A point about sieges

How common were sieges in the ancient and medieval wars? Probably more common than you think.
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
I somehow manage to take an epic seven minutes to make one pretty simple point. I do give examples, however, and some viewers may take heart from the knowledge that there are several side-points made during digressions about people conquering the English who are not French, and English fighting and winning against people who may or may not have been French, depending on how you look at it.
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
/ user "Lindybeige"

[@ze_rubenator]

Anyone who has ever played a Total War game knows this. Those god-damned sieges.

[@lucibvee]

+Ze Rubenator "No one enters no one leaves!"

[@lumburgapalooza]

"A great victory will soon be yours!"

[@mr.dapper5386]

+Ze Rubenator i like to wait it out unless i have a vastly superior force or i need to hurry for some reason, and i find that if i even have a small garrison it’s not THAT hard to hold a castle or fort. then again, i’ve only ever played shogun 2 so i don’t really know about any other games.

[@ze_rubenator]

Mr. Dapper Being the attacker in a siege in S2 is much easier than in say M2 or RTW.

[@mr.dapper5386]

Ze Rubenator oh, ok XD

[@Repporio]

I love this. "I want to talk about seiges." and then end up talking a large bit about how the Normands are not french.

[@Mercure250]

+MegaRaphael1988 And then, De Gaulle.

[@Mercure250]

***** A hologram in the 1940's, yeah right XD

[@yunofun]

+MegaRaphael1988 Whatever the reason may be, I loved it. Much like his comments about the french in his video about bows. (or was it arrows?)

[@Mercure250]

yu nofun arrows, and yes, it was goddamn funny XD

[@CatherinePuce]

LIndybeige has something against the Frenchs.

[@JoshEastham]

you would make a brilliant and entertaining history teacher

[@itsMaTt123]

Joshua Eastham YES I HAVE DREAMS AND HE IS MY ARCHEOLOGY PROFESSOR

[@itsMaTt123]

baldieman64 ERM. i said i have dreams that he is my professor. never claimed that he was. that would be too much for me to handle

[@baldieman64]

***** It's not a stretch. It's what he said. As you have already pointed out, if he had meant that Lloyd is his professor in his dreams, there are much more succinct ways of conveying that.

[@itsMaTt123]

is this really happening right now

[@Piegoose]

***** I suppose you could say any misinterpretation of anything is reasonable if it can be explained, but in all honesty why would someone on a KZbin comment section of Lloyd's channel of all things suddenly lunge out in a passionate uproar and say "I HAVE DREAMS"? It makes far more reasonable sense to assume Giorgio means that Lloyd has been his professor in his dreams as that would be a comment you'd expect to see in this type of post since he isn't actually an archaeology professor.

[@BoboTalkClown]

EU4 taught me this. 90% of wars end up being carpet seigeing.

[@Islacrusez]

+Bobo The Talking Clown EU3 has not yet taught me this... I suspect learning it here might give me a shot. Accept that sieges are a fact of life and suddenly the game gets less scary perhaps.

[@Luckyyshot]

well after the new update (not so new anymore), carpet siegeing is quite hard. You sometimes do get to make 2-3 sieges at a time though, if your army is vastly superior.

[@Luckyyshot]

***** You know what manpower is right?

[@Luckyyshot]

***** Manpower is the idea of them already being trained (or trained enough).

[@Luckyyshot]

***** You certainly do. You draft a certain amount of people, who then get limited military training, who then are considered manpower. They aren't employed by the state after the draft is over though, but will be called in if needed (country under attack, or new bodies on the front lines for example). They train soldiers they aren't excepting to use, simply in case they would need them.

[@janus2059]

You say that you can't believe it took you 7 minutes just say that battles are rare. For me, I enjoy your rambling style. It's part of your personality, or on screen persona, and it's one of the joys of watching your videos.

