🙂🙂🙃🙃

thanks! long time ago i asked for a video on english,french or some non germanic(reischlaufer,landsknecht) army :)

“Freedoooooom”

@@mrmu7ammed1 Freedom from ... or freedom to?

​@@kaoskronostyche9939 freedom !

This American with Scottish blood agrees, it’s hard to find accurate information on Scottish warfare

There are even less about Irish or Breton

Totally,yes.👌👍

Both sides lost due to arrogance. The biggest English defeats were mostly due to the English nobles and higher ups rushing in head first. Often the same with the Scots. When you underestimate your enemy, you die.

No, no its PIKE-PIPES-SHOOT! Repeat with me! PIKE-PIPES-SHOOT!!

@@talorcmacallan4268 ???

@@talorcmacallan4268 what the hell are you talking about?

The Battle of Pinkie: origin of the custom of “pinkie swearing”.

England was always fighting the world. Often the Scots would raise an army and attack the north of England. The King would often then, as an example, return with his army after fighting in France and annihilate the Scots. So you have to look at the quality of the Army. Even the battle of the standard was against a rag tag quickly raised English army. The main force was occupied, probably in France :D

@@mrfreeman2911 Yeah , happened a lot in the second war of Scottish independence too , king Edward the third destroyed the much larger Scottish army at the battle of Hallidon hill , and when he was away fighting in France the Scot’s attacked the north of England but got destroyed at the battle of Neville’s cross and king David of Scotland got captured.

@@mrfreeman2911 "England was always fighting the world" is nonsense

@@bierwolf8360 Is it? England was constantly fighting France. It fought Spain, Holland, France and many many many others during those times. And during the Jacobite rebellion the red coats were all over the world.

@@mrfreeman2911 That's so absolutely nothing extraordinary. Any country could come up with a similiar sob story

Glad to hear it!

Glad you like them!

Sounds great! Historical?

@@mariushunger8755 Yes. About lord Ruthven's scotish army expedition to Livonia and their fight against russians in 1573

Will it be published any time soon?

@@mariushunger8755 I believe, I will finish it before the end of the year

@@raulsiniallikl2317 Nice. Let us know what the title is!

So true, wise words

"Oh yeah dude those Scottish people fucking suuucked lmao we shit on them so ez" Lia literal gamer shit talking so I honestly believe that mfers were salty about how hard it was back then and shit on them in their scrolls lmao

I think it's the right period for the sword. Although I basket hilted swords were likely in use, the earliest example I know of comes from the Mary Rose in the 16th century. The two handed sword being called a claymore is giving me an aneurism.

Well it works both ways . The scots did thier equal share of invading England whenever they got the chance

Yeah, the Irish.

@@vatsal7640 Yes but there invasions were often justified. the invasion of 1513, for example, which led to the battle of Flodden, was due to Scotland honouring the Auld Alliance with France after they fell victim to an aggressive foreign policy

@@tillerman7272 and you totally ignore that James broke a similar treaty with Henry. Of course it looked a good bet didn't it, main English army and the King in France, what could go wrong?

​​@@tillerman7272I don't that's justified justified.

yes, gallowglass please!

You mean the English fought around the world. Long periods of "peace" were due to campaigns in France etc.

Check out the Osprey books for the period... a lot of the uniforms come from those publications.

Von what?

Lol the comedian?

Hard to conclude that the Scottish failed because of inferior man power when they couldn't even win a major field battle despite having superior forces in most of those very battles. The fact of whether Scotland could win long campaigns isn't relevant unless you can win field battles.

Culloden wasn't a Scottish vs English thing, it was a Jacobites vs The Government, there were Scots and English on both sides.

You can very well win every major battle but and still lose the war because your homeland can't breed new soldiers fast enough. Ask the swedes.

⁠@@ronhall9394it was a war over religion and an opposition to the union. Majority of the support on the Jacobite side came from Scottish people but there were some English sympathizers.

​@@xtramail4909 Jacobite support from the Highlands (though not all), Lowland Scots mainly supported the Government. The church bells of Glasgow were rung in celebration of news from Culloden.

Aye bring on the gallowglass!

"Scotland wasn't backward - it was just poor, tribal, and reliant on increasingly outdated methods of recruitment!" It sounds like you're trying to argue against the initial thesis, but end up supporting it.

