It does make a difference! My grade 8 history teacher used a matador’s sword as a pointer 😂😂

Agreed

Check out Robinsword. Your zweihander wielding librarian.

Absolutely. You can't help but give a man your undivided attention when he pontificates with sword in hand

Albeit period incorrect

Thank you, I try to avoid bias as much as possible. Though in this case, I am part Scottish as well and ancestors of mine fought for Robert the Bruce, so I think that knowledge helps add to my relative neutrality.

@@scholagladiatoriabattle of culloden was the last battle truly between Scotland and England

@@vatsal7640 in a way it was if the jacobites won it could have meant Scottish independence

​@@lozloz7418 You've got it wrong. It wasnt a case of England v Scotland. Read a book and get your Scots ill informed heed oot ya arse. 🌼

@@lozloz7418 the Jacobite rebellions were not England v Scotland they were civil wars. More Englishmen rose for the Stuarts in 1716 than they did in Scotland, especially in the Catholic North, Tynedale in Northumberland alone raised 10,000 men. There were more Scots on the Government Army at Culloden than there were in the Jacobite army and some of the most zealous and vicious officers who enforced the King's writ in the Highlands after the '45 were Scots, especially a notorious frigate captain who happily hanged anyone with a pocket knife let alone a broadsword and dirk.

As someone half English half Scottish I do sometimes wonder why missile troops weren't a bigger priority until the civil war, you would think crossbows could be mass production at least.

@@riverraven7359 crossbows were popular in the 16th C in the Borders. Longbows dropped out of use by all but professional soldiers by 1513, in previous centuries men on both sides of the border trained in archery every Sunday, as the proscriptions against football by English and Scottish Kings demonstrate. By 1513, certainly in Scotland, weak government prior to James IV had removed such controls and the Scots didn't have the archers. Much of Surrey's army was semi pro/ most of James's was the traditional Scottish levy with some warlike Highlanders and Border Reivers interposed. James ultimately failed his nation (I am a Scot with Scottish, English, French and Norse ancestry) and put Scotland back 100 years with the Flodden defeat,. He put far too much faith in technology - swiss pikes, cannon, Europe's largest warship and as a renaissance man, thought that technology would win through. Problem was the implementation of he technology: attempting to train Scottish levies in Swiss mercenary tactics, insisting on pikes over bills resulted in a shortage of suitable seasoned poles so green wood was used, and sliced through by the English bill. He didn't have to fight this war, his previous relationship with Henry had been good, hell he was happily married to his sister. He spent his reign modernising Scotland, in getting control over the recalcitrant nobility, and he threw it all away. Surrey gave him a short very sharp and fatal lesson in the real life of the hand to hand battlefield.

Excellent. And yes, I thought of the boggy ground around Waterloo too the instant you mentioned it. There's too little done on the Battle of Sluys, which I believe is so critically important not just for Edward III but for the entire 100 years war.

You'll love Scottish history tours with Bruce fummey then

There's always so many fine details in major defeats and routs to unpack when you get in them, especially the unexpected defeats. Pop history simplifying the causes the super-generals or wunderwaffe or Our Fine Lads really do history a disservice.

Scotland, uh, finds a way

@kingmaker2865: He was pretty typical. Over time, his interests shifted just like those of a lot of nobles did. Most of them were all about what they saw as the long term interests of the family and the well being of their heirs, not settling scores. Unless the two things coincided.

Typical of time. Quite likely barely knew his father. Policies and alliances followed as convenient for individual at the time

@@harryflashman3141 Flashey, Old Boy, how the devil are you? How's Elsbeth and that old fraud Morrison? 😁

The largest guns James had at Flodden were 5 of "the seven sisters" - bronze guns cast in 1500 for the half moon battery at Edinburgh Castle. They were smaller than Mons Meg. A further 12 large guns followed, 2 culverins (probably the other 2 Edinburgh guns), 6 demi-culverins, and 4 sakers. The Scottish forces did successfully use them in defeating border castles before Flodden. The culverins, demi-culverins and sakers are the same as naval guns of the era - as were the English guns, just smaller. Incidently, the newly built English warship Mary Rose was involved in the battle indirectly - she disembarked Thomas Howard and 1000 troops at Newcastle. It is possible some of her smaller cannon were used by these troops.