[@Gyropilot42]

Yes, man. Looks like my childhood history teachers. The ones that enjoyed their jobs, at least

[@AvoidTheCadaver]

Rambling conversations are the best

[@tufftraveller4784]

sofullofpiss could be fun lol

[@BeepingMetal]

I think the Romans deserve a special mention. They would purposefully provoke battles on the way to a siege. The idea was to gather a large army, dominate the enemy in the field to lower moral, and then simply capture the enemies favourite town/fort/holy ground (by way of siege) to eliminate the enemy as a power. And the Romans have to be the biggest 'troll' people in history during sieges. They would build walls around enemy walls. And if the enemy attempted to counter by building their own secondary walls from dismantled houses/earth, they would build walls around the walls around the walls. Trolls.

[@liuntika]

In the time of Rome there were no real cities with big walls around them, except for the ancient greek cities. So mostly the romans fought against sedentiary villages (of samnites, celts, germans). Even in the X.-XI. century my ancestors fought against german towns without walls, and the 9 years peace pact with the saxons in Anno Domini 924 made it possible for I. Heinrich to build walls around his cities. The force was the light cavalry (striking from a distance with bows and avoiding close quarters combat), which led to the response of heavy cavalry, thus evolving into chivalry. This (and the rain) all led to the defeat in Merseburg and later in Augsburg....

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

liuntika Romans did quite a bit of sieging. The siege of Masada immediately comes to mind. This is one example of a Roman siege. There are many more.

[@liuntika]

SasquatchyCowboy Yes, where were cities with walls (and empires before them like in the near east) they had to...

[@IncomitatusExcelsior]

BeepingMetal When Romans fought Romans, two armies would sometimes meet and build massive fortifications around themselves and then try to out-engineer each other. Look, for example, at the "Battle" of Pharsalus between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great. It turned into a pitched battle (followed by a storming of Pompey's defenses) but only after months of siege and counter-siege... IN THE FIELD.

[@BeepingMetal]

IncomitatusExcelsior Aw man, I'm going to read up on that! Thanks :)

[@headrockbeats]

Yup, that's Crusader Kings in a nutshell. One or two big battles followed by years of sieges.

[@TheSubso]

+Headrock And years and years and years of politics, uprisings etc. Hell... I lost more matches to anything what is not related to a direct War.

[@mr.dapper5386]

+TheSubso that’ the entire point of ck2, it’s all about intrigue, although i do find that wars tend to be decided very early, usually in the first battle, perhaps the second or third, in fact i can only think of two wars in which battles went back and forth for a while before being decided.

[@TheSubso]

Mr. Dapper I know. I love CK :D

[@headrockbeats]

***** The CK2 AI is programmed to avoid fights it knows it will lose! Gotta hand it to the developers for actually making an AI that doesn't suicide on you. :P It also makes a lot of sense in this game, because fighting at a disadvantage will almost always get your army destroyed. But yeah, I find that in CK2 it's usually a matter of defeating the primary enemy force, then splitting up your army to make sieges and to hunt down new enemy armies that are trying to replace the one you just destroyed. From what I know of medieval strategy, that's pretty much right on the money.

[@andthe4010]

+Headrock it never ceases me to amaze how many fellow paradoxians i randomly see commenting on history related videos lol

[@Boomstick898]

If you want to see a terrible siege, look at House Frey trying to siege a castle.

[@ReDefighter]

I am literally (yes, literally) reading about that right now. =) The Frey are tools lol

[@kyled3235]

Andy Sowanick Game of Thrones?

[@thepiranhawins3828]

Boomstick898 if you can call it a seige...

