consider me exited for the next video!

The next video is about diu?

You should really make a couple more videos about the advancement of warfare and all after the Spanish Tercios. I would personally really like to see a separate video on the whole Swedish Carolean Tactics and such, as from what I understand, they were kind of the first proper forms of what we know as line infantry tactics of the 1700s and 1800s. Though I could be slightly wrong, as I'm not a complete expert on those periods.

ha! i was a bit confused. I was an early backer of the channel but had to cease due to financial constrains. Glad to have helped anyways. Not sure how i feel about warfare in India, but let''s hope for a pleasant suprise.

the video on India is already up on the channel! @@ArtilleryAffictionado1648

Your assessment is completely correct, although we must not leave behind the Catholic Monarchs, who were the ones who made the first reforms that modernized the Spanish army (especially with their determination to make a large production of firearms), giving the tools to Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (the Great Captain) to create the rules and tactics, which would lay the foundations of Modern Warfare. Unfortunately, current historiography wrongly attributes the authorship of the invention of Modern Warfare to simple reformers of its tactics, such as Maurice of Nassau and Gustav Adolf II of Sweden, who only tweaked the method that Gonzalo established with his Coronelias and then it evolved into the well-known Spanish Tercios.

​@@IsaacRaiCastilloEso es en los países protestantes antiespañoles. Aquí valoramos al Gran Capitán como se merece

Indeed. Culturally, the Golden Century of Spain was the 17th.

Pike and shot warfare was utterly useless against the staggered firing lines of Algonquin woodlands nations. Prompting the creation of Rogers Rangers in King Phillips War 1676

Tecnicaly speaking the english did not surpass the spanish on sea, it was the dutch the ones who defeated Spain on sea in the last years of the Thirty Years War. The english were defeated by the spanish in the XVIII century in the War of the Jenkings Ear and suffered a lot during the War of American Independence against Spain and France, and did not really dominate the seas until the end of the XVIII century and early XIX century, during the Napoleonic Wars.

Giving your country praise for slaughtering tribes like the Inca and Aztecs. Especially what your country did to the icans. Shame

​"By the way, would the primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Mayan warriors of the ancient Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Mesoamerica go up,👆 against the late 15th century to early 16th century renaissance,🎨 👤 Habsburg,👑 Spanish,🇪🇸 tercios gunpowder,🔫 cavalry,🏇artillery,🔫 pike and shot formations on horseback,🏇 of an English,🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 standard thoroughbred horses,🐴 wearing Southern German,🇩🇪 Gothic plate,🍽 armor and chainmail,🔗⛓ for protection from the primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉age ancient mesoamerican indigenous tribal weapons,🔫 in the cold,❄wet, 💦 dense jungle and rainforest,🌴 alongside the hot,🔥 and humid desert,🏜 of Ancient Mexico,🇲🇽 in the year of fifteen hundred twenty-one, during the age of exploration,🔭 of the new world,🗺 in the year of fourteen hundred ninety-two to the year of fifteen hundred sixty-five?"

I'm trying to figure out in which accent I should read "Pike and shotte". Just a joke, cheers friend.

@@GrandMoffTarkinsTeaDispenser Try for Scottish while failing and sounding more Irish.

feel you bro

There are pike and shot units in Medieval 2 and there are mods that focus on this. Not a proper game but the next best thing.

Age of Empires III

​@@zsx782Spanish, Dutch and Swedish players seeing Japanese players:"You are one of us but in Asian Versions"

It would be perfect; especially considering the use of the game engine to produce King and General's like videos.

80% of the Slavics, at least former Yugoslavians, need six months and a dictionary to learn Spanish well. The other 20% don't need the dictionary. I'm a teacher of Spanish myself and I can testify.😉

Among the Latin languages, Spanish is among the two most easy to learn, next to Italian. People say English is easiest, but that's only because of the lack of varied conjugation. Grammar is very straightforward in Spanish, in my opinion.