The thing to remember is the Scots pike units weren't heavily armoured, unlike a Civil war pike block they were extremely vulnerable to arrows.

@@riverraven7359 they were also very poorly trained, 2 weeks on Bruntsfield Links south of Edinburgh. Bruce's schiltrons were famously obsessively drilled and trained, the European professional armies of pikemen were highly trained. James was obsessed with technology and believed it would triumph - he was right in theory but sorely lacking in the deployment of. Surrey, a wily old medieval commander, gave him a sharp reminder in the imperatives of hand to hand fighting.

​@@HarryFlashmanVCYes, it's always interesting to see the parallels between battles even across centuries and notice the similarities in circumstances.

Highlander here 😁 there's little evidence that the bows used by my ancestors were akin to the war bows of the English, Welsh and Scottish Lowlands. If you look at the accounts of contemporary Highland Battles, e.g. the Battle of Bloody Bay, a civil war fought between the Macdonalds for control of the Lordship of the Isles. This was a naval engagement just off the coast of Mull about 1 mile north of Tobermory, between 1480 and 1483. They don't mention bows or archery as a significant force. Missile weapons would likely have been stones and spears I suspect this has something to do with the climate which is very very damp, more so than Wales even. I lived in Argyll for many years, the sheet amount of rain can be astonishing. As well as mists, sea fogs and haars.. it is dreecht... now, the thing about longbows and, indeed any bow prior to the development of polymers, is thatctyey hate the damp. Horsehair bow strings are difficult to keep dry, longbow Archers would typically carry several and keep them under their hats to keep them dry. So that's the first point. The second point is that in order to use a warbow you have to train, all the time. All over England , Wales and Lowland Scotland we have ample archaeological physical evidence of archery butts, but they are non existent in the Highlands and Islands. Also by 1513, the previous onus on village archery that had fuelled the success of English feudal armies had petty much ceased. As Matt says the English Army at Flodden likely had a solid core of Professional soldiers and professional Archers had been part of the permanent Royal soldiery for at least 200 years by Flodden. The English army would also have comprised the mosstroopers of the Scottish Border who were semi permanent garrison soldiers based at Carlisle, Newcastle and Hexham the local levy in both sides of the border would have comprised men who were well used to battle. The Anglo Scottish border in the 16th C was a lawless place akin to the Northwest Frontier of India. The Reiving families were akin to the Pathans of the Khyber pass, ruled over by warlords like Kilmont Willie Armstrong and Andro Kerr. These families often had stronger allegiances with their neighbours and relatives over the border than they did to their monarch. There are frequent incidents when national battles were fought between Scotland and England of the Borders contingents drawing off and socialising waiting for the result when they would descend on the losers like a pack of jackles for looting. Attempts to stop them would be futile, mounted on tough garrons bred for the hilly and boggy moorland of the borders, knowing the backroads and woods they would disappear into country. There were several Royal attempts from London and Edinburgh, often coordinated, to stamp out the Reivers, James VI and I when James VI famously surrounded Selkirj during a fair day, seized all suspected Reivers, about 70 of them and extrajudicially drowned them in the river... bows weren't a huge feature of the Reivers, the dedication involved probably didn't fit well with rhe lifestyle of a robber tribe, the lance, crossbow and rapier/backsword being the equipment of the 16th C with a morion, steel breastplate and woolen cloak to keep of the perpetual rain. Read The Steel Bonnets by George Macdonald Fraser. If the Highlanders had bows at Flodden they would not have been the war bows of the type found in the wreck of the Mary Rose

Indeed!

Was 'hobelar' a contemporary term for mounted infantry too?

@@scholagladiatoria Are they the same as hobelards or is it another weapon, crossbowmen on horses, possibly?

Yes this is a really important element of the battle. In many ways the Scottish army was superior on paper, but it's a good example of how an effective doctrine can fall apart in the wrong situation and without adequate experience and training.

@chrisgibson5267: Thanks for posting this detailed information. I've read similar things about the weaknesses of the Scots army elsewhere. The new style pike tactics were not directly interchangeable with traditional Scottish ways the formations were different from one another and the pikes longer and more unwieldy. It seems that King James was too eager to field test the investments he made in his army to see if he was getting his money's worth.

Yes I have seen it, but don't want to cite it without having seen the reports (which I haven't). I do vaguely know Tony Pollard, so should probably try and get him on the channel at some point.

