some necessary nuance where we thought it was needed.
I tend to believe that phalanx may used some similar thing to Swiss as natural evolution. Also the Macedonian Phalanx at least up to Alexander used Hypaspists as shock troops.
Revision was a great idea. New versions looks many times better thanks to adding many illustration you had created in recent years. Improvements in nuances are also important. Big fan of your work!
Oh finally, it was one of my favorite videos of yours. I was so confused why it vanished.
Really appreciate you going back to improve it!
The Swiss infantry was not that great. They won most of their battles because of their flag. It was a big plus.
Brother…
😂😂😂
Lol
Like enemies thought it was a battalion of nurses coming and welcomed the attack? How long they took to realize that pikes are not band aids?😂
Attack of the nurse 😅
I agree with all the technical aspects of the formations and weapons, but I think it also leaves out the simple factor, that the swiss normally had a strict no prisoners rule, for the simple fact, that a nobleman's ransom was a fortune for any farmer and would be a risk to the formation for people chasing after it. I also think that this plays into some of the fear and terror of those battles.
Growing up in Switzerland, our teacher taught us a lot about Swiss History from 1291 onwards and emphasized the importance of the Swiss infantry
"mounting challenges"
We hear what you did there.
The Swiss were such legendary warriors of that period.
Landsknechts vs Swiss Mercenaries was some of the most fierce battles aswell. Roughly the same tactic meeting face to face on the field . Although in the end the Landsknechts would prevail
@@saxo9266 True.
Overall, the Swiss are truly a marvel. Over periods of time, they have been at the forefront of some of the pillars of our society. Warfare, banking, cheese...
"Georg von Frundsberg wants to know your location."
Back in the early modern era
They only way you could get away with neutrality is everyone views fighting you as suicide.
This is why the swiss managed to become neutral so early on there legendary mercenaries.
Also why sweden managed to become neutral after bleeding poland,russia,denmark,etc out in so many close wars.
Being strong helps alot.
It was looking into swiss mercenaries that led me to your channel, glad to see you revisiting them:)
You're kidding me, Im literally writing a bachelor's thesis about this very subject right now
well... unlike other youtubers, these guys are actual historians, so yeah... thats the difference I guess.
This was superb. The best explanation I have come across. This channel is a bit of a gem. Please tell me more..........
It's an interesting look at the evolution of infantry beginning with the late middle ages. Disciplined infantry start becoming more relevant. Pikes were being used more as a counter to cavalry charges. Firearms arrive to mix things up but they were still in their infancy.
Eventually firearms improve and we start getting into Pike & Shot formations.
Things don't stay still. Eventually somewhere out in China, they invent the Bayonet. Now you can have these guns with all the advantages of modern firepower, stick a pointy thing on the end, and your infantry can defend against cavalry while still having lots of guns. The idea spreads.
Then you have line infantry.
This is oversimplified of course, but it shows how everyone is taking technology as it changes and improves, while figuring out better ways to fight.
You're also correct that this didn't make cavalry obsolete. It had to change. Hell, fast forward into the Napoleonic Wars. Despite the mass employment of guns and massive formations of line and light infantry with firearms all over the battlefield, cavalry still had its place. Even in that era of warfare, cavalry was still being used as a mobile, decisive arm or reserve. I mean, they still had Lancers.
Excellent documentary, I always learn something.
Great to see this video redone, been a pleasure seeing your skills improve through the years
been loving learning about the decline of cavalry in the the middle ages recently, this video could not have been more perfectly timed for me.
Good video. Tbh, I really think one of the things that made the Swiss so effective, at least until a workable counter to them was developed, was their sheer bloody-mindedness. (St Jacob-en-Birs springs to mind).
"Some aristocratic feudal overlord want's to invade MY Canton and steal my toblerone? Onf us isn't going home mate".
I'd love to see some North American conflicts covered on this channel. Caribbean theater of the 30 years war, Aztec-Cortez war, King Philip/Metacomet's War, Beaver Wars, French and Indian/North American Theater of the Seven Years War, American Revolution, War of 1812 (and 13 and 14 and 15)/American theater of the Napoleonic Wars. The earlier wars were still fought with pike-and-shot era technology, though the far-off armies needed to employ radically different tactics in America and the Caribbean.
