give us more sieges and we will be happy.

I would love to see a video discussing the 1527 siege of Rome

How about the fall of the Roman Empire and the transition to the Merovingians and Franconian kings?🤔

Maybe a bit more naval combat.

@@swordsmen8856 The sack? we already have an old video about that! Not too much focuse on the siege itself though!

Cool didn't know that

Yeah, but that only works if you first appease the demons and dark forces that inhabit your cannon.

@@samy7013 they're a needy bunch

While true, range is also largely determined by projectile and charge... This got particularly complex in the late 1700's-mid 1800's as timed airburst fragmentation shells (typically mortar fired) technology developed... A different charge for each different shell, a different length of fuse depending on flight time, plus range and trajectory. It's really fascinating and the documents can be found online, I believe for a fee.

@@hshgf3410 : lol, very much so. 🤣😂😁

"And then burning a thing behind it."

@@Zappygunshot "After that it flies out very fast."

@@DNS-Freakz "...sometimes. Sometimes everything just flies apart. And that's why you probably shouldn't be standing here talking to me right now."

"The year fourteen hundred and fifty three, Constantinople has fallen, Muslim Ottoman ☪ Turks, 🇹🇷 swept into eastern europe threatening all of christendom, 💒 here in Wallachia, 🇷🇴 arose a wallachian warlord of the sacred order of the dragon, 🐲 Vlad Dracula the 3rd." 🧛‍♂️ The Narrator.

That would also kill the enemy without the chance of him killing you. its a God grace!

"By Heracles! A man's valor is dead." Archidamus when he saw a catapult fire for the first time.´

No he didn't.

Don't forget Coehoorn

"City besieged by Vauban, city taken. City fortified by Vauban, impregnable city". Saying at Vauban's time.

Gunpowder has to be the worst invention in history. Cant think anything worse but I'm only up to WW1 history. Next semester we start on WW2 and all the horrors of that war. Maybe something new, something worse is to come? I'll keep you posted

That guy might be strong, but he is no match for the autonomous robot artillery from Cossacks which just pushes itself.

while onagers and scorpions and trebuchets are sentient beings

"How do I turn this on?" Your petty & puny cannons are no match against mine, lol if you know, you know XD 🏎️🏎️🏎️🏎️🏎️🏎️🏎️🏎️🏎️🏎️ Lol

Just ask the Ukrainians at Donbass. They would know.

Is this a firing drill pun?

@@user-bi7vj7sp7x ooooof

All this for a smoothbore tube

Gandalf? why did you shot that damn cannon again? it's not good for the master gunner's health!

Reminds me of the final battle in the old movie "Wizards" ;)

Could it be that they receive preferential treatment because their craft is highly technical and requires a significant investment of time and training? No. Clearly they have used witchcraft to bewitch our leaders into doing them favors.

@@Vyleea "let me show you some REAL magic" *boom!* truly a classic piece of cinema that. Good taste in films, lady.

Glad he specified the scope. By narrowing down to European history in the introduction there is no need to mention other parts of the world without looking Eurocentric

Yes, Frederick the Great.................although there is nothing dignified about the incoming side of the artillery.

@@sanderwissink5330 True

Somehow I doubt Frederick the Great would be of the same mindset if he witnessed the first world war up close.

No it doesn't.

Isn't he criticised for not using Artillery effectively?

like every new miltary equipment

Only that happened in one generation, artillery has been in use through 4 different ages of humanity. Tanks were also an evolution of artillery themselves, mainly becoming a moving weapons platform.. for artillery.

@@WhatIsSanity Self propelled artillery and tanks are 2 different types of things though.

@@ultraranger1286 Conceptually speaking tanks are artillery. Take the main gun off a tank and put it on a carriage -you have a field gun being used for the exact same purpose as the tank, only worse.

@@WhatIsSanity Not to um actually you but... _um, actually_ tanks are an evolution of the role of cavalry. They are used to punch holes in enemy lines at specific points and overrun fortified positions, as well as advancing deeper into enemy territory and disrupting supply lines; much like what the various forms of cavalry were for before armoured vehicles existed. The tactics used on the battlefield are even highly similar, and in fact in the early days armoured divisions were still referred to as 'cavalry'. A good clue to this is the fact that there's no more horses running around on the battlefield, whereas big static cannons firing from a fortified position are still a thing to this day - one of them was made obsolete by another invention that could take over the role, whilst the other continued to grow and develop.