@@scholagladiatoria Probably wise, though I think it could be interesting reading on this subject. PS Love this format. As an aside, it’s interesting to see that longbows were still such an important weapon, especially if we consider the research carried out by Todd’s Workshop which tends to lead to a conclusion that it had lost it’s potency as a weapon system 200 years earlier, though it’s effectiveness at the battle of Towton tends to discount this theory

@@wyverncoch4430 I think you are misunderstanding the conclusion from Todd. Just because arrows cannot go through plate, does not mean they are ineffective as weapons. In many sources, arrows from both crossbows and longbows say that they find their way into the gaps. The victory at Flodden was arguably in spite of the use of the longbow, instead of because. The men who suffered the most at Towton were not well armored. However, against groups of handgunners (harquebusiers, callivermen, and musketeers), the longbow suffers. The harquebus is more accurate, longer ranged, allows one to shoot from cover more easily, can carry more ammo, and is more instantly lethal. (Sources: Blaize de Montluc, Robert Barret, Barwick Humfrey, Barnabe Rich, Qi Jiguang, Miyamoto Musashi, Guilliaume du Bellay) The English kept the longbow into the 16th century due to a lack of funds to train handgunners, a focus on their navy, a lack of industry to support handgunners, and the mythologization of the longbowmen at Agincourt.

Thank you too!

Hello fellow Howard.

@@jackhoward6699 Cousin Jack? Glad to hear from another Howard. There are, it seems, millions of them I've never met. Where do you hail from? The UK, or US or elsewhere? Mark Howard

My family come from this neck of the woods. I still live in manchester.

I hate to discount an author based on "just cuz", but John Smythe was very much someone who had no idea what he was talking about. I also don't think he fought in a war. Machiavelli's views on how to beat pikemen are also dubious IIRC (same with Pietro Monte's. They probably both misunderstood how the Romans beat the Greek pikes). By the mid 16th century, short weapons were very much in decline amongst the pikes. By the end of the 15th century, the Swiss also knew this, going from sometimes up to 50% of the men armed with polearms using halberds, to being "relatively" few in the early 16th. "Gent. Why, would you not allow short weapon in the field? Capt. Truly no, not many, yet would I not exclude them all. For I know them necessarie for many peeces of seruice; as to performe executiō if the enemie break, or flie; to mingle with shot to back them if neede be; to passe with Conuoyes, & to stand by your Artillerie; to creepe along trenches, and enter into mynes, where the Pike would be ouerlong; but best for the myne or breach is the Target of prooffe, short sword, and Pistoll: but for the plaine field, neither blacke bill, Halbard, nor Partizan comparable to the Pike." - Robert Barret

@@Red-jl7jj Smythe had a lot of military experience, as did Raimond de Fourquevaux. Smythe definitely knew what he was talking about & was familiar with at least some of the Spanish military thought of the day. (He knew Spanish & had been ambassador to Spain.) He doesn't mean he or Fourquevaux were correct, but they had the credentials. 16th-century military writers had a wide range of opinions. Certainly the number of short weapons generally went down over the course of the 16th century. So did the likelihood of extended infantry contests where such weapons were at their best. Humphrey Barwick described this clearly. Firearms made long slugfests with hand weapons less common. In less intense & extended close combat between infantry, it makes sense to favor pikes. Most everyone agreed that pikes were the best at first in a fight between heavy infantry. Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, Smythe, & others thought that short weapons would have the advantage in a long contest between heavy infantry. This is very plausible because of the difficulty in using a 16-18ft weapon in the tight press of battle. My conclusion is the Machiavelli & company were right about short weapons given odds in specific circumstances but that it wasn't necessarily worthwhile to optimize armies for the unpleasant scenario of infantry slugfests. Pikers were more generally useful for fending off cavalry & overrunning infantry not willing to make a mess of things.

@@benjaminabbott4705 Not to strawman, Smythe thought that handguns would miss by a breadth of a trench past 30 paces. He believes longbowmen do not need pikemen to defend them. I thought Humfrey Barwick explicitly explains the superiority of the pike? The fact that the Swiss and Landsknecht both used fewer halberds in the early 16th century despite frequently fighting in a press does not support the idea that pikes are better when pell mells are shorter and fewer. Fourqurvaux or Bellay say that the dagger is the weapon for the press as well I thought

Longbows were still a very effective, accurate and efficient weapon in this period; they were still a superior, hand-held range weapon, when compared to most muskets, upto the 17th century. Their biggest 'downside' was the time and training/practice required to be skilled in their use, when compared to early handguns/muskets.

