Invicta I’d love to see a video on how armies were controlled in the field. How did the common soldiers know what to do? How were they paid? Did they have well known words of command? Did armies train as a whole? How were they supplied etc...

the new voice is more official I guess you could say but I miss the original tbh not that I'm hateing just a bit resistant to change I guess

Thats a crazy good sponsor

I pre ordered it months ago its quite fun.

Hey ladies + gentlemen at Invicta... as a die-hard fan of your great series for 5 years or so now, as an idea and request for later on = can you please do a part 3 or 4 video about this raising of Medieval armies series throughout from the Byzantine Empire?, of their armies and how they themselves organized their forces throughout their eras differently as time progressed from the late 300's to 1453 AD pretty please!. The Byzantine Greek Eastern Roman Empire is a playable faction in Crusader Kings, and most of us fans love this great civilization, and I personally think it would be a great addition addon to your series if mentioned = unless you've already got it planned already right now in development for a later episode, then that's great anyway and looking forward to it all. I'm just saying in case you accidently forget, so don't mind it too much ok = it's just a reminder that Byzantium was there during those whole periods as well and we would love to know more about them from this type of history series. Anyway, thanks for these great videos about history that you all put so much time and effort into them all = it's really appreciated by all of us! 😃😉😊😎😍😘🤩👍❤✔X

Nah cause if they did that, their general would get the "procrastinator" debuff.

@@TheStapleGunKid Heh. In Shogun 2, generals can develop the trait 'An eye for the ladies'. Which, if I recall correctly, lowers the movement range of the general's army.

@@Root174 Despite playing hundreds of hours of Shogun 2, I don't remember that. But I certainly remember the procrastinator Debuff from Warhammer 2. So infuriating because as your empire gets large, you have to lave armies at strategic points along your border.

@@TheStapleGunKid Well, it only happens if you keep a general in one region for a little too long :P . I vaguely remember that generals could develop a similar trait in Rome Total War, but it's been a while. Which reminds me: if you use a general too often in Shogun 2, then he can develop the trait 'Delusions of grandeur'. Which lowers the general's loyalty. I've had that twice thus far (one for each of my two playthroughs).

If you are Byzantine, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Aways remember to press “Disband” after

@@sovietstar6703 it some nice money u have, would be a shame if someone forgot to disband your army

CrazyDinosaur Yourself. It’s always your own god fearing fault.

Raise vassal levies at your own risk.

@JS the Canuck lmfao

We’re more than ready when the time comes around

Like now. In some parts of the world anyway. Coming to a town near you soon.

Exactly, I’m waiting for the world to end to use all the knowledge I’ve accumulated to form a city-state and kingdom.

After WW3 apparently

Time to raise some legions

With unlimited slave labor, anything can be easy. Seriously, slaves also help keep the economy grounded with the minimum price for labor being $0 (think minimum wage). Once the supply of slaves dries up, costs go up, and before you know it, you are in the Middle Ages where you go broke trying to build and supply an army.

@@TEverettReynolds Slaves are poorly nurished and very hard to moltivate (read writings from slave owners in history). In agrian society, there was little surplus. Even moltivated laborers often starved in farmine. Keeping slaves fed was not easy. A country with people working for themselves tend to gain much more in taxation.

@@y.z.6517 Roman slavery was more complex than the modern view of slavery. There were different levels, a slave in some of the hideously dangerous mines around the Empire for example could probably expect a rather short, brutal life. Other slaves however were highly valued, any slave with a trade for example. These would generally be well looked after, and even permitted to sell some of what they made for their own personal profit. Educated slaves were also highly prized, indeed, educated slaves could in fact become VERY powerful and wealthy in Roman society. The strange relationship Romans had with their slaves can be seen in Roman cemetaries. Often the slaves are buried in the same complexes as the families who owned them, just as interestingly a large proportion of them were buried free, in that they had been freed at some point but chose to remain with the family they had once served as slaves. The number of inscriptions detailing former slaves buried alongside Roman citizens is actually both extensive and remarkable. The point is the Roman system of slavery was very different to the one we are most familiar with, and while obviously brutal and terrible in many respects, was actually far more lenient in many others than more modern examples of slavery. Emancipation of slaves was typically fairly common in Roman society, in fact the Ancient Greeks used to comment on the Romans prediliction for freeing slaves that had pleased them. Another thing to bear in mind, is that slavery was pretty much universal at thise time, it was something that EVERYONE pretty much indulged in, it was not limited to Romans. More than half the population of Athens at its height were slaves, Spartans were in a distinct minority in Sparta, the Persians kept slaves, the Ethiopians, the Egyptians, the Gauls and various Celtic Tribes, the list goes on. Pretty much the whole known world during the Ancient Period was, to some extent, dependant on slavery.....

