i love it

SandRhoman History I like it I think the added depth enhances the video by giving more details.

Great video, however you mispronounced Tilly. The y is silent for some reason and it's pronounced more like "teal".

When possible, ie. two similarly matched opponents (when considering all the army factors involved) this is a good format, but I doubt it would be useful for most conflicts. The final day of siege of Vienna comes to mind, as it was mostly one sided and therefore would make a rather lackluster video.

I can't get enough. :D

Indeed

Indeed

I'm surprised you could follow the whole battle considering the NATO JMS being used...

I was just watching your edition of Brietenfield. Coincidence I think not

Mount & Blade With Fire and Sword covers this era. Mount & Blade is basically like playing Total War in first person.

I think it would be hard to replicate the tactics

Empire 2

There's a few mods for medieval 2 and tbh that's probably the best one can hope for

Amen

Have you played Total War: Napoleon? Its battles feel a lot slower than, say, Attila or Warhammer. Just like Breitenfeld, there is usually an initial artillery duel and a lot of maneuvering, and finally a charge when the enemy’s morale is thin.

Everything being over in 5 minutes is really the only thing that works when you’re fighting potentially hundreds of battles over the course of a long campaign. Even with the quicker battle format, only a small percentage of TW players ever finish a campaign. You might argue that only true strategy players would appreciate something like that and therefore should be catered to, but that approach simply doesn’t make CA as much money as their modern approach does.

Have you tried the Darth Mod? Especially the one for Empire has that slow-cooked feel. If you like that, also check out Ultimate General, Gettysburg and Civil War. You get a more ... "elastic" experience rather than a Total War style meatgrinder where the last one to run out of troops wins.

@Niek Vels i think u got a point, but i also think theres a better compromise. Something that addresses army cohesion and engagement timeline more realistically. I think there's been some good attempts, better than CA, and they.dont take an eternity. Also making battles longer Indont think is a bad thing. Total Bore makes you do the same thing over and over

Total War has done a complete change on what many early users thought it would become.

Isn't this normal for cavalry though? The job of cavalry is to charge/harass and retreat to reform and make space for cavalry units in reserve to do their job. That way they are in constant movement which makes them a harder target and allows them to reload their weapons or in the case of lancers, replace those that were broken.

@@kamilszadkowski8864 I would think partly yes, but also, one would want the charge to be more decisive. As with any combat, they are getting shot at each time, and wearing out. Cavalry are needed for more than just shock, so if you are going to charge, you would want it to be more effective.

@@shorewall Just a question. Did the swedeish cavalry just stand there after the first charge and let Papenheims cuirrassiers harras them for hours or did they perform countercharges?

@@shorewall Direct charges also were done in waves in case the first charge didn't break the enemy. It was expected. In the Battle of Klushino 1610, some Polish Hussar banners were charging over 10 times before enemy infantry (supported by cavalry) finally broke. In the Battle of Kropimozja, Swedish Livafan (Guard Cuirassiers of Gustav Adolf) and Hussars also clashed a couple of times before the Swedes broke.

@@kamilszadkowski8864 ahaha. I referenced a song of Sabaton called "Gott mit uns" which is about the battle of Breitenfeld. Didn't mean to say anything else really. Sorry.

Interesting point about the importance of logistics in this crazy war

I was under the impression that pikemen were very easy to train. The fundamentals are simply point the pike at the enemy, and stand your ground.

Yeah, mobility alone is such a handy feature.

haha I think you mean 60:40 ratio at the end there :P

@@protoketer4554 Ah, shit. yes, of course, I meant 60:40 ratio. Thanks!

@@kamilszadkowski8864 np :)

Well, there is a sort of narrative that cavalry was useless after 13th century, but it seems more and more that's far from truth.

You know something is bad when an adverb of it "Magdeburgisieren" exists in the dictionary and people still know what it means centuries later.

I could name countless acts of barbarity worse than the Magdeburg Massacre.