3:30 From modern German, "Gewalthaufen" would translate to "heap of violence" which I think is funnier
You forgot about the Hussites and Jan Zizka, the 15th century and fighting in a fortified camp/Wagenburg. The Battle of Kutná Hora (Kuttenberg), The Battle of Německý Brod and many others
You are not wrong, but they say in the first minute that the swiss are just an example of pure infantry armies, hussites already have their dedicated video on this channel.
"[...] that cavalry would face mounting challenges."
Nice one!
The relation of pike formations to heavy cavalry is so interesting to me. Armored guys with lances on horseback fell out of favor for most because the pike formations became too effective. The Poles got around this with giant 15-25' hollow lances that could outrange pikes.
Eventually lance cavalry became rare enough that people were comfortable replacing their pikers with musketeers with socket bayonets. Then because pikes weren't a thing anymore, everyone in the Napoleonic wars was super impressed by Polish lance cavalry and started using lancers of their own.
That and you can break a cavalry charge with a well placed volley. Moreover, it is recognized that mobility is the true king of warfare. Having a pike square won't do you good if your enemy just outpaces you.
This is my favorite video from this channel in quite a while. Really excellent.
It’s interesting to note that the use of heavy cavalry on the battlefield decreased simultaneous with:
1. the start of the decline of knights social importance. Caused the rise of the free cities and the diminished use for feudal networks to uphold public order.
2. the increase of pre-industrial productivity for weapons and armor and the simultaneous betterment of affordability of combat equiptment.
By the 15th century owning weapons, helmets and armor became more and more standard in Europe and there are even documents stating some citizens had to own weapons and armor based on their income.
A heavy cavalry charge wasn’t just the preferred way of doing battle, because it was effective, but because it was highly prestigious and a way for the nobility to „seek glory and fame“. So maybe they held up the role of cavalry for longer than it should have been because they didn’t want to depart from this important tradition?
We're also seeing the decline of heavy armor now in Ukraine. The War in Ukraine might very well be also the start of the end of tanks.
@@SavageDragon999 and at the same time we've seen that artillery is still not going away any time soon
I was wondering where the original went! Glad the updated version is now released :)
3:30 "The literal english translation is crowd of force"
I guess that sounds better than "Pile of violence"
3:32 Native German here, I take some issue with the translation. Gewalthaufen can be loosely translated in that way, but it is far from the literal translation. Gewalthaufen is a compoundword of the words "Gewalt" and "Haufen". Gewalt in modern day German just means violence, but it could also mean something like control or force, but only in a certain context, namely control or force over, against or from someone. The closest translation of "Haufen" would be pile, heap or bunch, it describes a conglomeration of a lot of things that are somewhat difficult to put a number on. I think, if you stick with a loose translation just "force" would be more accurate or if you really want to keep it as literal as possible "heap of violence" would be better.
The Swiss killed almost an entire branch of my family in the ambush on Morgarten in 1315. Almost all of the “Alt-Landenbergers” were killed back then.
I am interested in researching historical events. Could you give me any more data?
@@stevebaker4319 Julius Studer writes about this in his book "The Nobles of Landenberg" as follows: ""If the older Rudolf (1.) was alongside Hermann von Landenberg as a feudal tenant of Kiburg before 1264, then the grandson enjoyed the favor of the House of Habsburg. Alongside his brother Hermann of Mainz, Master of the Johanniter in Germany, he aided King Albrecht and Bishop Heinrich of Konstanz in settling a dispute between the Johanniter Order and the heirs of the Free Rudolf von Wädenswil, as announced by the king and the bishop from Mainz on October 17, 1300. On June 7, 1315, we find Rudolf with Count Johann of Habsburg-Rapperswil in Baden, and on September 10, with King Friedrich and Duke Leopold in Irsee on the Wertach in Swabia. As the castellan of Kiburg, Rudolf, undoubtedly at the head of the people from the Kiburg district, with his son Pantaleon (II) on November 15, 1315, joined the Battle of Morgarten, where both father and son fell under the fierce blows of the young Confederates (Eidgenossen). Thus ended the male line of the Knights of Alt-Landenberg. Yet Rudolf's memory lives on not only as that of a brave fighter in the bloody struggle; 'amidst the clashing of weapons in a warlike era,' when most other nobles 'fed themselves from the saddle and lived off the cuff,' i.e., had become highwaymen, he also found leisure to turn his attention to the art of poetry, which was then flourishing in Zurich around the art-loving Rüdiger Manesse,"
Yesss! The staggering return of early modern era warfare!
