Swiss Mercenaries: The End of Cavalry Superiority in the Late Middle Ages
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 KZhead, 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!
Growing up in Switzerland, our teacher taught us a lot about Swiss History from 1291 onwards and emphasized the importance of the Swiss infantry
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.
"mounting challenges" We hear what you did there.
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.
It was looking into swiss mercenaries that led me to your channel, glad to see you revisiting them:)
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 😅
This was superb. The best explanation I have come across. This channel is a bit of a gem. Please tell me more..........
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent documentary, I always learn something.
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.
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".
3:30 From modern German, "Gewalthaufen" would translate to "heap of violence" which I think is funnier
"[...] that cavalry would face mounting challenges." Nice one!
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
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.
This is my favorite video from this channel in quite a while. Really excellent.
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.
Yesss! The staggering return of early modern era warfare!
lmfao at the painting at 9:15 of the dog running away with the Burgundians
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
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.
Such interesting topic and amazing quality production, as always
Such a good video, the knowledge is pouring out of you. I'll surely check more of the videos. Thanks.
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..
good stuff, glad to see a better version of the video!
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
Another excellently researched, fantastic video, thank you!
Thank you channel for sharing interesting and interesting historical information
Fantastic subject for a video. Good to see it covered.
You forgot to mention those legendary Swiss mercenary units: The Swiss Cheese The Swiss Chocolate And most infamously, the Swiss Army Knives
Those horses @12:50
hahaha how funny does that look
Gewalthaufen translates also to pille of vilence or heap of vilence And that sounds rad
Excellent work !
Mounted Winged Hussars drank Red Bull because it gives you Wings.
Love the return to covering this era!
nice video like always
I think ViolenceHeap or ViolenceMob captures Gewalthaufen better as a literal translation.
"...cavalry would face mounting challenges..."
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.
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.
It was really interesting to watch this movie. A lot of information indeed
Why so many trolls in the comments??? Sheesh! Swiss were extremely effective vs cavalry and many other troop types on several occasions.
Thank you for making these. Please don't listen to what the haters say. I love your videos and they're very informative!
Love these
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)
Excellent analysis.
Masterpiece video
You can see the logical progression from this to the Tercio formation later on.
Great video
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.
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?
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?
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.
Amazing
I'll love if you could make (a video of) a list of movies with realistic battles
Later the Swiss figured out it was safer to refine their skills in Banking. Lol.
Not refine, they become more ruthless and brutal, the mercenary gig wasn't longer enough so, bankers it is.
also chocolate.
@@Coover90210and Ricola 😊
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.
Great soud effects
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.
TLDR: Europe forgot that long sharp pointy stick good for fighting. Que roughly 1500 years of almost comical ineptitude.
>End of cavalry superiority Poles: we don't do it here.
We remember, in September
@@dragonmyballsz268 🤗
For the algorithm excellent video
13:14 love your job like red sleeves+ granny hat here and you'll never work a day in your life, lol.
What's the music playing in the intro?
The swiss were simple mercenaries all over Europe and they didnt get nothing with this or other strategies. However Gonzalo de Cordoba "El Gran Capitan" organized the army in Tercios for the Aragon army (later Spanish army) in italy, conquering this territory and creating the most succesful army in Europe during the Spanish domination with Carlos I and Felipe II. Having victories against french, germans, dutchs, italians and english.
You cover a lot of "military revolutions" in Europe. Would you consider covering similar military revolutions in China, if there are any?
I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt's library on the topic
Fellow Schwerpunkt enjoyer.
And that kids is how Swiss cheese got its name
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 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.
Last time i checked the Rohan smack Mordor's infantery before the wall of minas tirith
1:12 “In the 14th century, it was anything but obvious that cavalry faced mounting challenges” 😆
Nice
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
could you do a video on the Prince of Conde Next?
Are there any examples of gendarmes defeating a "modern" pike square?
What do you mean by modern pike square? The Swiss pike squares were defeated in the italian wars by french gendarme. Although never routed by gendarmes, other pikes were but to my knowledge all Swiss pikes were able to retreat in fairly good order when defeated by gendarmes.
Rocroi perhaps?
Marignano 1515
8:50 Concise Victory
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.
The end of cavaliers superiority was the Spanish tercios , pike plus arcabuz , Pavia was a total victory becuse it , also in bicoca the Swiss’s mercenary’s were totally destroyed from Spanish arcabucero with 0 casualties..
How did calvary warfare and/or pike/spearman squares evolve in areas of the world other than the West over the course of history?
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.
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.
This feels to me as a re-implimentation of the classic phalanx, with history repeating itself in a way. Philip's/Alexander's armies all but obsoleted chariots. And they too ended up with spear vs spear combat, against Greek hoplites (at Issus for example). Difference is that both the Macedonian phalanx and the Greek hoplites (mercenaries) were professional soldiers, not farmers. And that cavalery was not nearly as 'heavy' at that point.