Iam Soanish learn Soanish is not dificult when you.learn something the rest will come easily and you will be one of 600 million Spanish speakers around in the world; the second native most soeaking after Chinese and the second after English more global ; bienvenido!! ( welcome)

@@AlejandroLopez-ed8kj I am Serbian so six months you say. Lets do it then. Also thank you all for the kind words and support.

Buena suerte!

Thats wrong, its called 'Tercio de la Legion' , no foreignera

@@mcrulas6576 sorry, but you are wrong here. When the Spanish Legion was created in 1920 its official name was 'Tercio de Extranjeros'. Later changed to 'Tercio de Marruecos' and then to 'Legión', but people usually referred to It as 'el Tercio'. Please check your sources before making a categoric statement.

plus there's the verb 'giñar', which has a totally different meaning...

That wouldn't have been considered particularly weird, because it was a part of medieval thought that if one becomes too proud God will in one way or another strike one down, and no matter how mighty one is, one should always be humble in front of the random forces of the World (described during the time as the intricate plans of God). Take this as an example, from the Castillian law code Siete Partidas from mid-1200's which was extremely influental throughout Latin Europe, wherein a chapter is related to what squires should contemplate during their knighting ceremony: "He should bear in mind that God has authority over all things, and can manifest it whoever He desires to do so, and that this is especially the case with regard to deeds of arms; for in his hand are life and death, the power to give and to take, and he can cause the weak to be strong and the strong to be weak. When he has made this prayer, he must remain upon his knees as long as he can endure it, while all the others stand; for the vigils of knights were not instituted as games, or for any other purpose but that they and the others present may ask God to preserve, direct, and assist them, as men who are entering upon a career of death."

Skill issue

Oda Nobunaga:"Ashigaru is the weakest Infantry that destroy whole Takeda Calvary"

​@Osvath97 that comment went hard.

Sus comment 💀

Then horses were mostly replaced with vehicles and pikes were instead a fence stuck into the ground used to pop tires and get caught between treads.

Technically, war didn't change much even after linear warfare. Pikes were cut down only because muskets all had socket bayonets, which allowed them to fulfill a dual role without comprising the ability to shoot. However, infantry could still charge in pell-mell as if in the age of pike and shot. Rather than harquebusiers and the like on horseback, you had carabiniers which still fulfilled the same roles, or dragoons capable of shooting both mounted and dismounted. The concept of how cavalry charged remained the very same: concentrate a mass with reserves to exploit gaps or disordered formations. In terms of army-level tactics, not small-scale tactics, the changes were even less pronounced. There still remained the core tactics which carried on even until the postmodern era of warfare. Hit the enemy on both flanks to draw their attention there, then mass a concentration of force to breakthrough the center. Refuse a weak flank while advancing with the other flank to roll up the enemy line. Attack both flanks in order to turn them and achieve a double envelopment. There's more than just these few, but they can be replicated with current day infantry squads as they could in lines back then or deep columns in medieval/ancient times. Operationally and strategically, war has seldom changed at all, with the only real thing that has changed being scale of application, yet the underlying concepts remain the same. Cut the enemy's lines of communications and destroy their base(s) of supplies. Establish efficient lines of communications for your own army to facilitate the transportation of supplies to the front. Manoeuvre-wise, the basic concepts of army-level tactics are brought to greater scale on the operational level. For instance, in the Roman Civil War, Caesar invaded Italia first, cutting the Pompeians into three divided sections and seizing the central position. This allowed him to swing west on Hispania, swing east on Makedonia, then swing south on Africa to defeat each in detail while preventing them from offering mutual support to one another. This was perhaps the first usage of the central position and interior lines on such a massive scale. In his Samarkand Campaign, Chinggis Khan drew the attention of the Khwarezmians on the border with one army while he led another army on a manoeuvre to the rear via an inhospitable desert to appear at their rear, cutting their communications with the rest of their empire and encircling the bulk of the Khwarezmian regular army. In his Marengo Campaign of 1800, Napoleon did very much the same thing. By making feints against the enemy left and right along various mountain passages, he drew their attention to those flanks, then he broke through the center with 51,400 men and manoeuvred to the rear of the Austrian army of Melas. The Austrians, some 86,000 strong, were cut in half, with 34,000 ending up encircled (plus an additional 15,000 Piedmontese still mobilizing). After the victory at the Battle of Marengo, he was able to draw up concessions with Melas and neutralize 49,000 enemies in one of the boldest campaigns in history (this is what I consider the proto-Ulm, his experiment before 1805). In WWII, the Allies were sure that the Ardennes Forest would present a significant obstacle to the passage of Axis forces, just as the Khwarezmians were sure that the desert would protect them from the Mongols. Their beliefs were dashed when the enemy broke through the center of their line, cutting the Allied army in half and neutralizing 400,000 at Dunkirk in the year 1940. The bulk escaped, but they were essentially removed from the French front, causing its collapse. In 2022, in their Kharkiv Counteroffensive, the Ukrainians pinned the Russian flanks before amassing a significant concentration of force to breakthrough the enemy center, cutting their army in half and forcing a precipitous withdrawal of the invaders. As you can see, the heart of warfare still remains the same. I'm sure that, for the great captains of history, if they are taught a few of the differences in more modern warfare, they would be able to easily adapt to the situation and perform rather well as generals still.