@@alganhar1 Sure, my point was that paying $0 wage does not mean costless. If you expect anyone to work hard and find solution with his own initiative, you have to convince him that doing so will benefit himself. At the first glance, mistreating slaves who will die soon in a dangerous mine may seem to make sense. Until you realized that slaves who are under stress will make far more mistakes, meaning that the mine will collapse more often. That means the mine needs to be dug again, and the lost slaves and tools need to be bought again. In addition, slaves who are expected to die soon will do anything to run away. That means that you need to hire more guards who are expensive to maintain.

@@alganhar1 A common practice for managing slaves who were expected to die was to let them indulge themselves with alcohol and hoes. Slaves enjoying immediate pleasure are more likely to forget their stress and remote danger. Roman gladiators, for example, were paid 7 times more than legionary soldiers.

@Publius Vorenus Sextus don't forget the single scout equites unit who single handedly slew the general and his elite retinue

Lol

lol

Ah yes, the smell from the mead hall will serve as bait to attract the warriors to stay at the warrior hall. Legit tactic back in the day. 10/10

What game

Then you just spend some time strolling around the country side beating up half-naked bandits with clubs and, presto, your recruits will turn into knights in full plate.

Bruh I've been paying 40 denars for Sarranid recruits

@@f0rk16 disregard the Sarranids until you can fund your own crusade

Well All you really need are Rhodok Sharpshooters

@@GanjaMasterBlaster heavy cavalry goes swooosh

Medieval Humans: You must pick up arms because it is your moral and social obligation as a vassal to your liege. Orks: Oi, I hear dis Nob be goin to a proppa fightin. We can’t be missing the acshun! We can’t be missin da LOOTIN! Vikings: How is that weird?

We didn't hav enug TEEF, Boss!

DEUS VOLT!!!

@@carloreytansiongco8741 *vikings: lets go steal stuff and hope we don't run into soldiers other scandinavians: naa, lets go conquer remember folks, the vikings were just a bunch of sea bandits. they didn't want real fights. norse/danish/etc did launch invasions but they weren't vikings when they did so.

Lord Solar Matthius confirmed Vikings are just sea orks. While actual Scandinavian invasions are all just a big WAAAGH

The Peasant's Crusade did more damage to Christian kingdoms like Serbia and Hungary and even the Byzantine provinces in the north than they did against the Muslims in Anatolia where they were ultimately defeated. Although that fact, that they were so easy to defeat, made the said Muslims complacent and were oblivious to the real army that was professional and would actually be able to seize Jerusalem.

The 1st Crusade should have not even be successful at all as logistics was a Bich to the point where they have to relay on pillaging anatolian cities there is even a case of cannibalisim in one instance so when the Crusaders eventually reach Jerusalem the result was almost inescapable when the Fatimid garrison did not hand over the city.

@@robertjarman3703 It was thanks to some hermit named Peter.

It did delay Muslim expansion for a time, giving Europeans time to prepare.

@@Cyricist001 just remember that Islamic expansion was not unified under one Caliph or Sultan but like any religious/political movement divided by states so them fighting each other already did slow the expansion however a European at the time would shake his/her legs because the Islamic world was bigger and more advanced than Europe with the Seljuks looking like they can burn down the Byzantines and reach Europe proper. So the real way the crusades helped curve the expansion was to push back Islam with the Crusades to the Holy land in the east and the Reconquesta in the west which would not expand into Europe until the Ottomans showed up.

It depicts it more like modern national militaries and the king a dictator of a nationstate. I think the reality is more interesting and fairer than the modern style.

And "summon the banners" is explained in details in the books for example it took Rob a month to assemble a rushed army

Big caveat. In the BOOKS! I think narrator was mostly referring to depiction in movies. The Witcher books also details a lot about mustering armies. When Temeria is prepping it's army against Nilfgaard and the whole ordeal Jarre goes thru to get enlisted and just ends up in the PIF (poor fucking infantry) is golden 😂

In the books Gondor got an absolute tons of allies with parades going on for days. The only fantasy series that i’ve seen showing almost accurate logistics(if you don’t count magic) is the Wheel of Time. In Lotr armies simply eat out of thin air.