[@DoddyIshamel]

Never forget that most pitched battles actually only happened because of sieges in the first place, an army coming to raise a siege by another army, prevent a siege in the first place, or otherwise make a siege untenable (cutting off supplies etc). Platea was fought essentially to lift the Persian siege of the Peloponnese (or at least because that siege had failed). Salamis was a seaborne attempt to win that siege. Thermopylae was essentially the siege of a pass. Marathon was a contested landing to prevent a siege. The Peloponnesian war was almost entirely made up of sieges with naval battles fought either to cut off/defend supplies for besieged cities or allow/prevent the siege of cities on islands. Phillip the second exerted his authority through winning sieges, lost his authority through failed sieges then fought a pitched battle where the Greeks tried to prevent him besieging Athens. The Persians fought their pitched battles against Alexander because of the catastrophic effect allowing him to besiege and take cities had on Prestige and stability (from a purely military point of view they could have just left him taking a city a year until he ran out of men or food). Then you get to the Hellenic era where siege warfare is so important building completely impractical mega siege engines and calling yourself " the besieger" was the epitome of cool. The Romans of course do so much besieging there is little point trying to mention it all but suffice to say most of the important battles were actually sieges, be they double sieges (Alesia), sieges of entire armies (Actium, Pharsalus) or old fashioned sieges (Masada). There only even was a Roman superpower because Hannibal didn't have the resources to besiege Rome, while the Romans realised they could win against the seemingly invincible Hannibal simply by besieging whichever of his allies cities Hannibals army was furthest from, or besieging several at once leaving him unable to save them all. Finally going and threatening to besiege his home city made him leave Italy without a fight. Also I know it was only a slip of the tongue, but English not British, the Scots were on the Valois side in that "English-French" war which also included Castille, Aragon, Genoa, Brittany, Bohemia, Portugal, Navarre, Flanders and probably more heheh

[@Wimpymind]

+DoddyIshamel Lovely post. Deserves a comment.

[@EniEvi]

+DoddyIshamel Which books would you recommend for someone who wants to learn about the Ancient World?

[@DoddyIshamel]

EniEvi I personally am not a fan of more academic works straight up despite having studied (non-ancient) history at university. For a starting point on history of a period you always want a good narrative history. Once you have read a good narrative history on an area to whet your appetite you can expand your knowledge simply by looking at the references. There you will find other authors works to expand on and ancient sources to look into. Or just google the most interesting bits. Which actual books and authors entirely depend on the period. Tom Holland is a personal favourite of mine, his book Rubicon about the end of the Roman Republic is great, as is Persian fire, his book on the Greek-Persian wars. This is not because he is the best historian (though he seems fine) but because he is the best storyteller. Adrian Goldsworthy is great on Carthage/Roman stuff, John Grainger on the Seleucid Empire and so on. Really though it is best to read as many different authors on a subject as possible and look at the sources they are using (something the internet is great for). So if you really want a starting point I would recommend a Tom Holland book - Rubicon for the fall of republican Rome or Persian fire for the Greek-persian wars. From there you can go on to heavier stuff (Donald Kagans Peloponnesian war = awesomesauce) and eventually like me you will be picking up translations of the ancient sources to decide for yourself.

[@EniEvi]

DoddyIshamel Thank you for the advice. I'm reading Egypt, Greece and Rome by Charles Freeman, but I have a feeling that I'm missing out on a lot of minutiae of information.

[@napornik]

+DoddyIshamel NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRD!!

[@TimboSlice69420]

if you've ever played a total war game you know the way to winning wars isn't through battles it is in fact through sieges

[@WhatIsSanity]

Timothy Easton Tell that to the computer!!

[@WhatIsSanity]

***** Also the computer fields large armies on their borders all the time.

[@WhatIsSanity]

***** Some times the computer doesn't even need money to expand and build new armies it just spawns them in because it's fucked up and needs a way out. P.S. I grabbed the pic from some place as well, when I set up the account I remembered seeing it ages ago so I wanted it on My 'channel'; I just Google'd angry smiley.

[@WhatIsSanity]

***** Yeah, I lost patience with Total war Medieval two because of the crazy computer unit and character spawning, and vowed not to play it for a month. When next I play I will be more prepared to kick ass. I will have read about any game mechanics I haven't picked up on yet; and some strategy guides (not too intensive) to make it more enjoyable (winning), as I've lost a lot of games.

