Johny Ricco James is a fool, his general did not even obey his order.

Lmao!

Haha

Was about to comment this. James had admirable behaviour but war is not for an honourable commander. The victors of war have to be deceptive and they write their honour in the history books.

Should have taken note of what happened to the Starks

I have the high ground

Nova Fuck Me you underestimate my power

It's over Anakin

It's over Anakin!

Edit: This story has been totally made up by me. Lel. Everybody loves high ground, apparently A battle in the "Anatolian beyliks" period (14th century) was an interesting example: Instead of fighting in the plain -which was common for them, both armies rushed to the only hill around, wanting to take the high ground. As a result, fight broke off at the hillside, both were trying to climb up in the meantime. One side took higher ground, but after the sunset they lost their way, and the others managed to seize their camp, which was still in the plain.

Jorah Mormont xd

hey Soviet James deserve better !

fuckin spoiler lol XD

but he didn't fight intelligently.. didn't respect the mechanics of the battle

SovietWomble DID YOU KNOW THAT SCOTLAND WASS ANNEXED IN 1707

Yo

Me too,... and a general... lol

lol, yup

*waves hand*

I pick the side of truth..so I dont make up my mind until i have more info..meh! He said, enjoying the saucy aroma of his own effervescent effluvium

You are right! As kids we rolled in barrels down that hill - and it is definitely steep!

I agree 👍

English have always had top notch commanders, with less men but at times alot more brains

@@MrFirefox As far as I can recall it would only be in France where they had inferior numbers

@@whisper-thattruth-shss6026 and also in france where they had smarter commanders

@@MrFirefox _Medieval_ English. Early Modern English commanders are a crapshoot (Elphinstone, Gage, Sackville, etc etc etc).

yes that's true the scots where soundly beaten losing nearly ten thousand killed a real slaughter indeed

Meanwhile in Surrey, no one even acknowledges the battle

@@MidgeCat Sums up Anglo-Scot relations.

Tomorrow you will suffer your worst defeat since Flodden

Fletcher's are strong people

*Renaissance timeline

Yet it cost him his life

@@Old_Guard2 The renaissance doesn't reach that far north for a few more decades.

cuz he was incompetent, clearly

Dartanius100 yer right , so he invaded England

seems that he was Good leader

Apart from the bit where he dishonoured the eternal peace alliance because his wife is French, attacking undefended English territory only to lead tens of thousands of his men to die. He should've chose peace over war.

Ill have to agree with the proddy on this one,he could of kept the auld alliance because of the de facto alliance with king henry,and once he did invade,he simply didnt do it hard enough,he went too slow and was far too soft.

VintageLJ Ummm. England was invading his ally. The French.

No because he had a valid casus belli which negates his alliance and before you say yes not all casus bellis were good enough to attack allies but at that time religeos ones deffinettely were,its all about the nobles opion really in the end

Hey its you!

hey Suibhne

I know, really.

I love tasting food i've never even heard of before :)

Finally , somebody who's read a book

There's an archway in the church that's over 12hundrid yrs old

I totally agree with your suggestion man.

Cheers! Hopefully he can see this and respond.

Agree with u. Plus i would like to see some Ottoman battles such as Mohacs etc.

Bloody Ottomans (grumble grumble grumble) lol

1453 -Never forget.

ITS YOUR BOY K-K-K-KILLER IRLAND! Our first story today comes from Scotish King Sensation James who, get this, decided to fight on foot!

I'm here tonight with my co-host, Ibney00! Welcome to the show, we're glad to have you here. So it looks like James has decided to take up the Southern side of the swamp in the low ground, while Surrey is sitting back on the high ground. Not a strong position for James at all. What do you think Ibney00?

I think that the map was actually inaccurate. At the time, the English owned most of the modern day Dublin and Waterford regions under more or less direct rule and through loosely allied Hiberno-Norman local strongmen, had tenuous control over most of the rest of Ireland other than Ulster and Connacht. But it is unlikely any Irish or Anglo-Irish fought at Flodden. The English army was drafted from the Northern and Midland counties with mostly traditional feudal levies armed with bill and longbow.

That's right Pat, England had only conquered Dublin, Waterford and Wexford at that point.

@@patcoghlan3852 well, the map said "the lordship of Ireland".

Ok small moustache man

Ahhahah made my day.

they only need the part where "french reinforcements arrived" to come true, and that'd be enough for me

to be fair when 8 british ships can destroy 30 french ships, wcyd

France should have sent some more troops. English troops in EuIV are pathetically weak interns of moral, discipline, and military tactics.

no it didnt its always good to be chivalrous but you need to know how to use it. Informing the enemy of your attack means you eradicate the possibility of using surprise or confusion as weapons and 100% depending on your skills in the art of warfare. If James won the the battle it was clear his campaign would have been successful because the English had no plan B. They actually risked more than the Scots because the Scots prepared for months for the invasion, the English did not

This is spot on - in fact if the battle had been indecisive or things had gone even slightly differently, the lack of proper supply lines for the English basically guaranteed an eventual Scottish victory. All they had to do was keep the hill...