The greek phalanx was a fairly unweildy and slow moving formation reliant on effective cavalry to cover its flanks and end engagements. The swiss were a pure infantry force which used pike squares as the mobile decisive shock units. Very different doctrine and roles.
What I cannot understand in this method I see here (and Napoleon that I just watched) that, why werent those formation / squares answered with their ultimate weakness : fire ! Using firebombs or burning anti infantry artillery were nothing new but Napoleon and many others struggled against that ancient tactic ?...
When did Napoleon struggle against this?
@@Sklb its in the movie, I'm no expert but its in waterloo, so many precious souls lost because of it...
Because firebombs are dangerous to keep around, somewhat expensive compared to that much more food. Also, probably people didnt want to burn people alive, and didnt want to be seen throwing one in case they were captured. Finally, and most importantly, fire creates smoke and spreads, obscuring the battlefield, landmarks, forcing units to split up and restricts mobility, causes lung problems(especially for horses), and can grow out of control. Camps may not be that far from a battlefield, who wants to burn up your camp? Who wants to be responsible for unintentionally causing a wildfire?
@@muratakcan1299firebombs weren't used at that battle(firebombs are for sieges) and the fire is influenced by the wind like WW1 gas attacks and therefore can go towards your own troops. Also a better movie to get an understanding of the battle of Waterloo is the movie Waterloo
@@JayJet53 welp time to find a time travel device
Guess the phalanx never went away with Alexander and Macedon.
8:35 question. Why didn't the cannon splatter the pike squares?
Because the Swiss did not flee and remained in formation. When Charle sent his cavalry he thought he had disrupted the formation but his horsemen found themselves impaled on an impeccable formation. Basically the Swiss always closed ranks when there were losses due to the cannon. And they didn't stay still in front of the cannons without moving. And they were also high up on a hill that was harder to reach.
@@VladTepes1er Cannon ball is not explosive. It just tears limbs off directionally
@@teemum.9023 Yes, but what does that change what I said? I'm not talking about an explosion. I say that the Swiss when the cannon was causing damage in the formation they filled the holes to always keep a solid formation.
@@teemum.9023 Oh and the Swiss attacked when Charle was maneuvering with his cannons. So when they charged they weren't mown down by the cannons
@@VladTepes1er That was some ineffective artillery
Question: How did the Ottoman military dealt with such thing as pike-and-shot formation?
from what i've learned from the Osprey publishing books on the period, it was that the Ottomans used a very different approach. their infantry was pretty much only ranged, meaning a unit of X ottomans against a unit of X westerners had fire superiority. on the cavalry front, they brought more (and arguably better?) cavalry than most westerners. their infantry didnt have to worry about protection from cavalry (through pikes etc) as it was their cavalry's job to protect the infantry from the enemy cavalry. so, to sum up, their infantry could (theoretically) win every straight up firefight against a mixed pike&shotte unit and their cavalry could (theoretically) handle the enemy cavalry. of course, in the grand scheme of things, the ottomans didnt usually fight against pike&shote armies, they fought against Poland, Hungary, Romania and the border regions of Austria. all of these places didnt exactly use pike&shotte in the same way western europeans did. i hope my answer helped, i did quite a lot of research on this because i had the same question as you do
@@apokos8871 Thank you for the answer. It was satisfactory!
Ottomans were at that time also leading in artillery. Not good for big closed formations...
Most important is probably that the Ottomans almost always have superior numbers and had the money for a properly equiped army. Yeah they foughed against non small nations but those battles were always far away from friendly territory for those nations what hardly ever works well.
Swiss here. Know im no linguist and dont know where Gewalt as a word comes from. But today you would translate Gewalthaufen as heap of violence. Gewalt meaning violence.
klar, aber ein Haufen im Mittelalter bedeute schon was anderes. Haufen wurde benutzt, um militärische Einheiten zu benennen. Die Bedeutung des Wortes hat sich halt im Verlaufe der Zeit geändert.
@@SandRhomanHistoryso.... WarBand ?
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.
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?
if not for canons those tightknit units would be invincible still
No man not at all, even without artillery these formations would have become obsolete, just with the development of breach loading rifles and machine guns they would have stopped using tightly packed formations, in fact armies didn’t stop using line formations because of artillery but because of the new rifles such as in the Brothers war between Austrian empire and Prussia
@@niccolocaramori7288no it was artillery too, like in the brothers war
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
"Gewaltshaufen" literal translation would be "Crowd of Violence" not "Crowd of Force" Violence = Gewalt Force = Kraft If we want to be pendantic I'd say a "Haufen" is more a "clump" not a "crowd"
If we really want to be pedantic, we would correctly spell pedantic.