To be fair, that'ss not just a regular chapter; its a Tolkien chapter.

Requiem Aeternam As far as I remember the parade of the armies of the Southern Fiefs marching into Minas Tirith only took a few hours and people were even disappointed about how few soldiers arrived. So there weren’t tons of allies. Actually, I think the Lords leading those armies should be considered vassals of the Lord of Minas Tirith, not allies. Also, there is mention of large stocks of provisions in Minas Tirith, the daily food rations were reduced when the siege started and all useless mouths were sent away from the city beforehand, so the armies were not eating out of thin air. I’m not saying LotR is realistic, just trying to clarify some points, ok?

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

Anarcho-syndicalist communes

She turned me into a newt

@@rinck17 An enlightened man who learned that the Earth is in the shape of a banana.

@@microwaveenthusiast7410 considering you can type i can only assume you got better

ah yes, KCD I love that game even if it constantly shits on my face with realistic gameplay.

@Super Aventail those types of smaller conflicts were common between lords. It was interesting when they talked to Konrad Kyeser and he wanted to build a bunch of fancy rockets like what they used at Nicopolis to siege Talmberg, and the lords looked at him dumbly like he was an idiot for thinking small lords like them had access to explosives.

Basically like modern day gangsters and mafia war, small scale hit and run...

Thank you for this, I was wondering what games include this kind of content 😁

So glad they changed the name of high tier bandits in Men at Arms. Just real life if you see 3 shining bushes you run away asap.

or loot some gold hopefully I'm in the rear

This is medieval warfare, boy! We don't liberate land. We subjugate it.

@@colinsanders9397 or loot it at least

Arrange a political marriage with his family while you still can.

@@dubuyajay9964 but what if he dies

It is in the theatrical release. It is a nice touch. Tolkien was a meticulous man (for clarity, I'm not saying Tolkien wrote the film, rather this detail, or similar, was in the books)

@@Madhattersinjeans The movies are crap when it comes to details. Tolkien had been a soldier in WW1 and was a skilled linguist and historian. He was indeed quite meticulous when it came to small details. In the book, Théoden is already gathering his forces (due to Gandalf's advice) in Dunharg, when the messengers of Gondor arrive to request his help and he isn't hesitant at all.

@@untruelie2640 The fact that he had to think about it was actually a nice touch in the movies. I'd say this is one example where a change wasn't bad.

@@MDP1702 I beg to differ. It is more of a needless dramatisation in my opinion. Théoden had a gondorian mother (according to Tolkien) and did grow up in Gondor; he had been a loyal ally of Gondor during his entire reign. Asking the dramatic question "Were was Gondor when the Westfold fell?" does complete injustice to his character and pretty much ignores his backstory. The alliance between the Rohirrim and Gondor was the backbone of Rohan's foreign policy for over 200 years; the land Calenardhon (Rohan) was given to them under the explicit condition that they would be allied to Gondor under all circumstances. (Not to mention the fact that Gondor was in no position at all to send troops to help Rohan in its fight against Saruman's army, because it was already occupied with defending Osgiliath, Cair Andros and its coast.) There are other great injustices to characters and events in the movies. Denethor, for example, is not reluctant to ignite the signal beacons of Gondor; they are already burning (!) while Gandalf and Pippin are still on their way to Minas Tirith and even before the gondorian messengers arrive at Dunharg. The movie completely ignores Denethor's skillfull and rational war conduct in order transform him into a cheesy antagonist. He only descents into madness and hopelessness, after Faramir is wounded.