The mention in this video reminded me of another video, probably some years ago, where you mentioned Alatriste, and man what a great movie. It has since become one of my favorites. Thanks for the tip and for the great videos
Such interesting topic and amazing quality production, as always
good stuff, glad to see a better version of the video!
Such a good video, the knowledge is pouring out of you. I'll surely check more of the videos. Thanks.
its good to see a remake of your older material, hopefully this an help bring even more viewers to this channel. im really greatful for all your work, as you always mention sources, compared to most of "history" channels on youtube
lmfao at the painting at 9:15 of the dog running away with the Burgundians
Fantastic subject for a video. Good to see it covered.
Another excellently researched, fantastic video, thank you!
Thank you channel for sharing interesting and interesting historical information
0:12 I would argue that it was even more extreme than that. Cavalry was, in high medieval Latin Europe, usually not on the wings, but rather were the frontline itself during the main part of the battle, with infantry being a stabilising backline.
Most high medieval sources depict the order of battle as being in the initial screening and setting up phase of a battle as: (3) Cavalry (2) Infantry (1) Crossbowmen, and then in the main-combat part of the battle, the order went to: (3) Crossbowmen (2) Infantry (1) Cavalry. One exception to this is the late 1200's Aragonese armies, which usually had half the frontline held by mounted knights, the other half held by almughavars. I haven't really seen mentions of the wings being cavalry and the centre being infantry until we get to the Late Middle Ages. Not saying there weren't cases of that in the High Middle Ages too, I have by no means read all primary sources, but it seems to be a rarity.
It's really fascinating to me how such a simple weapon as a spear/pike could proof itself to be one of the most efficient weapons if used by the right people.
Because it did not.
@@wojciechpatalas6660of course it was.
Why did most of western militaries adopted their tactics if it was not effective?
What is your point?
@@kleinesschreckgespenst319 Mainly because western cavalry was not especially good which was proven again and again with every invasion from the East. Your undefeated infantry formations were ripped apart time after time when they faced eastern cavalry in open field. And I am talking about 16th - 17th century not medieval times.
@@wojciechpatalas6660 Lmao a Polish man taking about Western cavalry when in fact the Polish hussars were one of the most overrated and worst cavalries of all time they could only win when they faced untrained peasants who couldnt even hold a weapon properly and every time the dumb hussars faced a real army wielding pikes and halberds they were either destroyed or fled from the battlefield with their tales between their legs lollll..
@@wojciechpatalas6660 Lmao a Polish man taking about Western cavalry when in fact the Polish hussars were one of the most overrated and worst cavalries of all time they could only win when they faced untrained peasants who couldnt even hold a weapon properly and every time the dumb hussars faced a real army wielding pikes and halberds they were either destroyed or fled from the battlefield with their tales between their legs lollll..
Love the return to covering this era!
The scottish schiltrons during the first scottish war of independance back in the 14th century. Also battle of Courtrai 1302 where the goedendag used by the flemish were excellent at repelling the french's charges.
Thank you for making these. Please don't listen to what the haters say. I love your videos and they're very informative!
Excellent work !
You forgot to mention those legendary Swiss mercenary units:
The Swiss Cheese
The Swiss Chocolate
And most infamously, the Swiss Army Knives
I think ViolenceHeap or ViolenceMob captures Gewalthaufen better as a literal translation.
M'lord, the Swiss have defeated us with their advanced technology.
What technology?
A bunch of dudes with really long sticks, Lord.
My God have mercy on us all.
Gewalthaufen translates also to pille of vilence or heap of vilence
And that sounds rad
In modern German, yes. In medieval German it doesn't. "Gewalt" in 15th century German translates more to 'strength' or 'force' than to 'violence', and a "Haufen" is strictly a term for a military unit, so it translates to 'troop' or 'unit'. "Gewalthaufen" to contemporary German-speakers therefore would have meant something along the lines of 'strong unit'.