[@randulaalawathugoda5016]

Luke DS the thing about total war laddie is that you have to attack the enemy before they attack you and then, then only you'll be able to win buy breaking enemy's strategic formations and demoralizing the reserves at the back of em causing them to rout too soon :3 try it. most of the time it works if you're army is evenly matched with the enemy's one. In case if you are out numbered try holding your ground while sending out skirmishes to do a little bit of collateral damage to the enemy which will be very effective to change the tide of the battle :)

[@ThePerfectRed]

Do you realize he does this uncut? Sometimes his videos are 30 minutes in one piece, incredible!

[@predemitdeer7508]

or an hour.

[@2sdd]

@@predemitdeer7508 or two xD

[@Alphae21]

tes

[@BA-gn3qb]

Lindy's mind works light years a minute. And he flies off on tangents, which are so entertaining. Then he stops, pauses, and gets back to the subject. Classic Fun!

[@davidtownsend6092]

Donald trump is like that. Not a supporter just figure most people aren't so I should point that out to annoy you.

[@ShamanCore23]

Normandie was a part of France (West Francia to be precise) under the rule of king Charles III when the northman came. What we called northman conquest is a deal with the king of France. The northman stay in France and became subject of France and there ruler a vassal of France.

[@marcelogonzalez8547]

Great Sean Conney impression BTW

[@lindybeige]

Remind me when the Dutch conquered the English. William of Orange never fired a shot at us here. We were just so happy he was protestant.

[@Alphae21]

ok will do

[@lores333]

So, the greatest victory, then? Perfect Dutch conquest, 10/10.

[@alfieburns9019]

Tell that to the Scots

[@squamish4244]

Battles could be incredibly decisive when they were fought, however. When Saladin destroyed the Crusader army at the Battle of Hattin, he robbed the Kingdom of Jerusalem of all its defenses against him in a single blow. Numerous towns surrendered to him without a fight after that. When he laid siege to Jerusalem itself, it had only two actual knights in it, including Balian of Ibelin (not done justice by Orlando Bland's performance in Kingdom of Heaven). The city capitulated after a few weeks.

[@lavrentivs9891]

+valinor100 Saladin's greatest achievement there wasn't the battle itself, but the manouvering of his army. Making sure that he had all the advantages and that the christian army became trapped in an impossible situation. The same can be seen with the Scots at Culloden and the Swedish at Poltava. In all three cases the battles were already won before they started due to the strategical movement of the armies. You also see a lot of it during the 30 years war, where the majority of the "fighting" was moving your armies in a way to keep them supplied while denying the enemy their supplies.

[@squamish4244]

Lavrentivs That is all true, but if the enemy forces are engaging each other in the field, that counts as a battle. Indeed, it's always been standard strategy to, if you can, only offer battle when you have positioned your army in a stronger position than your enemy's.

[@amateresu6708]

valar i loved that movie i think Orlando did a good job.

[@Metal00m]

If anyone wants a great example why field battles suck, look up the Battle of Towton from the English War of the Roses. It was a massacre that ended up with a mass grave...

[@MrHendrix17]

In his defense Sean Connery was probably well aware that Richard Lionheart wasn't an Anglo-Scotsman, but all of Sean Connery's accents boil down to the same thing.

[@slowpokebr549]

Highlander being and egregious example. Oh oh oh and lets not forget The Hunt for Red October...ha ha ha ha......

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

_"I'm sort of a licensed troubleshooter."_ {May NOT be the exact quote, but still...😄}

[@Phantom1thrd]

Missed your videos. Fascinating as always.

[@mortache]

i always love when you get off the point :D really informative!

[@halfcantan1208]

My old history teacher used to talk about the English in the same loving way you talk about the French

[@projectilequestion]

Were they French?

[@Archimagus]

Now what we need, is a video that entails exactly what a siege is and why they worked. I'm sure most of us have a pretty good idea on what a siege is, but most of that is probably not entirely accurate.

[@ClockworkHobo]

Love it, glad to see you making videos again.

[@alexbaxthedarkside]

Amazing delivery Sir, you kept it extremely interesting. I feel like i learned a huge chunk of interesting information!