If james would of had better discipline of his troops specifically his left flank charging forward when they didn't have to and focused his artillery on the English longbowman he probably could of won, he left a good position to fight the english

not really, it's just that his army moved way too slow, they should have pressed on more to take more ground, force the english to either fall back or face them sooner or push on to more enlish strategic towns, points, ...

And having your soldiers unchivalrously running away when they scored enough loot.

the super soldiers should never have agreed to that pre battle picnic in the woods

MAD Fiction04 WTF?

My vote for Rocroi

MAD Fiction04 Battle of Kosovo (1389)

Battle of Narva (1700): Swedish victory over the Russians, Charles XII leading his 8000 men to victory against 34000 to 40000 Russian troops en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_(1700)#endnote_ddd

Moarice i vote for manzikert and bannockburn

"Scottes out of Berwick and out of Aberdeen At the Burn of Bannock ye were far too keen. King Edward has avenged it now, and fully too I ween." Bannockburn was avenged 20 years afterward at Hallidon Hill (1333) and then the Coup de grâce was delivered at Neville's Cross (1346) with the capture of King David II (the Bruce's son). Like you said, at Flodden it was more Englishman knowing full well they had to win to save their homes and towns from being pillaged and burnt - as was customary in those days.

actually the only reason the English won was because the Scots had problems with positioning in the terrain + for some units lack of discipline was a problem, which then resulted in the whole situation being buggered. Had King James taken both of those into account he could have easily won.

Joe Blow why attack a country without knowing how to use the equipment? 2nd if Scotland won maybe just maybe Scotland would have ruled over England.

but they didn't

"The Scottish lost because they didn't know how to use their equipment and the British did." This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen written on KZfaq. *There no evidence whatsoever that the Scots did not know how to use their own cannons you idiot*. Simply put - their King was out-thought and his men were outfought.

in Flanders right?

Freek Mulder Battle of the golden spurs in courtrai/kortrijk

Excuse me I looked it up. You were right it was in Kortrijk but it were mostly Flemish foot soldiers fighting

I don't know if you guys know this but they just did a video on it. It's awesome

Yeah but the Scott's watched and waited till just enough English army crossed the bridge and to contain them. The Flemish and Dutch had to fight the best of European knights. And defeated them

The Scarlet Otaku weaboo

Battle of Harpers Ferry

nico nico nii :v Why?

Battle of Antietam or Battle of Shiloh.

The Scarlet Otaku battle of leipzig or borodino would do

Wait is there more than one warden? My ancestor Andrew Kerr was appointed warden of the middle marches in 1502 and was still warden after the battle.

@ ezk929 There seems to have been some ambiguity in the appointment (or in the records that have come down to us). Many members of the Ker family (usually spelled with one R in the sixteenth century) served as Warden of the Middle March. Walter Ker was appointed in 1502; Ralph and Andrew Ker jointly in 1510; Sir Andrew Ker in 1515 (not sure if this is the same Andrew Ker as previously); right down to Sir Thomas Ker in 1584. Alexander, 3rd Lord Home was appointed in 1509 (having been named Warden of the East March in 1506). There is no tidy line of succession, with several overlapping appointments, and periods when the office was vacant. One assumes, therefore, that a warden (or wardens) was appointed when there was need.

interesting it was what i assumed. and going through my family history i did know that multiple people in my ancestry were given the title. I did note that later when looking at Andrew Kerr or as he was for some reason also known as Dand Kerr, was married to a Hume and served in the battle along side the Humes. The battle was important for my clan as it boosted our popularity and many families put their protection under my clan. My family played important roles but never get highlighted and get overshadowed by the highlanders. also Kerr, Ker, Carr, Car, are the surnames of the Kerr clan. and yes Andrew "Dand" Kerr was given the title Sir. the Other sir andrew was in the 17th century.

@ ezk929 The fact that Andrew Ker married a Home is interesting news - though it would make sense for two Border families to ally, especially in troubled times. As for Dand - my GUESS is that the Andrew Ker appointed Warden in 1510 and the Sir Andrew Ker appointed in 1515 are father and son. In such cases it is common for the younger namesake to be known by a nickname within the family. Possibly Andrew junior liked being called Dand, and the nickname escaped into general use.

Sir Andrew Kerr or Dand Kerr was born 1471 and died in 1545. Dand Kerr was one of the most important Chieftains as he gained a lot of Territory and established the left-handed dominance into the clan to the point where we are genetically left-handed. Left-handed mercs were paid a pretty price. Also he established the Royal trust as the royals frequently recruited Kerrs from that point on. Of course its not so seen with what King James VI/I did to Sir Thomas but still the royals put trust into the Kerrs. "cough of course the royals had to pay a good price cough" The Next Sir Andrew Kerr was born in 1570 and died 1631. Sir Andrew Kerr(1570-1631) is a bit special as he was knighted by Queen Mary of Scots herself and she was his Godmother. Sir Andrew also had a son named Andrew but he died before Sir Andrew and was his only son. Sir Andrew left only 6 daughters.