@@untruelie2640 *Théoden had a gondorian mother (according to Tolkien) and did grow up in Gondor; he had been a loyal ally of Gondor during his entire reign.* Which you don't know if you watch the movie and is thus irrelevant in terms of the movie. *Asking the dramatic question "Were was Gondor when the Westfold fell?" does complete injustice to his character and pretty much ignores his backstory.* Actually I personally think that asking this question, being upset that Gondor didn't help at all and still going to Gondors aid is a much more intriguing character than just the typical loyal vassal/ally. *The alliance between the Rohirrim and Gondor was the backbone of Rohan's foreign policy for over 200 years* 1. People that didn't read the books, but just watched the movies didn't necessarily know this. 2. This gives even more reason for Theoden to ask why Gondor didn't send any help. *the land Calenardhon (Rohan) was given to them under the explicit condition that they would be allied to Gondor under all circumstances.* I know, people watching the movie don't. And if they are allied, then where was Gondor when Rohan needed them? Seems like Theodens question still could very much apply. *(Not to mention the fact that Gondor was in no position at all to send troops to help Rohan in its fight against Saruman's army, because it was already occupied with defending Osgiliath, Cair Andros and its coast.)* And? Theoden might not be completely aware of Gondors truly precarious situation and nevertheless Gondor could have send a small detachment of troops, even just symbolically. And Theoden might have said the question more out of a feeling, not knowledge. Afterall he almost immediately decides to help Gondor. It sounds like they might have messed up Denethor indeed. But I still think the "Where was gondor" followed by a small pause and "master the rohirrim" was not necessarily a bad change. I think both this and the book version might have worked well. Though from what I hear the book version seems a little "bland". Personally I stopt reading the first book when I was maybe a third or less in. I didn't really like it. Maybe it is because of the older nature of the writing/language, though I didn't like the story much too up to that point. I think it was a good choice not putting Bombadil in the movie for example.

I'm sure this action has his consent.

@@solwen He is Franz. They will obey

Well his empire is based on the holy roman empire (but much more organized and have more solid boarders) and is a bit closer to a real king as he has to deal with his many lower ranking counts (electors) as they can basically veto his moves. In some cases even revolt or in Marianburgs case secide

@@forickgrimaldus8301 Marienburg bought it's independence from a lousy emperor of old though

That just demonstrate the power of the elector counts though as the emperor at the time of the secession is so weak

when 'supposedly' nice traits become annoying

i swear, charitable and kind are the worst personality traits in ck2

@@theycallmedoorway9913 not in ck2 they not

King without traits is better than king with 7 virtues

True. Hard part is maintaining them for longer period and having patience in amassing which takes forever lmao

Screw levies. Imperial Red Coats are the best

One round in TW (Rome, Attila, Britannia, Medieval) is a season. That's 3 months.

@@sztypettto medieval 2 had 2 years per turn.

@@matthiuskoenig3378 , thanks for the correction. Been almost a decade since I played.

Yoo bro im kinda curious about ur novel. Is it a webnovel? If so where can i read it

@@suisiwara2036 thank you for the interest!! Ive had it saved on a google doc for years. Slowly been evolving and changing as i get older. Its tough to get substantial work on it because i am so busy with college. It’s nowhere near done but i am determined to finish it one day. I dont want to make any money off it im doing it just for fun. Might release it online when it’s completed

@Jeremiah Boyd thank you much appreciated! I feel you. Writing books are so time consuming its been a work in progress for over 7 years now i think. Sometimes i feel like i will never finish but i just do it as a creative outlet not for my income. I just tell myself “i want to finish my story before i die” hahaha

@@Jaymo00 i feel you. I started a novel when i was in grade school i havent finished it too :/. Anyways ill wait for you to release your novel

You guys are inspiring me to write one as welll

I already knew the quote was going to be included as I had expected that scene from the Kingdom of Heaven.

We found our next Overmind guys.

there where no trains in the middle ages. that is where it went wrong.

You mean "Morph"

Zerg was always my bane. Best chance was to build the Supply Depots in a narrow part of the most likely line of approach, then hope the Zerglings get delayed.

@@firejuggler31 My turtle brethren!

You really talk about Danmark? Or... KHORNES REALM??!!!

This is interesting history!

victoria 2 captures this feeling perfectly where if you mobilize your economy collapses, rebellion appears imminent and you increase the chance of a great war happening where every nation who will fight in it will see a shitton of their populations or even their empire falling apart but hey at least you got like a shitton of farmers to send as meatshields

It took even longer to mobilize once World War 1 came around. Train schedules and standing forces helped a little, but artillery pieces and airplanes require a lot more logistical support than a guy with a spear. And that’s not even mentioning the titanic quantities of ammunition and rations required for the average soldiers and even more support for specialized equipment like trench mortars and machine guns. Replacement parts, cleaning kits, gasoline, tires, horse feed, whetstones, telegraph wire, medical supplies, gas masks, and more all had to be sourced and supplied en masse before you could even THINK about declaring war. War is hard and exponentially expensive.