The Air Force, besides performing reconnaissance, is essentially an airborne artillery platform.

@@mjfleming319 : Don’t forget the transport capacity for moving troops, equipment, and supplies.

True!

@National Socialism : Ferrying troops or specialized equipment in a hurry from place to place, transporting paratroopers and commandos for special operations, transporting wounded to live-saving specialized medical treatment quickly, all of these (and more, which I haven’t covered) still matter. You’re just an amateur making amateurish statements.

@National Socialism : lol, you’re acting like SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) doesn’t exist. There are tons of soft-kill and hard-kill methods to suppress even the most robust air defenses. And in the real world, air defense systems (and crews) don’t always perform up to specification or training, which gives plenty of openings to the enemy to penetrate your airspace. Air defense systems are not some magical impregnable force field, and can break down or be overwhelmed. They have their place on the battlefield, but are not a silver bullet. Also, a good air transport capability even behind your own lines can make the difference between victory and defeat in battle, so to discount it out of hand is just silly. I never implied in my original comment that air transport capability had to be offensive. I was replying to the person who looked at air forces as nothing but flying artillery and reconnaissance vehicles, and I reminded them that air forces are much more than that.

No they aren't.

@@HornyIndianMan that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Me too bud, me too.

Unless I'm mistaken, you could set this up in some US states where muzzleloaders aren't subject to gun laws and therefore unregulated. Any governing body for competitive sports would probably have an aneurysm at the idea, though.

what your talking about is basically war games. its fairly common among militaries

@@joedatius Nah man I want Red Bull to have a 3 man team operating a meticulously engineered 4lb canon trying to hit wooden cutout targets on a hillside 500 yards away with drone footage and beautiful scenery, complete with commentary. I want pageantry, modernized historical uniforms, the teams show up on horseback. Teams try to hit as many targets as possible in a set amount of time or have a set amount of shots to score as many points as possible. That sort of thing.

They're getting better all the time aren't they

also the sound it makes.

@@clintmoor422 : And the demons that inhabit them.

@@clintmoor422 even that, the best cannons Will "sing" like bells if you hit them. Barrel Harmony Is crucial when It comes to accuracy

BRB inventing a machinegun that fires cannons...

@@alexreilly6121Mark 19: You rang?

That is interesting though

@@JacksonHighlander it shows how powerful they knew they knew how effective firearms, particularly artillery, was. It was prohibited in the Spanish American colonies for anyone who wasn't of pure Spanish (or at least "white" blood) to own one, use one, or manufacture them... It's much harder to start an insurrection without firearms and explosives, and the process to make artillery requires permanent infrastructure, something which the natives and non whites of every variety just had to live with.... Or make questionable near deathtrap "cannons" out of hollow logs and barrel hoops that could only throw shrapnel. Given the massive sulphur deposits in central America, native powder manufacture was fairly easily accomplished... And of course, even the richest in the New World, born in Spain and everything... Well, even they had to, or were supposed to, import their weapons and powder directly from Spain. Of course, this monopoly only bred high level deception, and shortly workshops were opening (run by the already wealthy, secretly) producing counterfeit Spanish goods. This has not only been proven by records of them getting shut down, but also on the antique firearms market. It's an interesting study, and I barely scratched the surface, researching it.

This is perfectly in line with other colonial polices. Spain also didn't allow printing presses or higher education in the colonies, and all trade in the entire Spanish Americas was legally restricted to 2 ports in the Atlantic and one on the Pacific, The Spanish realized their massive empire would inherently difficult to control and these over the top-regulations were the result. Of course it only lead to an explosion in smuggling and corruption because the Spanish could never really enforce all these laws.

@@Oxtocoatl13 I suspect you know more about this than I, looking at your name... I just ran into this randomly because I'm always researching something historical, I started with the pre-Columbian Inca years ago, and have slowly been moving further north and further through time. The rise of the Aztecs as seen through their eyes as opposed to some of the surrounding tribes, combined with the obvious cultural influence of earlier inhabitants of the area, I found particularly interesting. Unfortunately, I get very confused with the names, but I did get the -coatl suffix on your name, that's serpent in Nahuatl, I believe. I spent a large bit of the spring trying to figure out the Aztec pantheon and how it's related to the other older civilizations nearby. It is very interesting, albeit confusing for me. I'd love to continue this discussion and I'll happily take any good links you have on the topic(s). I'm used to doing 700-1100 northern European (Germanic) history and the Napoleonic era. I'm not fluent in any useful language for studying south or central America unless it's in Latin, I hate to say.