@@dojyaanstojyaan7070 And where the hell did I write that? Maybe you could come up with something more clever than a strawman argument?

@@kamilszadkowski8864 It wasn't a strawman, but rather a summary of your justification of an objectively inferior military system. You argue that there was nothing wrong with the feudal levy as it was practiced due to socio-economic factors, even though richer states gradually embracing professional armies should be enough to prove it false. Has it not crossed your mind that Scotland's mass use of levy was just a result of extreme impoverishment and an inability to field an actual, professional army instead? If levy was not outdated and backward, why contemporary countries were trying to move away from it? How come that countries which utilized professionalized armies achieved great successes against levy-reliant countries? And why utilize something much more expensive when the perfect method was already around for centuries? Just look at the examples you gave. The Cossacks, the Scots, and the Tatars formed up some of the poorest societies in the known world. Extremely tribal and decentralized, they were no match for any organized state around them, which is why they were dominated throughout their history. Even their bellicosity was a result of an extreme resource scarcity and the inability to assert a central authority that would pacify them and consequently end their raiding "warrior" culture. The Ottomans themselves had a very sizable force of professional troops which they used to great effect - and their use of human meat shields such as the Tatars, azabs and akinjis was a result of not having enough resources to use them in their endless conflicts rather than a genuine need for levy-grade quality soldiers. The feudal levy was absolutely a backward and archaic method of fielding troops. I understand your point that it was "good enough" for what it was, but to consider it modern and up-to-par with the emerging state armies is simply absurd.

@@dojyaanstojyaan7070 Ah see, now that you fully articulated your arguments I can actually see your point. Thank you. *"Has it not crossed your mind that Scotland's mass use of levy was just a result of extreme impoverishment and an inability to field an actual, professional army instead?"* --- This is exactly what I thought. I wouldn't call it an extreme impoverishment, armies fielded by Moldova were equipped even more poorly (yet they did pose a threat even to Polish and Ottoman armies). *"If levy was not outdated and backward, why contemporary countries were trying to move away from it?"* --- See, I think you are making exactly the same mistake Russians recently did in their invasion of Ukraine. Russians thought that simply moving from mass conscription to contract soldiers will magically make their army more professional. Their failed invasion made them realize that asking someone with a conscript level of training to sign a contract won't magically make them a professional soldier. What matters most is the way of implementing the system. Not the system itself. Just look how many countries after implementing professional armies like Sweden or Commonwealth quickly backtracked a little and supplemented their forces with conscripted soldiers. I write conscripted but the conscription method was more akin to levying as it usually involved a group of villagers paying for equipping and training one of them, yet both of these states are praised for the "modern" this idea was. Just take a look at how much praise Caroleans are getting despite being formed through an allotment system that is identical to some older levy systems. *The Cossacks, the Scots, and the Tatars formed up some of the poorest societies in the known world. Extremely tribal and decentralized, they were no match for any organized state around them* --- Well you are mostly wrong about two of those societies. Throughout XVIth and XVIIth centuries all major powers in the region failed to control or eliminate them. I of course mean the Cossacks and Tatars. *"How come that countries which utilized professionalized armies achieved great successes against levy-reliant countries?"* --- You mean like against Crimean Khanate which was, despite its small size and levied armies a power that was feared by much bigger Muscovy and Commonwealth? Or Cossacks that on several occasions managed to decimate professional armies sent to quell them? Or maybe mostly levied the Moldovan army which on a few occasions under Stephen the Great managed to inflict decisive defeats against Poles, Ottomans, and Hungarians (all of which made use of professional armies)? Moldova is a particularly good example here. Its army was not a product of particular backwardness in military theory but a combination of different factors, like social and economic development, available manpower, and geopolitical situation which created the necessity to maximize the use of available manpower which was only possible through levies. Switching to a completely professional army would worsen Moldovan security not improve it. The same can be said about Scotland from what I can gather. Being faced by the bigger and wealthier Kingdom of England, they were forced to rely on levies. Yet from what I can see from the video they fought in a relatively modern fashion making use of pike squares supported by other, lighter formations. We have to remember that the video covers only the beginning of the Early Modern Era when most countries on the continent were still relying on levies o some degree. Besides even a century later the wealthiest countries on the continent had problems affording professional armies during times of prolonged conflict. See, but I think our disagreement mostly comes from a different view on backwardness. IMO using a technically outdated system due to a lack of resources (or a myriad of other factors) is not backwardness. It is just making do with what you got. Now, failing to implement reforms despite having the incentive and resources to do so as the Ottomans and Poles did with their armies in the XVIII century, now this is true backwardness.