[@KingDiamondHead]

1:00 Scared the shit out of me for some reason

[@RealCrusadesHistory]

What were some of the daily problems facing the commander of a castle defending against a siege? What would have been some of the daily annoyances, glitches, and issues that he would have had to deal with in his duties of maintaining the defense?

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

For the besieged: * The most obvious being the destruction of your defenses which would meant death or captivity for you and your men. So you would try as much as possible to obstruct the enemy's attempts to build siege-works through constant sallies. This would serve also to prevent your men from getting bored, a big problem during sieges. Then of course you have to worry about your sallying force getting into trouble, which could cause you to lose a significant percentage of your forces. * The ever-present threat of starvation. If your rations ran low you have to start putting your men on half or even less rations. Which of course would lead to low morale, which you would have to compensate for - often by making sure that everyone is on half rations, including yourself. Sometimes this would force you to send out the useless mouths in the city to spare the food for your fighters - Vercingetorix was forced to do this at Alesia, and it caused a huge morale drop for his garrison. * Outbreak of disease - more of a threat for the besiegers since they were living in the open and hence in less sanitary condition, but if an epidemic would break out within your garrison you would be in double trouble, as you were living in a very confined area! During the Siege of Acre the Ayyubid garrison was badly decimated by diseases. * Daily bombardment by the besiegers which inflicted attrition on your men, as happened during the siege of Dien Bien Bhu and Khe Sanh. Even if you lost few men to it the besiegers often simply kept up their fire (or loud braying trumpets) at night to prevent your men from getting sound sleep, which would make them vulnerable to an attack. * Trying to keep your communication with the outside world open. * If your defensive works was more temporary in nature weather could be a huge problem. Several sieges was ended when massive rains drenched the defenders supply of food or gunpowder (their storehouse not being waterproof for some reason!). For the besiegers: * Threat of disease outbreak -- Probably the biggest headache, most uncontrollable and an ever present threat. Military commanders tried to plan around this as much as possible - general Winfield Scott tried to capture Veracruz as fast as possible before the onset of rainy season brought malaria to the Mexican lowlands, while his opponent Santa Anna counted on the opposite. * Threat of a relieving enemy army - although often the reason you laid siege in the first place was to draw the enemy's forces out, forcing them to fight. In some rare cases, most famously the siege of Alesia, the besiegers actually built another wall to protect themselves from the attack of the relieving army, causing a weird siege within a siege. * Lack of food, especially if as in the case of the First Crusade, their logistical system was mostly ad hoc * Connected with food and disease, threat of weather changes. The coming of heavy winter or heavy rains would make life in the besiegers camp very difficult, usually causing the siege to be aborted. If the siege operation has to be supplied by sea, the end of a sailing season would force its cancellation if the defenses still held by then. * A stout defense that repelled attack after attack with heavy losses, which would cause your men to lose heart and possibly turn mutinous. Happened notably during the siege of Malta, by the end of it the Turkish forces had largely stopped attacking the knight's defenses altogether because they were so demoralized. Smaller pesky problems: *Constant sallies by the besieged garrison, especially if they destroyed your siegeworks and halted progress. In the gunpowder age this would include constant fire from the fort that daily caused attrition among your men. * Unfriendly environment. The Norman besiegers of Palermo were extremely annoyed by the number of tarantulas on the ground. * Lack of local raw material for building siegeworks and artillery. If the siege happened in an arid environment you might have to bring timber from far away to build your siegeworks and trebuchets. During the siege of Alamut the defenders actually removed all large stones from the vicinity of the fortress beforehand, forcing the Mongols to organize a large logistical network to bring in ammunition for their trebuchet!

[@Jesse_Dawg]

John Huang, this is a wonderful and detailed comment. Very nice read. Thank you

[@ralphh4131]

A couple things: Fifth column traitors who would open your gates to the invaders. Lower Reserves of food but especially water Low moral of your men The fear that you might not be reinforced by your friends or the enemy might be supplied before they decide to go home Sappers building tunnels and ladders or piling up dirt to the walls Lice mice rats or disease Or getting conquered and being captured or tortured or killed or sold as a slave

[@richardmolloy6064]

I'm late to the party but watching many of your videos old and new now, absolutely brilliant. Thankyou.