I see

lookking up dark art?^^

yeah the fitting weapon for a coward. There was once a little war criminal who had a kind of fetish with it

@@claas.relotius : Huh? Did a cannon beat you up steal your lunch when you were a kid?

@@samy7013 he was bullied by a Howitzer gun pfft

@@claas.relotius ah, yes, I suppose not wanting to die in a war while still wishing for victory is cowardly. Not like that's what everyone's ancestors have attempted since they thought to throw rocks at opponents at a distance.

wow so many artillery fetishists. Only little Boney the coward he is didn't dare to respond

Almost win Denmark 🇩🇰 in war battle. Sand historie 🇩🇰

Could also be access to information

probably both. also remember that many youtube "history" channels dont employ actual historians, only enthusiasts, that dont have the academic training on how to best utilize sources

Yes

Yes, now you could die a horrific death without even being granted the dignity of looking your killer in the eye, or knowing he existed at all. Such dignity and grace, watching limbs turn to ragged ribbons and comrades turn to red mist. And those were the lucky ones...

The who is the emperor?

@@Napoleonic_British_India3919 ABCs

That didn't happen.

Hm, my quick guess: While China had a lot of fighting, at the point of its discovery it was mainly with their own. Plus conservative mindset (Mandate of heaven as an example). India has Monsun, at which time artillery is useless, especially early ones. Plus conservative. While in Europe, you had different, more heterogen cultures, vastly different opinions and as a result of that the most beneficial thing for development - conflict, especially war. Lots and lots of war.

I mean the Near Eastern cultures made very effective use of gunpowder in the 15th and 16th Centuries. The Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire and Safavid Persia were all built with gunpowder weapons. Further east, although gunpowder was always used, climate conditions and political factors were probably decisive. In the late Middle Ages China was still the cutting edge in gunpowder weapons, but it seems after the Ming dynasty consolidated power and turned inward less research was made on the subject and eventually the Chinese fell behind.

Artillery was prime target for cavalry tho, and being captured in the early artillery era was very dangerous

I mean, people still pay some mind to superstition. Even in a world with public schooling and education and science. Imagine back then.

Generals likely enjoyed quite some benefit from spreading demonising propaganda about the nature of artillery pieces and their operators. A sketchy reputation would make it much harder for them to find jobs and safety elsewhere without the protection of the army they served, so it created incentives to remain loyal. Conversely, fear of witchcraft, devilry and the unknown would've scared away most from trying to unearth the secrets the master gunners so closely guarded, so they likely benefitted from the arrangement just as much.

@@Zappygunshot I understand everything you're saying, but I think you're ascribing a bit too much power to the "holy" ruling over living life day-to-day. I can't prove this, but there were reasons behind my comment. First off, I think we're pretty close in understanding. I concede during that time more superstition & unsubstantiated-belief was incorporated. As for real "fear", yes it lead (*at times*) to some nasty responses. Simple, we're agreed. But it's the "at times" I believe is most relevant. I can't think of how to say what I need w/out going too long, maybe a list will work: - just from reading history I'm pretty sure if I was sent back to @1400AD, (1st cannons) or even ancient Rome, there'd be little problem relating to the people. At least for @2.5K years I basically see us all as contemporary to one another. Those in the past 'seem' so distant only b/c of our average human lifespan. - thinking @ war, it remained largely unchanged until the 20th century. meaning most time is spent doing...nothing. Which leads to sitting around, bonding, and forming cliques. All of which inevitably leads to...judgement...of every kind! - For example, how much it grates on the common grunts that "those guys" are treated so much better, even though "we run around dying while they hide behind those massive things. It's bullshit, man"! ;) - as for the "devil" tech, I'd bet anything that Cost-of-Entry was Far more a barrier than fear. No? - basically I see men as men, little changed no matter how bright we've made the night. Even with the (much) greater adherence to religion then, they were simply people living long days & nights. Which means "earthly" concerns frequently rule, regardless of how devout. - I look & see tombs, barrow-mounds, pyramids, etc., being raided going back BEFORE Rome began. And that screams one thing for me...man's desire for desire, for getting ahead. Powerful & related is the "coveting" of what someone else has but you don't! Inescapable emotions, existing no matter how you're "supposed" to feel. - oh, and murder has always been a "cardinal sin", yet countless men who feared eternal damnation overcame those jitters! - In summary...man is as man was, ruled chiefly by the moments that exist right in front of him. - I think that took way too long, sorry. But that's basically all I meant. ✌️.