Why so many trolls in the comments??? Sheesh! Swiss were extremely effective vs cavalry and many other troop types on several occasions.
nice video like always
Those horses @12:50
hahaha how funny does that look
Mounted Winged Hussars drank Red Bull because it gives you Wings.
Love these
It was really interesting to watch this movie. A lot of information indeed
Excellent analysis.
Great video
3:27 If you want a literal translation, the closest I can give is 'pile of violence'.
thats the modern translation. in the middle ages "gewalt" meant just force or power which is "kraft" in german today and "haufen" was a millitary term meaning troop or in modern german "einheit/truppe" so in modern german "gewalt haufen" would be "kraft truppe/kraft einheit" or in english force troop or power troop. its funny to think that they would call their unit "violence pile" because of the immage of a violent orc mob comming to mind but thats not what those words ment in the 15th century
"...cavalry would face mounting challenges..."
Masterpiece video
I'll love if you could make (a video of) a list of movies with realistic battles
Dr schwizer akzent vom komentator isch herrlich! Gruss,Hermann,Rosswood,Kanada
Er häts aber voll im griff. Emal ich han erscht gmerkt daser en dütschsprachige isch woner wort wie "Morgarten" fählerlos usgsproche ka hät 😅
It tippe: A Innerschwizer/ vielich Luzerner?
Amazing
It is surprising how much this system resembles the one developed by Nikephoros Phokas to campaign against the cavalry heavy armies of the Caliphate in Syria. Of course, he also had cavalry, but the main formation was a square where a small number of pikemen (menavlatoi in his writings) were used to receive cavalry charges after which the normal infantry (skoutatoi) or cavalry would finish the enemy. It is very well described in "Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century" by Eric McGeer.
For the algorithm excellent video
Excellent as usual! The Swiss were great and also reliable and committed, when other troops abandoned the Swiss stood firm. There is plenty of examples of their bravery and loyalty (despite being mercenaries)
Cavalry superiority was actually ended when sharpened stakes were hammered into the ground. The Scots taught the English at Bannockburn. The english perfected it at Agincourt.
The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield.
The French repeatedly defeated the Flemish (Mons-en-Pévèle (1304), Cassel (1328), Roosebeke (1382), etc.) Courtrai was certainly an exception, not the norm.
English victories in the mid-14th and early 15th centuries (during the Hundred Years' War) owed much to French mistakes. The French launched disorganised cavalry charges without taking into account the terrain, whether muddy, sloping or covered with hedges.
When the French finally stopped messing around, they scored a series of victories that enabled them to drive out the English invaders. For example, a surprise charge led by a few French knights routed the entire English army at Patay (1429): the English knights and mounted troops fled the battlefield, leaving the English archers completely disorganised and harassed by the French cavalry... According to historians, on that day the French lost 3 k.illed and 100 wounded and the English 2,500-4,000 k.illed or captured. Another example is that of the Battle of Formigny (1450): the bombardment by two French light cannons forced the English archers to come out of their defensive position and attack the French (who were outnumbered by the English). However, the Breton cavalry (allied to the French) appeared on the flanks and completely crushed the English, allowing the French to definitively reconquer Normandy.
@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont when you understand that a horse will not charge at a sharpened stakes,then it is the end of cavalry superiority. A pikeman is merely a movable stake 🙂
Actually horses were taught to charge pikes, very long spears layered together, as well as how bite, stomp, and generally kill people, quite effectively as well. However knights would usually not engage pikes, after all their archers and pikemen would be far more effective at countering enemy pike formations, and pin them for the knights to hit their sides or rear.
If they had no other recourse, a cavalry charge on good terrain against well trained pikemen would succeed half of the time. After all, even the most experienced of pikemen are susceptible to the terror of a heavy cavalry charge. The ground would shake like an earthquake, they would see the long spears ready to impale them at high speed, and the front rank would know that they will die, even if the charge fails and they're wearing the best armor in the world. A lance with the full weight of horse, man, and armor going at high speeds could go through the heaviest of plate, chainmail, and gambeson layered on top each other.