Meanwhile in Ancient Rome: logistical preparation for a small scale campaign can be done in a week, legion can move out immediately afterwards. Took Europe a millennia to re-learn what it destroyed.

@@artruisjoew5473 I do think having a far more centralized government helped the Roman Empire. Having no need to negotiate with nobles does seem to help mobilization.

@@pretzelbomb6105 Many of those weapons did not exist in 1914, or existed in small numbers. Gas masks, did not exist, Gas was not used until 1915, arguably the french were first with a tear Gas attack, but the Germans were first with a fatal agent at Ypres. Trench Mortars were not developed until 1915 - 1916, the most useful being the Stokes Mortar, which is the basis of all modern mortars. Heavy artillery was rare even in the German Army in 1914, and they only had more of it than anyone else because they knew they were going to have to go through the Belgian Border Forts, which would need a seige train. Pretty much everyone else relied on Field Artillery..... Aircraft as well were relatively minor logistically in 1914. Of course, all these would change during the war! But other than those little nitpicks, pretty much spot on, as you mentioned (and so many forget) the mobilisation timetables of all the major powers with the exception of Britain (which traditionally had a very small, professional Army) was wholly dependant on train timetables. Indeed, both France and Germany had literally planned out their entire rail networks with war against the other in mind. This is why you see so many rail lines in those days running parrallel to the borders with other lines meeting them from within, this was done for easy movement of troops from one part of the country to another to meet potential attacks. This, and the fact that the only exploitation arm, the cavalry, was obsolete is actually a large part of the problem the Generals faced. An attack could only proceed at walking pace, but the defenders could quickly train in reserves to plug any gap. The logistics issues only got worse as the war went on, modern warfare was essentially born in the Trenches of WWI. In 1914 an infantry platoon in every major army was fairly large, and was comprised of 100% riflemen. In contrast, by 1918 a British Infantry Platoon consisted of two rifle sections (a section is the British term for a squad at the time), each built around a Lewis gun, a gun section built around two Lewis guns, a Grenadier Section, and a heavy section which was made up of rifle grenadiers and a couple of 3 inch mortars. This is a combined arms unit that looks in many ways similar to a modern Infantry platoon. Of course, though these extra weapons gave the platoon more firepower, it also meant far more equipment had to be supplied to each platoon. The real logistics explosion however was artillery shells! There are photographs of dumps of expended shells that number literally hundreds of thousands of empty brass shell cases. These would be shipped back and recycled! They were shooting so many shells that they literally had to recycle the brass cases to keep up with demand.

I never bothered with antipopes but this makes sense...

Stonks

I believe that if something is medieval it won't be something new

Don't you get too excited there. You're supposed to keep doing early modern stuff. P..Please?

something blue

@@sirBrouwer I got that

Ok... And?

@@enriquecabrera2137 nothing in particular. I just mentioned that their example regariding Karl-Franz is not that well choosen :)

@@ValerianLincinius ok

The Empire is actually a really fascinating example of worldbuilding for how they go into detail about each province keeping a standing army and how the Free Companies feature in the Imperial army. Old GW really put in the work to make it feel real.

@@Archris17 it was a proper example since a lot if not MOST empires did their army building that way. But turbonerd Valerian apparently didnt likenit because it wasn't super ultra specific enough

The Knights of Europe come to your aid!!!

Rome laughs at your desperate situation

@@witchhunter6755 *Suddenly demons in the middle of the Vatican*

@@dariustiapula *"the SLAYER has entered the facility"*

I told the Pentagon the apocalypse has crude oil and is trying to sell it for a non-USD currency. There problem solved.

@Black Solid true caesar and his many wall building's won him countless battles..even when the odds were impossible..

@Black Solid No, this would have been the babylonians.

I'm not entirely certain which country you're from, but in England (and in similarly Anglophone countries as well, I suppose), that type of combined professional soldier and wealthy land-owning peasant would be called a yeoman. These were the people who would wield the famed longbows the English were famous (or infamous, depending on who you ask) for using to devastating effect against the French in the hundred years war. It would be intuitive to assume that almost every feudal culture would have elites even among the commoners, who, unlike most other levies, would be wealthy landowners in peace and bridge the gap between lesser trained levies and the professional warriors of the military aristocracy.