Stationary fortifications were used for millennia; temporary as well as permanent (for example, archers put stakes in the ground to defend against cavalry if they could). The main difference with WW1 was the unprecedented scale - Europe has been slowly climbing towards Roman levels of field troops over centuries, and then quite suddenly, leapt and bound straight over them. Logistics vastly improved, allowing ridiculously large armies to be supported "indefinitely" (of course, by the time the Germans were defeated in WW1, they had long been under horrific logistical pressures they couldn't possibly keep up with). I'd say that's the biggest difference, overall. In older European wars, armies necessarily had huge focus on manoeuvre - the "map" was gigantic compared to what armies could actually control; control was mainly about holding important strongpoints - cities, castles, ports. That was quite enough, because the main forces of the enemy armies could not possibly support themselves without them, and they were fairly fixed (raiding parties could of course go beyond such logistics for a time and could inflict damage to the countryside, but they couldn't force any decisive battle, obviously). In WW1, armies managed to grow so large they actually could maintain a trench line across (a relatively thin portion, but still) Europe - and the logistics to support them could be brought to bear thanks to railways which can pretty much be built wherever you want to get access to the full logistical power of your nation (and your allies). You can really see this in how war changed throughout and since WW1 - the same problem with massive concentrated firepower remained, but one of the ways to combat this has been the _dispersion_ of the defenders. WW1 trench lines had a lot higher concentration of soldiers. But it still works without such massive trench lines, because you still block enemy logistics - they simply can't afford to send their armies, no matter how strong, too far from solid logistic base. As long as you can keep disrupting their supply lines, they have to maintain virtual "lines" anyway, even if they aren't constrained by an opposing trench line. And needless to say, _existing_ roads, rails, bridges and rivers are still absolutely crucial, and are much easier to assault than to defend. This wasn't a problem for defence on the Western front of WW1 much, because of those trench lines with purposefully built logistic backing straight against the back of the lines on both sides... but even in WW1 in the West, it became painfully obvious when you tried to actually take the land you fought over - as you moved over the no man's land, you lost support from your logistics and artillery, while the enemy was in a much _stronger_ position than before. People really like the meme of the inept WW1 general sending their troops into the meatgrinder against enemy artillery and machine gun fire to be slaughtered, but most generals weren't Cadorna. In fact, most assaults had a _favourable_ kills:losses ratio in the assault phase - that only turned around after they took hold of the positions and the counter-attack came. Which of course led to the attrition tactics of forcing a successful assault at a favourable ratio... only to immediately retreat before the counter-attack arrived, not even trying to hold ground. Ah, as you can see, the problem with WW1 (and modern warfare) is that even just looking at a very small part of a war... you can easily create tens of hours of meaningful content :D These things are huge and complicated.

The russians clearly dont think open battles are outdated

macedonian? alexander the GREAT?