Lanzkenekt sack of Rome

it has been well propagandized (already at the time, keep in mind nobody invited the Swedish), but it was just one of the more brutal sackings at the time. Definitely more extreme than many, but not a unique affair.

It was probably the single worst massacre any city of that size had to face in any inner-european war of the whole millennium. Google any war between any major european powers (maybe even since the very beginning of the medieval ages in the 6th century AD), you won't find anything like this.* Btw who else could have been "it" other than the Germans, the historically worst enemy of the Germans? ;) [Really: Up to their unification in 1871 they always completely lost it when going against each other.] * Apart from whole people/tribes like the Saxons who got recklessly slaughtered empty handed by the HRE Kaiser some centuries before..

You must be pretty new to youtube.

@@ravenknight4876 If you're implying that there is an abundance of history channels here on UKposts that hold themselves to the same high standards as SandRhoman(specifically with regards to source material), then I would greatly appreciate it if you pointed me in the right direction.

@@nitemaredan TIK, Mark Felton, MIlitary history Visualized, Drachinifel and Historia Civilis. Go from there.

@@ravenknight4876 Wow, thanks a lot. At a glance they look like more of exactly what I like, and can help me compile a list of sources.

@@nitemaredan that's why I've responded in the first place. This channel right here is actually more on the average side as far as history channels on youtube go. The channels I listed are all run by Historians and/or people with history degrees.

He said the swedes started firing at 600 meters i think

@@mihovilraboteg6160 aah thanks

@@heh9392 no problem

What are you studying? Molecular biology or quantum chemistry?

I know. More and more of it. It's like a heckuva drug...

Gott mint uns!

As we all stand united, all together

Gott mint uns!

Yeah, I read similar views about the Tercio (I think it was in Peter Wilson's, Europe's tragedy). I think it's a weird debate because 10-12 ranks is still double what Gustavus used. Many historians agree that the Tercio got smaller and had less depth from about the 1590s onward. Some argue Tilly made some reforms as well (Guthrie). But what I never really understood is why should we not call that Tercio anymore? I think contemporary spanish / imperial sources still used the term. Another crucial thing, in my opinion, would be how the musketeers were deployed. There seems to have been little change in that. Otherwise it makes no sense that sources from the battle of Lützen 1632 could suddenly report that imperials had changed their system to one more like the Swedish system. That's why we ultimately decided to use the term Tercio anyways :P

Thank you for your interesting answer. The deployment of Tilly's infantry is a very interesting but confusing topic. Some modern works even state that he deployed in 30 ranks. Here is a link to Schürger's excellent work that I mentioned in my first post. theses.gla.ac.uk/6508/ His statements regarding Tilly's deployment are on pages 102 to 106, he calls it "squadron". I think that "Tercio" is usually used for a large and deep formation with a group of musketeers on all four corners, as seen on page 104. However, Tilly's shallow deployment as shown on page 102, figure 16, looks completely different with pikemen in the center and musketeers at the wings. It has much more resemblance to Wallenstein's deployment at Lützen which can also be seen on page 104. Schürger even states that it is wrong to call the traditional formation "Tercio" since this was only an administrative and not a tactical unit. Schürger also argues that there was not such a drastic change before Lützen but rather a continuation of Tilly's reforms by Wallenstein. Of course I have no idea what the truth is and if Schürger is right or wrong. Tilly's more linear deployment can also be seen in Snayer's painting of the battle of Stadtlohn. Marcus Junkelmann (who also wrote a brilliant biography of Gustav Adolf and is certainly a great expert) states in his short biography of Tilly that he deployed in ten to twelve ranks but still calls his formation "Tercio". As I have said, I find this topic extremely confusing. However, from your video I got the impression that you agree with Guthrie that the main reason for the outcome of the battle was not the infantry deployment but the defeat of the Catholic Cavalry. BTW: I have just watched your video of the siege of Vienna. I live in Vienna and 1683 is of course a very important part of our city's history. It was a real pleasure to watch such a well-researched and highly dramatic documentary of this event. It would be great if you could also do a video of the lesser known first siege of 1529.