I view it as being used as more of an insult, rather than to be taken literally as them being dark magicians. People weren’t stupid back then, it’s easily discernible that these big tubes making flashes of fire were launching giant balls out of them, some kind of fire powered catapult one would assume? ~ that’s a logical thought process, rather than ‘huh duh they’re demonic wizards’ I refuse to be,Evie people were that silly. So I’m rather sure labelling them as ‘dark arts’ was an insult with some sarcasm, rather than people literally thinking they were wizards.

when quoting wikipedia, you should remember to mention the source book that wikipedia refernces. if you look at the numbered notes at the end of the page, it says what book is referenced for each number in the main text. at least that's what we normally do in the university when we ever use wikipedia in our bibliography for research

@@apokos8871 I hope instead you actually go to the referenced books and see yourself what they say about the subject, and not just copy the references from Wikipedia...

@@jankoodziej877 we never copy text from wikipedia, or even from source books, that's plagiarism and your paper gets disqualified

@@apokos8871 I was talking about copying references, not coping the text.

@@jankoodziej877 if you use a reference the text must match (but not exactly) what the source book says, so you cant just use a source without reading it first. that goes without saying

I'm not so sure about that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles#16th_century It's not a comprehensive list but it has a few examples.

@@SchwarzStein89 Wrong Phrasing: I meant with rare: quite rare that documentaries focus on them except the big ones like Lepanto (which is really more like laaaaaate 15th century 1499/1500)

@@KakyouKuzuki2001 Lepanto was late 16th century, it was in 1571. But I get what you mean now.

@@SchwarzStein89 Ah yes, the big battle of Lepanto was in the late 16th.. But there were two more naval battles of Lepanto in the crossing from the 15th to the 16th century.. First Battle of Lepanto and Battle of Modon, there the players were the Ottomans and the Republic of Venice... But the very big naval battle of Lepanto with the whole christian coalition against the Ottomans was, as you said in 1571... It is the same as with the Siege of Vienna. The big siege that is well known and covered very often is the siege of 1683 but the first siege from 1529 is rarely covered ;)

@@KakyouKuzuki2001 djerba, preveza, lepanto, Tunis, Algiers…

No because it was too imprecise and also was harder to apply than cannons

Absolutely, people have always been mad at people that throws stuff at them from a distance

No you are wrong. It's a false depiction of medieval Japan thanks to Hollywood... Firearms were an integral part of a Samurai's arsenal and were not seen as dishonourable because there were even dojos specialised in the mastery of Tanegashima

@@xXArnOdu974Xx both of you are correct, various groups thought that firearms and such where dishonorable but the effectiveness could not be ignored. just like in all cultures, the Samurai where not an all agreeing group and always had different opinions on how battles should of been fought.

Totally agree! I posses a matchlock arquebuse and i would like to see more videos about the First "reliable" gun.

It could be either really.

Those are Spanish tercios. A mass of pikemen with a detachment of arquebusiers at each corner. The latter could be sent out as a detached group of light infantry to harass the approaching enemy, or form in lines in front of the sides of the masses pikemen.

@@terry7907 Thank you very much!

Nobody thought that.

I wonder if those are harder to find in english. I would love to see them use those sources as well tho

If you cannot conceive of a way that 8 cannon can decide a battle, then you've not read a lot of history. Here are some examples: Cannister or grapeshot unloading into the enemy formation at close range. A stray shit killing the enemy general. Suppressing the enemy cannons. Setting fire to enemy supplies. Causing inexperienced infantry to rout. ...it isn't hard to think of these possibilities. You should read more.

if you have 8 cannons and the other side has 5, the side with the less cannons has to abandon their position and attack, otherwise they will lose more men as the time passes. you dont need lots of cannons, just more than your enemy, to make them come to you

Well-placed cannon fire can deal a devastating blow to the enemy morale. You don't need to kill half of the enemy troops... you only have to kill enough to make the rest flee or surrender

@@Seldonlair thanks for the examples. I expected that the only thing that could do sizeable damage would be grapeshot, but depending on the enemy, they might have no chance to reload, or perhaps only once. They need to wait until they can do maximum damage with the little they have, but then the enemy could fire grenades or solid shot at the cannons from further away. That's why I thought that they could only do little against such overwhelming numbers.

Chain shot was not for targetting ropes alone, but sails and masts as well

@@l00k69 but the shot would simply spread slowly like a charge of grape