@@judask13 Ding ding ding... we have a winner.

And might of had a name like Phillip, and a son Alexander

it's awesome. the movie got some awards for the custome design, if memory serves right. definitely looks very cool and one of the few movies focusing on this time period.

lmao same, though it makes me wonder a lot of the time whether he is saying a word properly or if it has a heavy accent on it

​@@Cake_Commander more or less 😊

@@Cake_Commander i can tell you, its not only accent its more like a french speaking english and missing entire leters or changing the sounds completly

Useful teaching tool, sensible points and no howlers.

Melo himself called it a one of their greatest defeats lol

@@asuka7309 sure the defeat was bad but there was nothing the Tercios could have done to win the cav fight or make the Germans actually bring pikes to the battle.

@MeiEnjoyer that's not how war works, just because you stubbornly refuse to leave the field and the enemy is smart enough to not fight you one on one doesn't mean you didn't lose. The tercios got blown to pieces by artillery and the battle ended up with the overwhelming majority of them killed or captured, Spain and it's tercios could no longer fight back against the French and for the first time in ages France ended up invading the Spanish Netherlands and annexing part of it. The Spanish tercios never recovered and kept losing wars thereafter. It's not that hard to get.

@@asuka7309 ah yes the correct solution to losing your cavalry is obviously to rout near the enemy cavalry and get run down. And mind you subsequent advancements in infantry warfare would not solve the problem of needing to stay together for protection against cavalry in formations vulnerable to artillery for hundreds of years.

@MeiEnjoyer you could do a breakout, leave a battlefield in good order and/or surrender without getting blown to pieces with artillery first. As was done at plenty of other battles. Also line infantry stood only 3-5 ranks deep and wasn't nearly as vulnerable to artillery as the tercios were lol.

Oh my god I hear it

As the percentage of gunponder weapons increased, it became largely unnecessary to break the formation in melee. The unit with more firearms and more artillery support could usually just let the ranged troops do their thing, until the enemy fomation either fled the field, or was forced into a charge.

Indeed! Great stuff.

‘In combat all men are equal.’ No alatriste! Not even in combat! I am a Spanish Grandee! 🙄 *Alatriste swipes him aside in one stroke* 😂

it’s mostly commissioned work by various artists we work with. i add, mix and match elements (arms, faces, weapons etc) and put them in new compositions myself.

@@SandRhomanHistoryGood job.

He puts way more effort into pronunciations than most KZfaqrs

Gracias!

it's quite pointless since they can only fire one shoot and have shorter range, also long pikes are heavy, you have to fully put them down to aim at the enemy, by the time you bend down and pick up your pike back up, half your army would have been decimated

That wouldn't work out too well unfortunately, firearms were incredibly expensive and difficult to make, so making longer range muskets made more sense, and it wouldn't make sense for a pikeman to have to carry powder and ammunition either. Also as the guy above said, pikes are way too heavy to hold one-handed and fire with a pistol, and pistols of the time would probably only have an effective range (as in, having any semblance of accuracy) of about 3 to 4 times the length of the pikes themselves, so it makes sense to just brace the pikes for the charge. That said, pistols DID prove quite useful for several cavalry units throughout europe. Many would put one pistol on either side of their saddle in something akin to a wider, quickdraw holster, allowing them to quickly draw two pistols while either running parallel to infantry to thin out their lines or deal some damage while charging against enemy cavalry. For them, the light, one-hand pistols made a lot of sense. For infantry? Not so much.

🤓

Afaik bouncing shots were invented by Vauban. So later than the battles in this video.

I know there was particular dislike for pike formations. Also they preferred individual aim and fire not volley fire. That is extent of my knowledge.

The Ottoman Armies used a great variety of weapons, from swords and polearms to bows and guns. The Janissaries themselves were quite proficient with at least some of the weapons I mentioned prior if not all of them. They also didn't hesitate to utilize the armies of their subjects, so in several cases for example you would see Serbian and Hungarian Knights or Horse Archers from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe accompanying Turkish hosts. But as you said yes they did not use extensive pike formations, despite their use of swords, bows, and polearms they instead relied heavily on their gunpowder weaponry not only in the form of their hand-held firearms but also their massed artillery batteries. Combined with their discipline and organization they were very difficult to beat on the field.