​@Kamil Szadkowski one of the most well rounded rebuttals I've seen in any comment section

The Scots failed to make any lasting gains after its victories though.

The problem is just that England was too big and populated... after Robert the Bruce victories were just short pauses for the English to came back and try again and Scotland was too isolated to receive French reinforcements, after they changed their feudal military system to a core of permanent troops with some of the best artillery around and kicked them out of the continent. It seems the English were bay better in protecting the Channel that in intercepting Scottish mobles and soldiers that went to fight in France

Well until the end of the 16th century I would not think that there was a huge population difference between England and Scotland. We have the industrial revolution, highland clearances, famin and abscentee landlords to blame for the change in balances. England has huge amounts of population of Welsh, Scots and Irish descended people. Further USA, Canada and other English speaking lands also had a huge migration over the period of the same peoples. So what remains in Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a small fraction of what could have been if industrialisation, trade and infrastructure were as focused as England in that period.

@@gm2407 most sources ive read figured England around a 4-6x the population of Scotland in he high middle ages

@@markmurphy6197Ok just doing a brief search to familiarise myself, I likely misremembered things. England 1066 2-2.5m England 1600 4m estimates, Scotland 1066 estimated 0.5-1.0m, Scotland 1600 arround 800 thousand. By the 1750s before the clearances and just after Bonnie Prince Charlie it was 1.7 million in Scotland and 5.5 million in England. Currently England circa 56 million, Scotland 5.4 million No doubt England was more populated, but the scale of the difference is much bigger now. Probably the estimates I have written are among the most favourable to Scotland in the earlier periods. Currently we have to remember that the high UK population is supported by global trade and Scotland's population was limited by climate so would always have been lower than England. Just not 11X than it is now.

If the men with pikes had something else, they'd have been more vulnerable to cavalry though.

There was also a small stream or drainage ditch (can't remember which) just in front of the English line which further disrupted the Scot's cohesion and order.

Lowlander peasants mostly didn't spend all their time in low level conflicts and raids against each other so it wasn't really their known style of fighting, highlanders were plenty experienced but the militia were better used in the form that least showed their inexperience, pike blocks fit this, especially when English heavy cavalry was a major threat, they had the problem that pike blocks dealt poorly with the English preference for longbows but if they didn't use them the knights could just directly charge and kill most of them in the rout. For this reason their main strength was numbers (fact was the North wasn't densely populated and they typically attacked while the main army was in France) and irregular warfare, be it raiding, or harassing English garrisons.

The sourcing from English historians isn't as much an issue now. You don't get many nationalists in academia nowadays

Its best to listen to multiple, a scottish historian can be just as biased as an english one which is why you dont take your facts from only one source.

I'm pretty sure this channel covers the development of Spanish pike and shot warfare, but the gist of the strengths of the tercio is that it is a very complete system of battle within the pike and shot context. It incorporates all forms of infantry with pikes at the core screened by muskets which are in turn covered by light sword infantry and pikemen as well. This solves the problem of deploying muskets as an undefended screen or on the far flanks of an army which leaves them vulnerable to cavalry or light skirmishing units while still being able to support the pikemen. Cavalry can also be utilized as a part of a defensive screen or on the formation's flanks and mutually supporting the muskets and harassing unsupported infantry or opposing cavalry as part of this formation. Typically the tercios are deployed in an "open" order leaving space between the pike squares, which also allows the artillery to support the infantry as they advance or defend a position, something that is either not possible or is dependent upon terrain for "closed" line formations. This "open" order formation also means that muskets from another unit can support an adjacent unit engaged in melee providing overlapping fields of fire. For most of the early modern era, the tercio was the preeminent system of battle and ensured Spanish dominance on the field. Still, it had significant drawbacks. Notably, the formation and coordination of the units were complicated, necessitating the need for well-trained and disciplined professional soldiers, making the tercios extremely expensive. Another drawback is the compact nature of the pike squares, which leaves them very vulnerable to concentrated artillery/gunfire, something that would become more apparent as artillery and gun technology improved.