What really made pikemen effective against a charge was terrain, muddy ground, rivers and hills, or a wooded area would kill a horse's momentum. Or entrenchment, even a simple 1 foot long, wide, and deep hole would cripple horses and send riders flying. But pikemen and cavalry are ill suited to fighting each other, in a one on match up it'd be stupid to have only one. What actually happened was combined arms warfare, cavalry, infantry, archers, engineers, etc. working together would stomp any army that didn't, after all in a rock, paper, scissors game the best move is to play all three at the same time.
However, guns changed this dynamic, they gave a pike formation a similar hitting power to a lance, at range, while not needing as much training as archers. Essentially making pike formations offensive in nature, Cavalry went from the strongest arm of any army, to second place, while eliminating archers altogether. Cavalry wouldn't regain their glory until bayonets made pikes and halberds obsolete, and field artillery became small enough to move fast, allowing cavalry to become more important.
I wouldn't say the Swiss army was inexpensive. They required a large number of very well trained and highly disciplined men. That didn't come cheap, and neither did the services of the Swiss as mercenaries.
13:14 love your job like red sleeves+ granny hat here and you'll never work a day in your life, lol.
You can see the logical progression from this to the Tercio formation later on.
The Mapuche in Chile also used pike formations to counter Spanish cavalry charges. They eventually formed their own cavalry and were able to defeat the Spanish in the field of battle. The Mapuche were never conquered by the Spanish colonists.
brilliantly argued. I get it know. watched the old video and I was like, hmm but what about that or this cav. it's not really about cav or not cav, it's about their importance overall.
Great soud effects
The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield.
The French repeatedly defeated the Flemish (Mons-en-Pévèle (1304), Cassel (1328), Roosebeke (1382), etc.) Courtrai was certainly an exception, not the norm.
English victories in the mid-14th and early 15th centuries (during the Hundred Years' War) owed much to French mistakes. The French launched disorganised cavalry charges without taking into account the terrain, whether muddy, sloping or covered with hedges.
When the French finally stopped messing around, they scored a series of victories that enabled them to drive out the English invaders. For example, a surprise charge led by a few French knights routed the entire English army at Patay (1429): the English knights and mounted troops fled the battlefield, leaving the English archers completely disorganised and harassed by the French cavalry... According to historians, on that day the French lost 3 k.illed and 100 wounded and the English 2,500-4,000 k.illed or captured. Another example is that of the Battle of Formigny (1450): the bombardment by two French light cannons forced the English archers to come out of their defensive position and attack the French (who were outnumbered by the English). However, the Breton cavalry (allied to the French) appeared on the flanks and completely crushed the English, allowing the French to definitively reconquer Normandy.
"The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield."
-Hmm, yeah I agree. I also would like to point out that we don't use these examples to argue that cavalry declined. We included these battles simply because people tend to know and mention those battles. we argue that these battles were won due to circumstances, field fortifications or other specifics. in our view the decline of cavalry !superiority! (not the decline of cavalry) occurred later with the more frequent use of pike squares (due to various factors such as tactical and administrative changes).
@@SandRhomanHistory Thank you for your reply! I really like your channel! 👍
In fact, my comment was mainly aimed at the other commentators (I suspect they're only interested in English victories), because I agree with you about the role of pikemen's squares in mitigating cavalry advantages on the battlefield.
Pretty sure that's exactly what he said in the video?
You cover a lot of "military revolutions" in Europe. Would you consider covering similar military revolutions in China, if there are any?
could you do a video on the Prince of Conde Next?
Just a quick comment from someone fluent in both German and English:
I would submit that a better translation of "Gewalthaufen" would be "hoard/ pile of violence" (a small Haufen, i.e. "Häufchen" is synonymous to dog shit) which still sounds funny to me but can be attributed to flow of language over the years or even a form of psychological warfare.
The words changed over time. Gewalt as in forceful is a more accurate translation given the time and context.
Nice
In 1302, (one of) the first victories of infantry against cavalry happened during a Flemish revolt against the French army.
I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt's library on the topic
Fellow Schwerpunkt enjoyer.
And that kids is how Swiss cheese got its name
How did calvary warfare and/or pike/spearman squares evolve in areas of the world other than the West over the course of history?
It is interesting that in eastern Europe the pike was not used. For example, the romanian countries (Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania) fought especially against the turks, tatars, hungarians and poles. Although some of them had powerful heavy cavalry, the pikes were never used. Besides, in the romanian vocabulary there is no word for pike, only for spear and lance.