It wasn't that easy. Early arquebuses were heavy and clunky, and reloading it is a nightmare. It won't happen until better firearms, more sleek and sturdy, could take the role of the spear with bayonet.

@@firmanimad Aha...Yes, that makes sense.

Es alucinante el poco reconocimiento historico de esta unidad, acabo de ver un video de un americano atribuyendo la tecnica de combate de picas y arcabuces a suecos alemanes y franceses

​@@mcrulas6576..Les han lavado el cerebro desde niños. No esperes otra cosa, si en las pelis, vídeos y libros q ven y leen desde q tienen uso d razón sólo aparecen estadounidenses ingleses, alemanes, franceses, italianos, rusos, japoneses y chinos; y ahí acaba la historia..Bueno es q se hagan estos vídeos...pero son muchos siglos d machaque continuo...Ah, por cierto, me he dejado muchas batallas, pero la q omití y q no puede faltar en una relación d hechos d armas d los Tercios es Lepanto en 1571, y ya d paso, el socorro d Malta d 1565.

@@mcrulas6576les podrán contar lo que quieran pero verdad solo hay una, y eso no se puede cambiar. Saludos desde España.

Es un gran aporte tu comentario, hay muchas batallas que tienden a ignorar (sobre todo después de Rocroi, que no fue catastrófica como lo pintan); yo en el comentario que puse cuando salio el video, traté de explicar todas las Ordenanzas hechas en los Tercios desde 1536 hasta 1685, puesto que estos anglosajones piensan que los Tercios se mantuvieron igual por 2 siglos, cosa que es errónea y otra creencia incorrecta es creer que eran como los Suizos, cuando los españoles desde Ceriñola se caracterizaron en llevar un gran número de arcabuceros (mantuvieron esta superioridad de disparos hasta que los holandeses y suecos modificaron las formaciones para potenciarlas).

​​@@mcrulas6576 totalmente y la mayor injusticia es que le dan la autoría de la "creación" de los ejercitos modernos al hereje rey sueco Gustavo Adolfo, cuando este solo se copio con leve diferencias de los holandeses, que a su vez solo modificaron lo que los españoles ya habían creado desde principios del siglo XVI. Por eso el verdadero padre de la Guerra Moderna es Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán), el que inició todo con las tropas recién modernizadas de los Reyes Catolicos; pero esto siempre lo omiten, porque no les agrada que haya sido un católico el que haya innovado la guerra (ya saben como son los protestantes de recelosos con la historia, miran a los países del sur como atrasados y les cuesta reconocer sus meritos). Se debe hacer más esfuerzos para difundir la verdad, que el primer ejército moderno no fue francés, ni inglés, ni holandes, ni sueco, ni suizo... sino el español con su uso combinado de armas de fuego y picas, bajo la tutela del Gran Capitán.

Ok now its getting annoying. As an italian i demand to be informed of how many other Rome impostors (Romepostors) exist!

​@@SIGNOR-GOnly three Roman empires have existed culturally in all of human history (except for the impostors Holy Roman Empire, Russia and the Ottomans): the original Latin-Italian, the Greek Byzantine and the Spanish Empire, all three of which expanded Greco-Roman culture in the world, all three had similar values, all three were military powers, all three controlled the Italian peninsula at the time. You should not feel angry about that statement, since in those times precisely 2/3 of the Italian Peninsula were part of the Hispanic Monarchy, so you are also included in that third Rome.