@@Vlad_Tepes_III Well, i am slav, and we brought our own castes, then adapted them to fit feudal World better. And frankly, before XIIth century, word "kmieć" meant "prince's dignitary". But after XIIth century, when class of town and city dwellers was properly established- something between nobles and peasantry, as far as rights and priviliges were concerned, at least over here- "kmieć" meant basically a wealthy peasant. I guess every country has it's own little nuances- still it is good, that myth of unruly, pitchforks wielding, unwashed, cowardly rube is going away, one video at the time :)

@@heretyk_1337 The perception of unwashed peasant soldiers fighting with pitchforks probably comes from media since costumes for armies can get very expensive or it's done as a joke like Monty Python.

@@MK_ULTRA420 I'll be a paranoid one here, thank you very much, Mr. CIA Program(just fucking with you) But i think that myth comes from bit different source... If you watch ANY kind of historical drama, or even fantasy that is somewhat rooted in history, like "Game of Thrones", what will you get? Clegry i corrupted, and they do nothing but fuck nuns, drink wine, and lie through their teeth. Knights and nobles are always arrogant, they care not about their subjects, they even shoot for sport/rape/feed those subjects to the dogs/ do some other terrible shit for the fuck of it... They supress them, keep them uneducated, use them for their nefarious purposes, vent frustrations on them from time to time and try to keep the World within the norm... Peasants are stupid, cannot read, or count, are cowered in shit, no matter what they do(they could be writting, they will still have dirty hands...), and only thing, that separates them from farmyard animals is, that it is them, who hold the string attached to said animal's mouth piece, and not the other way around... They shovel shit from one heap to the other all day... AND THERE IS ALWAYS BRAVE, NEW HERO OUT THERE, TO CHALLENGE OLD, STIFF ORDER, AND TO CHANGE THIS TRAGIC WORLD INTO SOMETHING MORE AKIN TO OURS, WHICH IS, OH!, SO FAIR... Because admitting, that there were wealthy merchants, coming out of paesants' ranks, who climbed the ladders on ther own, or that free person could become a noble or city dweller- that there was upward movement in society, much like it happens today, just then it took some brave thing to be done-, or that lords very often fought to defend their people(some did it from the goodness of their hearts, but even if not, it was surely done to keep thier workers alive- mutually beneficial relationship), or that in times of drought or flood some nobles would give away food from their storages and wouldn't require commoners to work their fields, so they could tend to their own damaged propety, EVEN IF law fully allowed them to exploit their peasants further(in my country that would be XVIIth century, not medieval times, but example still stands), or that a knight, caught in act of raping, or killing a member of peasantry, for the fuck of it- would be tortured publicly(or at the very least, had to pay hefty sum of money and was tasked by some clergy representative to do something to wash away the blood)- admiting to all of that would require Hollywood to: 1. Actually caring about telling truth. 2. Realizing, that world was as complex, as ours is. 3. Get their heads out of their asses, and realizing tha: wealthy= bad, poor= good mentality from Vietnam War Era isn't exactly applicable to people living from 500 to 1000 years ago, with mentality so much different, than ours, that we could kind off think about them as of different planet inhabitants... When i tell people, that castes gave people stability, assurance in life, and certain freedoms in some aspects, while taking it in others- people look at me, like i just fell down from the Moon. Y'know, because they SAW THE MOVIES, AND IN THOSE MOVIES IT WASN"T LIKE I SAID... Because, as we all know(SARCASM): we are smarter, than people in medieval times, because we have computers...- to which i respond with "do you know, how to make computer? Toaster? Toilet paper? Penicillin? Any other miracle of science, that you are so keen to point out to me? Anyway- it is long rant, but i trust, you will get the point :)

@@heretyk_1337 The irony is the top heads of Hollywood were and still are delusional dirtbags who either believed in their own self-rightousness or didn't care anything at all except money. So they propped themselves up and put all others down to maintain power that they had. Edit: Almost like the same evil feudal lords they depicted in their films.

Ya win?