"By the way, would the inferior primitive stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Inca warriors of stone,🪨 age and early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Peru,🇵🇪 led by the Emperor Atahulpa, go up,👆 against the late 15th century to early 16th century renaissance,🎨 👤 Spanish,🇪🇸 artillery pike and shot formation of the Tercios, Conquistadors, and Southern German,🇩🇪 Landsknecht mercenaries, on horseback,🏇 of an English,🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 standard thoroughbred horses,🐴 wearing Southern German,🇩🇪 plate,🍽 armor and chainmail,🔗⛓ for protection, led by Francisco Pizarro and his brothers and his partner Diego Almagro and his son, alongside the primitive stone,🪨 age indigenous native american auxiliaries alongside the west african,🌍 Nigerian,🇳🇬 slaves, in battle,💥 of Cuzco primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Peru,🇵🇪 in the year of fifteen hundred thirty-six to the year of fifteen hundred thirty-seven, during the age of exploration,🔭 christianization,💒☦ colonization, and conquest of the primitive stone,🪨 age ancient Mesoamerica, 🇲🇽 and the Andes of South America, 🌎 of the new world,🗺 of the year fifteen hundred twenty-one to the year of fifteen hundred fifty-three?"

The overall records of the Scottish forces fighting on both sides of the religious divide[ie Leslie,Douglas,Hamilton,Sinclair,Gunn,Mackay,Munro,Ruthven,etc.] during the Thirty Years War(1618-48),can attested to that ! 👌👍

Just not as good as the English at fighting 👊🏻

​@@MasonBryant I'd say the fact that Scotland even remained a country through all that time says otherwise. 😉

The first formal bodyguard unit of the Kings of France was formed in 1422 and composed of Scots. This Garde Ecossaise remained active until the last King of France was deposed in 1830. The courage and loyalty of the Scots are well-known on this side of the Channel !

@@vatsal7640 Were they always in France? Even Scots went to France and Ireland to fight the English? They were hardly cowering in fear.

British heritage. 👍🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧😏😊

Well, id say that war is very much a means of poitics

Scotland becoming part of Britain had 2 reasons. The Scottish king becoming king also of England in 1603. Then 1707 Scotlands richest sold their independence to be reimbursement for the doomed Darien scheme. Basically England bought us. Check Robert Burns work. Parcel o rogues. Sums in up

What do you call the garment the Highlanders wore before the kilt as we know it today? It was like a full body covering for use as a bed if needed.

​@@bazmc1153Plaidee if I remember right

That’s sort of a misnomer though. The romans conquered the Picts in battle, and the picts were in retreat until the Roman army was recalled to defend Rome from other invaders. It’s not really a case of the Picts defending their land from the romans than it is the romans being called home before they could fully subjugate Caledonia

What happened to the Picts after the Romans left? _Hint it didn't end well for the Picts_

The Scotti were a people living in Ireland that migrated to the lowlands. In later periods Norse and Danes also saled around the coast of Scotland and settled in the Western Isles, Faero and Shetland Isles. Also a fair amount of Normans moved there during the 11th and 12th century. So the Picts descendants would still be there, but pleanty of migration from other peoples to those lands.

Not really

​@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar They were better equipped though at Flodden, the Scots were.

@@Dom-fx4kt I would dispute that. "Better equipped at..." is dependent entierly on what kind of battle you intend to fight, the terrain, weather, skill of your troops etc. Intrinsically, a pike was not better than a bill, an arquebus was not better than a bow, plate was not better than padding - or vice-versa - it always depended on the circumstances.

@@talorcmacallan4268 until you do

Talorc, a very Celtic name, I love that. Celtic Power

yeah but probably next year!

What about the great raid of 1322? Or the battle of myton or the battle of OldByland ? All taken place in England

What evidence is there that Scots outperformed English soldiers in the low countries?

Rubbish

The Germans thought of Scots same way tbe British thought of tbe Prussians. Is a fact. Hitler even mentions them in Mein Kampf

If something the video said is wrong, refute it.

Queen Elizabeth's last words?

No. But think a thumb was involved lol