Yes, additionally, at the beginning you were referencing the Spanish Tercios, which I do not believe were present at this battle.

Nothing better than sunday morning SandRhoman!

Miguel Celano indeed

Koifish momento

1632

seven times they attacked on that day,SEVEN TIMES THEY RETREATED

@@eretna2480 Buttsus Quissus Nonnus

@@eretna2480 CAVALRY CHARGE

@@rivepest6158 AS WE ALL STAND UNITED!

@@KiljiArslan ALL TOGETHER:

Probably a newly recruited Saxon. ;)

@@Ackalan 😁

Quick answer for the first question: We don't exactly know. It is assumed that the pike block in front of the brigades deterred cavalry from a head on charge. Also the Swedes were quite experienced in deal with cavalry from the polish theater of war! The smaller contingents supposedly helped a lot as well. "Second, what were the musketeers, behind the front most pikemen, doing in the battle?" You're right, they marched forward to shoot, some say that they even stood in front of the pike to begin with. In early-modern sources the Brigade is drawn as we're showing it here in the video but we don't know for sure if they changed it up sometimes. Imagine the Brigades model more as a way of deploying, during combat many smaller parts could change position if need be. But everybody would always know where to go if you had to reform into the original brigade structure.

@@SandRhomanHistory HOLY SMOKES! THANK YOU FOR THE REPLY!

I like this video, but it is mostly what and not covering the how and why, which makes this battle so historically significant. Many details are missing or glossed over,.and the infantry and cavalry battles shown separately, so you can not understand from this video what is going on simultaneously with the right, center, and left. With the Saxons routing after being once charged by cavalry, the Swedes were badly outnumbered and their left flank was open. The Swedish cavalry on their left were barely able to hold off the attacking cavalry with a coutercharge, they would not be able to stop the enemy infantry already on the way. The Swedish Cavalry on their right remained heavily engaged with the Elite Black Riders on that flank and they engaged repeatedly until well after the Infantry was fully engaged and unavailable to support the center or their left flank. At this point it looks like disaster for the Swedes. Most all of their cavalry is tied up with the enemy cavalry and their infantry have their backs to the river, the enemy coming around their left flank and they are badly outnumbered. This is where the value of the Swedish infactry system shows its two major advantages. First they were able to rapidly redeploy their second line to cover their left flank rapidly because the smaller tactical units can march and maneuver much more rapidly than the 1500 man blocks used by the enemy. Second the Swedes smaller units were deployed usually 6-8 men deep, 50/50 pike musket. The enemy were 5 -10 ranks of muskets with 12-15 ranks deep in pikes. This allowed the Swedes to match their infantry line to the enemy even when badly outnumbered. Last the Swedes had much more firepower because they had many small field guns on spread out through their formations, not just heavy guns like the enemy. The Swedes had just in the last decade basically invented these light guns to support the infantry. Basically the Swedish infantry was able to defeat a numerically superior enemy by having a greater weight of fire even having less men for three reasons. More efficient formations, allowing a larger percentage 9f men to be effectively engaged; better firearms, drill and partial cartridges; and additional firepower from small field guns embedded into the infantry formations. Their is debate amoung scholars what was most significant, but I think the significance is the total weight of the total.

Most underrated military development up to the 20th century xD

"British officers don't duck. They geese" Dunno, Lindybeige i think

And after Nordligen, the swedes won 4 major battles in a row. Ending the war in a protestant victory.

@@Nieri93 Not one of them against the Spanish, though. The entry of France in the war was far more impactful than those later Swedish victories. The French kept the Spanish so tied down that even 11 years after the Treaty of Westphalia, France and Spain were still fighting each other.

@@higochumbo8932 It was basically a clean version of World War 1.

BREAKING THEIR LINES, THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS, RUN FOR THEIR LIVES!

ALL TOGETHER GOTTT MIT UNS

@@richardmoore5347 legend arise

Fog of war probably, was a massive battle after all