Love your content man! You're amazing 😊😊😊❤❤❤❤

Can you please continue the Hannibal series.

The legend was before this. Edward won his victory at Halidon Hill with Archers

Sir, your documentaries are excellent, please put an audio track in Portuguese, there are already several channels doing this. thank you for your attention!

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ this is for the algorithm

That is wild to consider. The major difference being that the 40 mgs would kill everyone facing them in the first minute lol.

Is this true?

​​@@MrLoobu Lol indeed, the bullet is more deadly than the arrow. But the fact that rates of fire such as this could be achieved centuries before the invention of the machine gun, by relatively small groups of archers is outstanding. Such rates of fire on the battlefield from individual units from the end of bowmenship due to the rise of the firearm were, at least in the west, not seen again for centuries up until perhaps World War 1, 2.

The Longbow had been in use since the Battle of Falkirk against William Wallace

Think of the logistics required to supply hundreds of thousands of arrows over hundreds of miles of campaigning.

I mean he was a prince

Most 16 year olds don't have a vassal army at their beck and call.

Back then being 16 years old was old enough to be called a man since life expectancy in the medieval period was very short compared to today.

@@ferrjuan Very good point, he died aged 35.

​@@ferrjuanMedieval life expectancy it's a History channel scam. After surviving infancy a medieval would easily reach is 60s. Many history figures reach they 90s.

Yeah, that was bullshit.

It was a war crime and helped the enemy win the battle

Genoese crossbowmen were some of Europe's most sought after ranged mercenaries and what they needed in this situation. Oh, the hybris of not only throwing them away but also slaying your trump card yourself.

@@Drayran hubris*

The black prince did the job for the enemy, in reality we all know he wussed out and then used obvious propaganda to say that he was amazing and fought 30 times the normal man and saved all the downed soldiers. The same crap we see from sociopaths today.

Ah, the French version of Uranus.

@@antred11 something like that, yeah 😁

@@antred11 Can you see it?

Wow! Love that 👍

Running until the situation overwhelmingly favors him. Tactical/Strategic retreating? Either way, clearly the better tactic. Who the hell would send their troops into this absurd defensive posture? Oh wait... WW1 wants its casualties back.

@@bgibeast That's exactly what the Duke of Wellington was famous for. He would find a strong defensive position, knowing the French would attack. When he did go on the offensive, he made sure to stack the deck in his favour.

@@anzaca1 Well look, I'm just a gaming nerd and armchair general. But charging straight into the fangs of machine gun nests with infantry seems like "Things Not to Do 101" in the Army General book. How could people really be so arrogant to just walk up a hill into 6000 archers? XD

​​@@bgibeastthey were the best of the best knights in Europe, so not very modest AND had seen miles upon miles of destruction that their ennemies had wraught on their land, they must have been calling for blood, still... pretty stupid, especially killing the genoese

@@bgibeast It's the Fr*nch nobility. They aren't known for their humility and intelligence.

English soldiers: “But you merely adopted the rain. I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn’t see the sun until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!”

Average French failed battles: - Arrive with the army - See the enemy defense is strong - Leaders meet and correctly presume a prudent strategy is the best strategy One of the following: - Our stupid leader becomes arrogant, changes his mind and attacks anyway - One stupid adviser of our stupid leader is arrogant, says he won't wait and attacks anyway thus forcing the leader to launch the attack anyway - The French soldiers become arrogant, saying they will attack anyway thus forcing the leader to launch the attack anyway - Défaite prévisible I can add for WWII this in the following choices: - English leaders are stupid, say they will not move out of the north of France cos that's where ports that are important to them are, Germans don't care about the ports, trap the two armies there and rush for the capital Paris, France politics surrender when German soldiers knock on their doors. This one is not (mainly) on us !

​@@stevelebreton3489*cough* Maginot Line *cough, cough*

could also add "stand, wait, watch friends die, then begin march"

Until ... enter Napoleon

Frankofil, ktorého Česká nobilita nenávidela. Jako nic moc král.