[@gammer0016]

one of the best historical channels :D your rants are epic man!

[@RealCrusadesHistory]

I'm wondering, does anyone have any opinions about how difficult it would be for besieging archers to hit the defenders of a castle on the wall-walk? It seems like it might be pretty difficult. For example, if an archer was a very good shot, might he be able to occasionally pick off a defender now and then, perhaps hitting him in the head or the chest or even the arm if the defender stepped out from behind a merlon too soon or something like that? Hitting someone from below seems difficult, as well as hitting such a small target like a man's face or arm, and the chest might be more easily concealed.

[@bassault]

It's incredibily hard. There are some instances when a few hundred archers can defend against a small army when mounted on the walls. Also the besieging archer will further have difficulty if he is being pelted with stones from above, hot tar being poured on him. Also the archers on the wall have the high-ground, so attacking can yield serious casualties. P.S. - R.I.P. to the reloading crossbowman besieging the walls

[@CaptainArn]

Real Crusades History Never attack anyone with the high ground. Look what happened to Anakin Skywalker.

[@bassault]

CaptainArn lol

[@yunofun]

+Real Crusades History It is as they said incredibly difficult. But that is more hollywood bs for you having that one deadeye bowman picking off half the defenders. In reality it would be hundreds of arrows in the air, the odds are that you will occasionally hit something vital.

[@Richard-qy2bz]

I'm pretty sure the height of the wall gave the defending archers a much longer range, which increased their accuracy at closer range

[@baskerville4041]

Lloyd, Normandy WAS a part of france before the invasion of England, Norman Dukes payed hommage to the King in Paris and William spoke the "langue d'oil" (old french) for sure. He even was the first norman duke to give up the "mode danica" way of marrying and settled for only one spouse, which was pretty "un-norse" back then. Besides, you just have to check the british feudal military vocabulary(ost, army, garrison, mail, sergeants....) to understand the impact of French on your native tongue. I know you dont like the French but ou have to give up on that one XD.

[@elpresidente5767]

Well We created all the word Garnisson,battle,dvision,bayonet e c Beacause it was all french invention

[@CarlStreet]

I always enjoy your presentations. You effectively tackle topics that could be and often are dry boring collections of facts; you make it come alive and add just enough humor to carry the day. Most refreshing!

[@tylerbrass4002]

I learn so much from you Lloyd, not just because you tell me things I didn't know in these videos, but even more so, because you talk about things that are so interesting, it drives me to look into them myself.

[@hedgehog3180]

Planetside 2 is pretty much a live demonstration of this (even if it's a game), battles rarely happen between bases they happen mostly at the bases. Because the bases are your goal.

[@reigoj8228]

hedgehog3180 Back when I played planetside 2, we actually had small team of "ambushers" ruining enemy assault attempts in the hard to manouver field pits. Usually just to hold down their advance until next point was reinforced, some times to prepare counter assault.

[@hedgehog3180]

Reigo J That's quite cool. We have never really had quite that much orginization in TTRO except during FNOs where we could call in air support and armored support. It was a ton of fun and the between bases fights are some of the best fights in the game

[@reigoj8228]

hedgehog3180 yap, I never actually liked the long sieges, just roaming around with vanguard blowing their gear up. Then go into hiding just to get more ammo and repair from our mobile support group. I also remember once shooting down enemy transport air ship x) (can't remember name) Our common set up was 4 tanks, 1 jeep with anti-personel gun with secondary spots taken by engineers, transport/support group how ever big that ended up being when people started spawning in. If one of the tanks went down, 2 heavy assaults joins.

[@hedgehog3180]

Reigo J I have always been more of a flyboy myself. Tanking never really became something I was good at although I enjoy it every once in a while.