There were pikes thou, just not as common as in Western Europe.
Interestingly there is no word specifically for pike in Chinese too, just spear and lance, so pike is just long spear/lance.
Bit weird you mention countries like Transylvania fighting Hungary as it was an actual continuation of the Hungarian kingdom.
8:50
Concise Victory
I know this video is dedicated to the Swiss, but i think it is necesary to mention the Hussites and Hussite/Bohemian/Czech mercrenaries of the second half od he 15th ct when talking about the demise of European cavalry. I believe that there isnt a single instance of cavalry charges defeating them in battle and later on, these soldiers of fortune would find them selves fighing cavalry formations from France to Bulgaria
First, technically, the Hussites were cavalry themselves (or horse infantry), and they fought crusaders who were primarily cavalry. Second, the key innovation of the Hussites was the wagenburg, in which companies would move around in horse-drawn wagons. When threatened, they would arrange the wagons in a square and defend the perimeter while holding the horses in reserve inside the square. When the enemy was repelled, they would exit the square to attack, often pursuing them on horseback.
What's the music playing in the intro?
It's not surprising that this type of infantry formation, which challenged the superiority of chivalry and thus the established order of feudalism, developed first in regions like Switzerland, the Low-Countries and Scotland, where the social organisation was slightly different and more egalitarian.
this reminds me of the pike and arquebus walls of the late medieval era---or something to that extent
Author Peter Darma does a great series about swiss mercenaries.
The “all or nothing” / “bad war” mentality reminds me of the Japanese’s in the Sengoku Jidai period and they, too, were affected by firearms.
I haven't looked it up but as a German I would argue that word by word crowd of force is not the correct translation for Gewalthaufen
In German nouns can be chained together to create new nouns that usually have the same meaning as the nouns they are made of combined
Gewalthaufen is made up of two words the first beeing Gewalt=violence and the secound one Haufen=heap/pile
Crowd of force would be something similar to Kraftmenge. However menge not only refers to a crowd of people, but can also literally be translated to amount and set (as in a set of numbers).
In my oppinion violence-heap captures the meaning of Gewalthaufen a lot better, because it sounds dirty and brutal. This makes sense, since the word literally refers to a heap of lowly born men stabbing an hacking at you with polearms.
Given that the guys behind SandRhoman are german-speaking swiss, I'm sure they have considerd this. As a matter of fact, I do recall that in an older video they did translate Gewalthaufen as heap of violence.
I'm sure they had their reason for translating it differently this time, but it would be interesting to hear about that reason.
Force can be substituted for violence in English.
would agree with your translation. Gewalt=violence and Haufen=heap/pile. Like angry hooligans power 10 in ruthlessness
@@lasnavasdetolosa58 as i commented on another similar comment: the transaltion of haufen to pile and gewalt to violence is modern german not medieval german. in the 15th century those words had different meanings. gewalt meant just force or power much closer to the modern german word "kraft" and haufen was a millitary term meaning unit or troop. I dont agree with translating haufen to crowd as crowd refers to any body of men where as haufen is millitary or paramillitary in nature but it is much closer than pile as pile can be used for objects where as old haufen was only a word describing people. The definitions of those words changed over time probably because of the violence and chaos those terms would be associated with in the 30 years war. but thats just a guess
Last time i checked the Rohan smack Mordor's infantery before the wall of minas tirith
"Gewalthaufen"... I like it. :D
history of Stüssibrunnen, and old Swiss War, please. that statue has unknown sculpture and noone knows why Stüssi deserves one.
Top
You got a little detail wrong. It wasnt the HRE the ones adopting the swiss style first. During the "reconquista", during the capture of granada, the last muslim area in spain, The spanish kings actually hired swiss pikers to fight alon the spanish... and it is here where the whole "new system" of shoot and pike is created. Then it evolves during the next century. Spanish were doing kind of "shoot and pike" tactics already, just with crossbows mostly and some firearms and lances. It is then when spanish switch to pikes not long after. By the time the HRE pikers adopted this system, the spanish units already have been using and developing it for a couple of decades. They dont learn it from the swiss, they learn it from the spanish who at the same time learned the pike part from the swiss.