Get riddled by arrows?

@@eelchiong6709 Pretty sure they took heavier losses from french cavalry than english longbowmen.

...almost like his death was planned...

He was already 46 and the Plantagenet were already at the losing end but he could prepared his son for the future and avoid all the civil conflicts in the 15th century.

​@robert-surcouf in an alternate history, they avoid a lot of the wars and end up more stable? Could be a fun thought process to undertake.

@@kyledabearsfan As long as Woodstcok could ruled for 10 years, he will be able to teach his son, gave him a good marriage for england and put the lancasters in check. Richard 2 will not be overthrown and there will not be 3 new dynasties and a civil war in the 15th century or a new war in france. It's also possible that Richard 2 will still be overthrown nevertheless but later and Richard could also be childless. Maybe the current england royal dynasty will still be the plantagenet

​@@robert-surcoufOr Stewart

They learn from their arrogance, you only had to check what happened between Poitiers in 1356 and Azincourt in 1415 and why Edward 3 had in theory half of france after Poitiers while Henry 5 only had Bordeaux, Bayonne and Calais before Azincourt.

if they never learn, how did they destroy the English at Patay, La Brossiniere, Formigny or Patay?

The english started to massively used the longbowmen in the early 1330's sothe tactics about defensive high ground with archers was new. Another reason why Crecy was unavoidable is that Philippe 6 avoid the fight with Edward 3 in 1340 and the nobles resent him for that so he doesn't have the choice. The harsh winter from 1315-1317 made the peasants move to cities so nobles had less money for taxes and had to gain it with ransom in war.

@@robert-surcouf yea, but dont the French make the same basic mistake 70 or so years later at Agincourt? "The english started to massively used the longbowmen in the early 1330's sothe tactics about defensive high ground with archers was new."

@@alexsmart5452 The Valois indeed made the same mistake at Azincourt but not for the same reasons. Since 1392, the king of france (Charles 6) become mad and until 1407, the kingdom was basically ruled by the queen and the king's brother (Louis of Orleans). In 1407, the king's brother was murdered by their cousin, the duke of Burgundy and that started a civil war between burgundians and armagnacs that ended in 1435. In 1415, the Valois army at Azincourt was a gathering of peoples that fight and killed each other for 8 years and without a clear leader (the king was lost and the 3 princes were too young) and the commanders disagreed each other but at the end, the one in command was Louis of Orleans' son and despite the older ones advices, choose the front charge. Another problem at Azincourt is that the younger ones had not lived the war by themselves (there was a peace between 1389 and 1415) while the older ones had seen only success in 1370's and 1380's and the lessons learned after Crecy and Poitiers were already forgotten.

It seems to be their military culture. They had so many defeat because they kept attack and attack. Basically it took WWI to cut majority of "elan" out

@@alexsmart5452 The way I understand it, they were in a catch 22 at Agincourt - either they attack at a well-defended position with little to no ability to flank due to terrain, in bad weather - or they don't and let Henry V escape. Had the French won, much of the early advantage the English had during that period would've been negated.

You are right. Mark Stretton can shoot 11 arrows in 1 min, but that will leave him exhausted. Continuous shooting would be 6 arrow per min, but even that is hard without a break. Longbowmen waited and shot arrows from close range and then took a pause until the next wave of attack came in.

The longbow also had a ridiculous amount of physical effort involved. It seems ridiculous that the longbowmen wouldn't fatigue after a few minutes of firing at such a rate.

Yes, pulling a warbow is similar to doing a one arm dumbell row with a very heavy weight while holding a somewhat ligter dumbell out with a straight arm infront of you. Your delts, triceps, and forearms will start shaking due to lactic acid buildup and musclefiber fatigue, so of course your repetition speed is going to slow down after a short while, eventually you will be hard pressed to pull that bowstring all the way back, or likely have to rest for several minutes until enough energy can be re-generated for a couple of more pulls on the bowstring.

​@@rayzas4885they were a lot more used to exercise than people are today.