Henry VIII's primary missile weapon for infantry in 1545 still seems to have been the longbow, and all the way back in 1513 that seems to have been even more the case. I get the impression that in 1513 the English were pretty behind the curve in artillery use also, and didn't really catch up with their neighbours until the next decade or two.

@@MrVuvuzaala Robert Barret, Barnabe Rich, Humfrey Barwick, and Blaize de Montluc would all disagree. The first three all state that handguns are more accurate, more lethal, and longer ranged (Montluc also says the last) than longbows. Contemporaries in China and Korea also state that handguns were more accurate and longer ranged than the bow. Both the Italians and English outright state that the longbow is good for untrained men, and the French and Burgundians both used longbows despite having anywhere near the extensive laws for training that the English had. In fact, many authors (including du Bellay) say that the gun should NOT be given to inexperienced and not well trained men, as their fire will be useless. Likewise, many arguments presented by John Smythe, Robert Barret, Barnabe Rich, and Humfrey Barwick state that the handgun requires extensive training, otherwise he will do more harm to himself than to the enemy. John Smythe even uses this argument to show why the longbow should still be in use (though it is easier to be more accurate with the handgun than the bow, especially on the parade ground, that's hardly the only thing a handgunner must do). Ignoring these authors, which you may via saying that they were later, except for Blaize de Montluc and du Bellay (though there were no significant advances for handguns in the 16th century that affect their range and accuracy by the footmen, aside from some being bigger, and the bigger ones being in greater use), the GREATER amount of training and drilling in the late 15th and 16th centuries contradict the idea that guns would be in greater use DUE to being easier to use. The longbow was almost certainly used by the English in the 16th century because of a lack of funds and a lack of industry to support them (unlike with the longbow, which had been in use for centuries). Though a certain national pride was also a reason they stayed in use for so long, with the Tudors mythologizing the longbowmen at Agincourt (every man carrying a bow and lead mallet sort of stuff). The laws that the English enacted enabled the longbowmen to be more uniformly competent, as compared to the Franc Archers (who did not all use bows, but they still used them) of France or the Burgundian longbowmen, who were plagued by some companies being very incompetent. Those who were best with the longbow would probably have a natural tendency to want to fight with it. Conclusion: This is not to say that the longbow is a poor weapon, or that the longbowmen were ineffective, but compared to guns and handgunners, they were. Every victory won by longbowmen over musketeers was won IN SPITE of the longbow being used, not because of it. "Being return’d to the Fort of Outreau; there was hardly a day past that the English did not come to tickle us upon the descent towards the Sea, and would commonly brave our people up to our very Canon, which was within ten or twelve paces of the Fort: and we were all abus’d by what we had heard our Predecessors say, that one English man would always beat two French men, and that the English would never run away, nor never yield. I had retain’d something of the Camisado of Bullen, and of the business of Oye; and therefore said one day to Mousieur de Tais, that I would discover to him the mystery of the English, and wherefore they were reputed so hardy: which was, that they all carried arms of little reach, and therefore were necessitated to come up close to us to loose their arrows, which otherwise would do no execution; whereas we who were accustomed to fire our Harquebuzes at a great distance, seeing the Enemy use another manner of sight, thought these near approaches of theirs very strange, imputing their running on at this confident rate to absolute bravery: but I will lay them an Ambuscado, and then you shall see if I am in the right or no, and whether a Gascon be not as good as an English-man. In antient time their Fathers and ours were neighbours." - Blaize de Montluc

@@scholagladiatoria France was still using crossbows over handguns until crossbows were effectively replaced around ~1530 (Blaize de Montluc says that there were not many harquebuses around ~1520 in all of France), with some mentions of crossbowmen by du Bellay during the 1530s (Turin at 1536 is one example, though he seemed to be one of very few crossbowmen if not the only French crossbowman). France, although whole-heartedly adopting the pike before the English, had rather poor infantry during the late 15th century and early 16th century, having to rely on Gascon and Swiss soldiers. Arguably, infantry wise, France and England were equal or near equals, unless you count the Gascon and Swiss mercenaries.

I will! I admit that I know nothing about it currently.