I like the part where the pikes sent the horsemen to pixelated oblivion :D
You forgot Battle of Aljubarrota were 5000 portuguese and 200 english destroyed 40.000-60.000 mostly cavalary from Spain and France! Was in 1385...
You're right about the battle but the numbers were 6.4k portuguese and 200 english against 29k castillans and 2k french
haha that it's more about the "mañana" attitude than about effectiveness of one kind or other type of formation. The castillans let the 2k french elite cavalry charging alone, uphill and then decide hastely to charge unorganised, at the end of the day without any info.
And the Scottish schiltrons completely neutralized the English heavy cavalry at Bannockburn in 1314.
3:45 that man holding the pike seems very uncomfortable because he has a pike and a big sword in a medium size sword. He would have been fatigued at all times
Knights can still be useful and can still fight even, of there is a pikes, the knights could bring infantry and still be effective
It's not that they are not effetive or even that they couldn't be decisive, it's that they are less decisive. They were still incredably useful but no longer needed for reliable victories.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 did knights use Lance,Sword,Shield and Pistols all-together?
I like the video, altough I think these tactics would work only in western Europe or similiar environment - lots of mountains, dense network of roads and cities, forests, lakes and so on. On the Euroasian steppe, these clunky and slow infantry units wouldn't do jack shit. One of the main strengths of cavalry is their tactic maneuverability and the ability to cover great distances in short time. In the eastern Europe a big deal appears to be the introduction of Wagenburg, started by Czechs in Hussite wars.
I might be completely wrong, I'm not an expert - but I would love to hear from someone who has more knowledge in this field.
Which do you think has a smaller turning radius - a pike formation or charging horses? Open field or not, the only way cavalry comes out ahead is by having an overwhelming advantage of numbers.
@@AlbertaGeek That's a good point - once the pike formations are fully deployed it's going to be difficult to break them. My point was that on the vast open and flat spaces of eastern Europe (today's Poland/Belarus/Ukraine/Russia/maybe Baltics to some degree), the cavarly army could just choose to not engage if the circumstances are not favourable. Instead, this army could go for supply lines, hit-and-run strikes/ambushes or for example attacking the enemy while they're crossing a river. Other option would be trying to outflank or isolate the enemy in a pitched battle. That would be difficult to do in a western European landscape.
Its important to point out that lancers were used and were effective up until the middle 19th century when rifles became standard issued
Primarily for flanking charges and counter cavalry operations, right?
@@scottanos9981 you are correct
I believe it was simply a matter of poor training and discipline that caused infantry to break and route against cavalry. Many historic events say that we'll disciplined infantry who held their grounds and were professional soldiers, almost always beat cavalry using standard tactics, this is true before and after the middle ages, it's just that during that time armies were small and not professional enough. Even poorly trained Hungarian infantry beat gheangis Khan mongols, and varangian vikings beat the byzantine cavalry on foot.... it's just all about training and discipline and it helps to form a square formation as well, something that the Greek and Roman armies both did that we apparently forgot all about until napoleon reintroduced it.
The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield.
The French repeatedly defeated the Flemish (Mons-en-Pévèle (1304), Cassel (1328), Roosebeke (1382), etc.) Courtrai was certainly an exception, not the norm.
English victories in the mid-14th and early 15th centuries (during the Hundred Years' War) owed much to French mistakes. The French launched disorganised cavalry charges without taking into account the terrain, whether muddy, sloping or covered with hedges.
When the French finally stopped messing around, they scored a series of victories that enabled them to drive out the English invaders. For example, a surprise charge led by a few French knights routed the entire English army at Patay (1429): the English knights and mounted troops fled the battlefield, leaving the English archers completely disorganised and harassed by the French cavalry... According to historians, on that day the French lost 3 k.illed and 100 wounded and the English 2,500-4,000 k.illed or captured. Another example is that of the Battle of Formigny (1450): the bombardment by two French light cannons forced the English archers to come out of their defensive position and attack the French (who were outnumbered by the English). However, the Breton cavalry (allied to the French) appeared on the flanks and completely crushed the English, allowing the French to definitively reconquer Normandy.
Guess the phalanx never went away with Alexander and Macedon.