You shouldn't cheer too much as the French won the war

John II, Duke of Alençon was Joan of Arc's comrade-in-arms, so the family took revenge on the English invader.

Jean 1 almost won the battle by himself at Azincourt when he killed York and injured Gloucester and was close to do the same to Henry 5.

As far as I know; not the thumb-up (that's from the Roman era), but the V-sign (reversed): bowmen use index + middle fingers for gripping arrows and before the battle French threatened to Englishmen that will cut off their fingers to permanently disable them. But Englishmen were victorious, and afterwards become popular to mocking the French by shoving them those two fingers (with fist turned to owner in distinguish to a famous Churchill's V(ictory)-sign). Later that become universal mocking gesture in English folklore. But that was aftermath of the another one battle in a Hundred years war (if I recall correctly), at Crecy no quarter was ordered on both sides - so no prisoners with fingers to cut.

@@augustlandmesser1520 And Agincourt.... ;-)

They learned since the Valois ultimately won.

The English archers were still defeated by the French. The Hundred Years' War is not limited to Crécy or Agincourt.

England only used massively longbowmen since the early 1330's and used the same tactics as France previously so there was no real previous lessons.

English, not British. Britain wasn't a united kingdom for another 400 years after this.

Hard to do anything when the English tactic is to just sit on a hill and wait on a heavy defensive position.

The English archers were still defeated by the French. The Hundred Years' War is not limited to Crécy or Agincourt.

​@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramontgot your arse kicked at potiers as well

@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont Those two aren’t the only English victories in the 100 Years War. And France didn’t lose only because Henry V died. Otherwise, the war would have ended sooner.

@@LuisBrito-ly1ko The lancastrians still winning even after Henry 5 death so he wasn't the reason for their loss but instead, it was the civil war between 1407 and 1435 and Charles 6 madness that give Henry 5 then Bedford the edge

Do you know how they killed? You wouldn't think so highly of them then.

Thank you so much for supporting my work! Very kind of you. Happy 2024!

​@@HistoryMarcheyou're amazing man ❤❤❤❤❤

What the hell was he doing there? Far west of Bohemia.

He was old and blind and wanted to die honorably in battle, so this was kinda kamikadze attack @@eelchiong6709

@@eelchiong6709 they were allies. John's son Charles (the future king of Bohemia and the Holy Roman Emperor) was also present. Charles was raised at the French court. Also John was old, losing his eye-sight and wanted to fight one more time and die honorably in battle.

​​@@eelchiong6709 He was called absentee king, because most of his reign he spent fighting in foreign wars. He was born in Luxemburg, so he didn’t feel connected to Bohemia. He did expand Bohemian lands, though. His last words were: "Far be it that the King of Bohemia should run away. Instead, take me to the place where the noise of the battle is the loudest. The Lord will be with us. Nothing to fear. Just take good care of my son." But his son, Charles IV. became like the most important Bohemian/Czech ruler ever. Thanks to the upbringing John arranged for him.

@@eelchiong6709 Czechs as allies are a bit more reliable than the French...

Wow, thanks so much. Truly appreciate the kind words.

Oh man… have you ever explored EpicHistoryTV’s channel? I’ve always just assumed that no one else wants to touch the Napoleonic era because of how incredibly well done and comprehensive EpicHistory’s channel is on him particular.

Blah, blah, blah... Old Shakespeare never digested the fact that the French won the war 😅

@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont It was mainly celebrated because of the huge power difference between England and France, historically France was the main power of Europe due to its huge population compared to most other feudal kingdoms, ie England had 3-4x less people.

@@Yellow-kp9gs And half of France was allied with England at least one time in the 100YW

@@robert-surcouf To a degree yes, but it’s debatable if England could truly use the French man power outside of a few loyal regions like Gascony and Britanny. Many garrisons within English France were manned by English/welsh and even German troops.