It would've been a lot of self teaching and sustainment. Squires learning and training under Knights. Possibly a concept similar to the modern reserves where the "peasants" were equipped and paid to train occasionally. There is evidence that often the fyrd (levies) would be somewhat equipped and allowed to keep those weapons as a result of military service when called upon. Furthermore, as far as the skirmishers and archers, hunting was a major way of life and many bowmen would've mastered their craft hunting. My two cents worth anyway

@Zach Juarez I'm curios too, I could find extremely little information about it, especially about lower class soldiers. Rich people usually used the services of a master-at-arms, who would train nobles and their retinue. Wealthy nobles could even afford the services of a personal trainer. From these masters we have a plethora of combat treatises starting from the Late Middle Ages - check out Wiktenauer for many such treatises who are translated into modern English. As for lower class soldiers, as far as I can tell, it was either their father, or a veteran from their village/town, or a during a campaign a veteran soldier or even a master-at-arms could train the levies (not during marching, obviously, but during camping, sieges etc.). However, a lot of this info is conjecture, assumptions and guessing. I don't know of any source from that time that clearly tell us the situation and gives us details, when it comes to who does the training of commoners... :(

The Brit longbowman trained every Sunday after church iirc

@@kskaiseraaron Makes a lot of sense. That's actually quite a logical explanation. Most of these peasants, who volunteered for service, had a considerably large family, who took care of the land(s)/craft/business, while they did some soldiering for a bit of extra cash. (By wages paid to them, AND, preferably by looting enemy/neutral lands, as they paid more, on their way to, and from battle.) More the loot, better the savings for home, and better the equipment they could afford, for the next battle.( better equipment translated into better pay.) After a few battles, (if they managed to survive long enough, and were lucky enough to get lots of loot), they naturally developed better combat skills, and had much better gear. Guess, what that means? It means, that, the next time they go to battle/war, their status would automatically be increased from a member of a peasant levy, to that of a MERCENARY. Now, obviously, mercenaries had far better pay, and had much less to worry about regarding sharing of loot, since, they were less in number, and didn't have to pay a bigger share to the lords, who led the peasants, since mercenaries were generally granted a much higher degree of freedom. Thus, more pay, more loot, more share. They basically got rich. THAT IS, if they survived long enough for, and after that. (Which was rare.)

@@mirrormask7946 holy crap this is actually a well thought out explanation. Thanks for this.

Waste not, want not. It wouldn't do for you to be unable to have your cavaliers sweep the foe from the field because your best riders are lying in bed from infected otherwise non-serious injuries received in what amounted to a backroom brawl that wouldn't have decided anything. Bravado doesn't win wars, after all. Chivalry is in using your chevaliers well, and that includes burning the enemy's food stores and not giving them the satisfaction of fighting back.

your udnerstanding of chivalry is rather poor. chivalry is what ever a knight thought was honourable, it is not a monolithic ideology. and in somecases did include not fighting/burning civilians. in other cases it invokved following orders or doing what was nessisary for victory. romanisised chivilry comes from stories written to discourage 'barbaric' forms of chilvry that allowed the killing of innocents. also 'martial' warfare is redundant, marital means related to fighting and warfare.

It was smol. Very smol. Teeny tiny. Like a skeleton crew of 2000-3000 that would then be supplemented later. Nothing compared to rome's standing force of over 20 legions/600,000 troops or ming china's 1,000,000 full time troops in the 1300's.

​@@VarietyGamerChannelFrench standing army in late Medieval era was of 9.000 men-at-arms, full professionals. Which for european standards was a significant and costly army to maintain, so it's useless to compare with the Romans or China

@@VarietyGamerChannelCompletely different circumstances.

You don’t summon an ork army for war. The war summons the orks.

OI. YOUZ CALLED FER A SCRAP YA GIT?

@@ryanf4106 "Yew fuggin wot, skrub?"

@@artruisjoew5473 Orkz got mentul powahz wot fingz werk koz dey figga dey werk... In da foocher, derez onlee War, innit. Orkz luv a bit've a rumble,yeah? Ergo... Orkz iz wot makin fingz konstant war. Frink Maahk, Fink.

Understanble for the expensive part. But some paradoxe game are not that hard. Eu4 is really hard, but CK is not that hard.

the new games are pretty easy to understand granted your literate and have basic common sense, also yeah paradox's way of handling DLCs is pretty dogshit so just buy the base game and pirate a version with all the DLCs included

The heretical isekai warhammer or the euphoric dying imperium?