@@IsaacRaiCastillo bien dicho señor Castillo. Siempre pienso que se van a olvidar del pueblo italico quando se hablan de los herederos de Roma. No habria sido perfecto pero por lo meno el Imperio Español siempre era expresion latina y mediterranea

It's not rare, was something taken from the reconquista, a light shield but very versatile and cheap, commonly used by the castillian, aragonese and navarre cavalry

Lmbo

I swear, winged hussars are becoming the annoying boomer with so many ppl fantasizing about them

@simonsalgueiro6217 I agree it may be a bit too much recently, but also, they are become a excellent example or even symbol how some overrated statements without proper understanding of the facts (or their deliberate ignoring) survived in so called "Western" history teachings in which Eastern Europe was just one big shit hole were people lived in caves and they were fighting with clubs till XX century. Nothing is more pathetic than ignoring obvious facts to boost your ego, isn't it? That's why I made this cheeky comment.

? they never faced tercios

DetorrV2 they faced and won the people who won the people who won the people who fough the tercio

Bro the hussars will not be able to break the tercios pikes the pikes will destroy the hussars and the shot infantry will end them ultimately

Thanks, Carl

the title of the best medieval cavalry either goes to the poles,turks, ukrainians or the mongols, but france would have one of the best shock cavalry (when used right unlike how their commanders threw them in a useless meatgrinder, and with no result)

It has less to do with French cavalry being the best and more to do with heavily armored cavalry being very effective shock cavalry. The Byzantines are also well-known for their Cataphracts, despite only having them sometimes, and them also having a lot of historical losses. In the case of the French, history online is also anglocentric, and will emphasize the times the French cavalry utterly failed over the many times it was succesful.

Most commonly then not, the frankish(which is a better term then french, as bith the french germans and english deployed very similar cavalry) cavalry charge was absolutely devastating. A really good place to see the power of frankish cavalry is the crusader states, who lived and died on the usage of heavily armored knights from europe to defeat the inferior muslim cavalry.

It was so common to see them wining that we only remember their losses

Because of their horses. In the video they explained how medieval warfare of cavarly + infantry + skirmish fought and how easy was for panic to spread. The kingdom of France had a lot of wealthy nobles that breed bigger and stronger horses, so when the french cavalry charged in open field against a medieval army, it usually managed to break the enemy formation and win the battle. Of course with time the fearsome french cavarly stopped being relevant in the same way the tercios became obsolet. New weapons and tactics were introduced and the fearsome french cavalry became a liability.

"Shot" in the old timey context refers to firearms, so a Shot Unit would be the military men who use firearms.

Oda Nobunaga implemented the counter-march before the Europeans did.

I think it's not supposed to be the first battle that happened to have gunpowder used, but the first battle won BY gunpowder.

Pretty sure there was a type of firearm in 1387 but it still took the back seat for the Longbow.

The Hussites also used many crossbows and their firearms were primitive, if you compare them to an arquebus from the beginning of the 16th century; For this reason, the Battle of Cerignola is the one that is marked as the beginning of the reign of firearms in Europe, since it was won by the 800 harquebusiers (without any other projectile weapon), who mowed down the cavalry and the Swiss, in addition to not having a defensive wall of wagons.

That's assuming you dont miss. Ya got 1-3 shots per minute with a arquebus in battlefield conditions, and then 50-100 meters 'At Best' for effective range. Even if the cavalry were coming straight at them, A single poorly timed volley was all that was needed for those gunners to get overwhelmed. The imagination can only do so much justice to what it would feel like to be in formation as a gunner in the chaos of battle, staring down a cavalry charge, and trying not to screw up over a dozen things. Making sure your in-step with the rest of the regiment, your powder is dry and ready, you dont let the match set off you musket early by accident, ect, ect, ect...

most of the shots of a smoothbore arquebus volley are going to miss their target unless at point blank range, even then those shots would have a chance of deflecting off of proofed plate armor, some of the cavalrymen will fall but the majority of the shock cavalry will drive their lances home before the arquebusiers can run on foot back into the pike square

SOme cavalrymen may die but there are many cavalry men, and once they charge home the arquebusiers have no ability to respond

Plate armour does stop/deflect old ball shot, it's been tested a lot and there's videos on KZfaq

Actually high quality plate armor does stop early gunfire. The term "bulletproof" comes from the proof mark left on a breastplate after it got shot with a pistol, to prove it was capable of stopping it.