@@Yellow-kp9gs Brittany wasn't part of france until 1532 and the relationship between Brittany and England was rather up and down after 1364 but they became real ennemis only after 1435. In Gascony, the garrisons was held by gascons too and many of them fought since the beginning until the end like Poitiers (1356) or Castillon (1453). Flanders were rather ally between 1340 and 1380 then 1419 and 1435 and neutral for the remaining time and outside of Calais, there was not any real garrison. Burgundy was ally betwwen 1419 and 1435 and the duke owned Flanders since 1384 so english garrison in this regions were useless. For Normandy, Charles of Navarre owned half of it so england had security between 1350 and 1370 but they indeed had to made garrisons between 1415 and 1453. For the Poitou, many nobles were loyals to Edward because of business affairs and after Bretigny, fight for him in the 1360's and 1370's. For the Rouergue, Armagnac, Bearn or Perigord, their loyalty after Bretigny were indeed doubtful but mostly because Edward of Woodstock tax them too heavily after Najera. I can agree that England/Plantagenet/Lancaster can't always the man power for these duchy/county but it's also true for France/Valois and this is why the numbers were never worse than 1vs2 instead of 1vs5

Maybe some battles like Boyaca, Chacabuco, Ayacucho, Maipu, Carabobo and many more. I’m curious to wait in the next video.

They couldn't done it better even if they wanted to lose the battle.

the accurate numbers is 10000-15000 vs 20000-25000

@@robert-surcouf look at agincore.

@@achilles2095 Azincourt and not Agincourt. The numbers there were approximatively 8000 vs 15000. The "english" had also many defeats where they outnumbered the "french"

@@robert-surcouf you sound a little salty sir

@@achilles2095 Not at all. You just made a mistake so i fix it.

They wanted adventure, glory and fortune like their Frankish ancestors in Charlemagne's times or Crusades for example, because they were raised on the Songs and Epics, of Roland or King Arthur, and even Troubadours's love songs (in chivalric way). It was particularly successful among the Nobility, because the values of chivalry were born in France, or the Medieval French (and Occitan) speaking world in general (particularly, Counties of Toulouse, Provence or Duchies of Aquitaine, Burgundy and Normandy, plus Norman's Sicily ). This is why most, including the youngest, were so eager to fight first, but in the old feudal mentality, while the world had already changed. The Plantagenet Army modernized more, especially after the wars against the Scots, where they saw that the old tactics of chivalry alone were no longer enough. Then in the 15th century, it will be the opposite, Charles VII will promote a more modern army, where the Plantagenets will remain cemented in the ancient tactics of the Longbowmen, which worked before.

@@thibaultsardet7399 Unlike Poitiers and Azincourt, there were some reasons for their actions. They don't have really face longbowmen yet so it was hard to process with this new data, the battlefield was rainy and muddy so it was hard for knights and horses with heavy armors to move and charge, they waited to fight because Edward 3 and Philippe 6 had avoided each other twice in 1339-1340 and finally, the harsh winters in 1315-1317 had forced peasants to move in cities lowering the taw incomes for nobles who had to find money somewhere else and so they fight to had ransom but they need to do it themselves and so on, had to charge.

Assuming they ever do, maybe?

@alexsmart5452 Well, they won the war.

This chanel mainly focuses on french defeats sadly but forgets to mention Formigny, Orleans, Gerberoy, Patay, Beaugency and many others

Technically, england never lost this war and france never won it as it was a war between a vassal (the duke of gascony) and his liege (the king of france) and ended with the former losing his duchy but gaining Calais while the latter extend his leverage in the kingdom.

@@robert-surcouf Google 100 years war, check the result and come back to edit your comment.

@@tonyantonio8956 Which lands were lost by england or won by france with the war outcome ? Since when people from gascony, flanders, burgundy, brittany, poitou, normandy, armagnacs, rouergue, quercy, foix, perigord or bearn/bigorre were english ?

@@robert-surcouf Don't twist words, tell me what google says.

@@tonyantonio8956 I don't twist any of your words so why can't you answer if i'm wrong ?