Ferenc Kleczli Then you'd likely love this if you haven't already seen it: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o8p5mtNiycfadY0.html *"Battle of Mohács 1526"* by Callistrid here on KZfaq. A team of Hungarian historians meticulously recreated the entire battle in the Total War engine to be as accurate as possible; their channel has other similarly awesome videos about other famous Hungarian battles also. I can't recommend them enough. All the best!

And the English as the aggressors

It looks like this battle isn't as famous as I thought it is. That's the main reason behind the "spoiler". I try to keep the script both captivating and informative, but that's sometimes challenging :)

Do the battle of Muret

It's precisely because this battle isn't famous that you don't want to spoil the result.

Jesus. Next you're going to go to WW2 videos and bitch about people talking about how that war ended. It's history. Grow up.

+infernocuck Spoiling the result of a battle that many may not be familiar with and spoiling the result of a war that almost everyone knows about are completely different things, you fucking mong. Fucking Day of the Rake when

he has a time machine

Remarkable, to where could I aquire this contraption of his?

Late reply but I gratefully refuse.

Library, books, scroll, university ,

I’m related to the flagbearer

How do you know ?

try telling that to the jocks

@murray1234567891011 well for every victory there is also a defeat, or else England would be ruling the land of France.

@data spell do your history lessons again pal wrong dates

@data spell What are you on about you fucking simpleton. The Anglo-Saxons took all the lands back from the Danes under Athelstan. As for the Norwegians Vikings, their time ended at Stamford Bridge, a week before Hastings.

@@tuor8087 Aethelstan didn't do too badly against the Scots, either. Remember Brunanburgh.

Humiliating 😢😢😢🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Many didn't. They stood and asked for no quarter. Fought on manfully. In English chronicles

Pretty sure William I coined that term for the English with the last line in the Bayeux tapestry. "And the English fled."

not really, they were small raiding band and were attacked at night whilst asleep before they could prepare themselves; and they didn't give themselves up unlike the Scots at Solway Moss, they managed to escape I also looked into Solway Moss and their doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Scots lost because they were drowning; what happened was, they crossed the river and hastily attacked in an unorganised fashion and the English were able to rout them with a well timed cavalry charge, as they retreated roughly 700 of the 18,000 that initially attacked drowned. I find that to be more humiliating than a night raid on a small band of raiders, even if the attackers were youths

Tell me more of this battle, think i'll go look it up, sounds like jock got a right old kicking.

Wtf the Scottish only killed 7 people i’m dying

@Harry L 88 is a Cowardly Cyber Rat Indeed; Scottish military history against the English is largely a depressing melody of catastrophic defeat.

@@ConnorConzo123 probably one of the few victories for Scotland against the english.

Your Pov is a very biased one, France and Scotland were logically allied against a common enemy. Without speaking of your "The French abandoned the Scott in their battles". I hope Scotland becomes soon an independent nation, they deserved it.

@@thewayweallgo2614 Your so called Auld Alliance did nothing, you French and Scottish sc*m every try invading England again and you will get the same.

I did 😁

However The Scot's and French won the war, just like they won the Hundred Year's War despite Agincourt

So do most of England

Charles Du Max “God save the Queen” 🥴

Just not good enough Scotland always in our shadow

In all honesty, I don't think England would have bothered Scotland at all very much if it wasn't for the French always using them and trying to manipulate them into war with England on their side. Much of the invasions by England into Scotland had alot to do with wars that were going on in France at the time.

Justinian I Because they'd already done their bit of the fighting and won in their eyes.... let's face it in so many ways Flodden could have been a Scottish victory but it was thrown away. Better reconaissance, holding positions or monopolising by focussing on the broken right flank rather than a frontal assault. Flodden shows what a waste conflict between Scotland and England had become. But then a Scottish monarch sat on both thrones in the end..mm

The left flank was asked to get involved but Home said they had defeated the English opposite them and had done their bit. Home was suspected of treachery and executed a few years later.

@@allanthomson4488 I know right 1,500 losses against 14,000 losses, it was close.

HA! Brilliant!

Confederate Daemon still no grunwald :(

@@zarakdurrani7584 kings and generals did a video about that battle

good point

The majority of the Scots prior to this battle used long spears and fought in large blocks of men. The weapon's cheap, effective and required little in the way of training and therefore ideal for a levy army. The issue of pikes to the army and the training in Continental pike tactics made the Scots Common army a far more effective force able to take the offensive. They lacked sufficient men armed with pole arms and similar weapon's who could issue out if and when the pike block is stopped, as it was at Flodden. The troops in the pike blocks fled as those leading them from the front were halted and disordered by the terrain, leaving them to their fate.

Just history in general.

that's what I was thinking

yep like what if Custer had AK47''s, poor old jock.