[@kapoiosgr]

hedgehog3180 that game's moto is "you are new?well fuck you,here run for an hour doing nothing"

[@vectorbrony3473]

The siege of Badajoz is a rather famous one. During the Peninsular war in Spain the British/Portuguese army had only two roads in which to invade French occupied Spain. Ciudad rodrigo and Badajoz protected those roads and had to be taken before the winter set in. Ciudad rodrigo fell rather easily but Badajoz was at the time a modern stronghold. Low thick walls and bastions all along. The British had to make three breeches and it cost them 4,800 men in one night. It's considered one of the worst sieges in history.

[@packhorsetriumph5319]

Let's not forget who actually took Badajoz....Richard Sharpe

[@ShinyKabuto]

You are gay

[@hilarymckinnon5424]

I never seem to subscribe to any place but always find myself here. I've been remiss not to at least thank you for the delightful presentations before this. You are very much appreciated.

[@fuchila2point0]

You are a very good teacher!!! Most of what you cover changes how I think about historic combat.

[@gonavygonavy1193]

Siege as in surrounding the settlement with your army and periodically fire at it with trebuchet/artillery, or siege as in storm the castle "INTO THE BREACH!!"?

[@395leandro]

gonavygonavy Well... Both of them. As you said yourself there is two kinds os sieges. The one you try to starve the enemy (or poison the water, or simply waiting until they are convinced that you're not going away nor an ally army is going to rally in to help), the other is the short way, open a breach or ram the gates and then go inside to plunder and kill everyone. Obviously the former was more commom than the later for the same reasons that there wasn't too many battles: a lot of human loss and great disadvantage for the attacker.

[@auroraourania7161]

gonavygonavy Usually surrounding the settlement. A siege implies trying to wait the opponent out.

[@seyfersnake]

gonavygonavy Sieges always begins with a force sorrounding a settlement. If you have enough men, and the appropriate siege equipment, and you considered the enemy has not enough soldiers, or has been starved enough and you need to wrap things up for some other reasen, then the "INTO THE BREACH" part of a siege begins. Assaulting a castle is not something you can do in a day or two. It took time and preparation, you had to build or prepare your siege weapons/equipment, and its not like a trebuchet could bring down a well built wall in a few shots. The defenders have the advantage of a strong defensible position, they will have the advantage, so having enough soldiers to make an assault is a must, and even that was not enough sometimes.

[@PsychoticSpartan]

I think battles are given preference, because of how ancient historians would describe them with such detail and enthusiasm whereas sieges were more common and so they would give far fewer details when describing them. For example, today terrorist attacks in the Middle East are common and so you will rarely see more than a brief mention of them in the news, but terrorist attacks in the West are rare (Paris anyone?) and so will be described as an atrocity and an act of war that must be corrected.

[@Yup712]

Another great video! I think like most people, I was drawn to the battles, but when I sat back and thought about your points, I see that you are right!

[@martonberesdeak]

I am absolutely amazed by your knowledge, enthusiasm and devotion. Hats off to you sir, thank you for shairng your passion 💂🏻‍♂️

[@Observer29830]

I think sieges are just about as risky, if not more so, than field battles, if you think about it. Castles and fortresses usually had a water source inside, and storages of food to last for a long time. An army that lays siege has to stay in the field, at mercy of the elements, and needs a constant supply of commodities that have to be gotten from somewhere, and delivered to its dislocation (good target for raids btw). Then there's problems of disease and moral diminishing over time from impatience and wait. It is also wrong to assume the besieged will simply sit there and not do anything. During sieges sudden counterattacks and raids coming from inside the fort very a common practice. In addition, the army besieging a fortress is a good target for another army to march in and force a battle. Sun Tzu spoke of this, highlighting to avoid sieges unless absolutely necessary. Sieges are a costly, and dangerous, waste of time.

[@theidiotchefs8920]

that is because Sun Tzu died before the invention of effective siege engines like the catapult, which made short work of things like walls and people.

[@Observer29830]

The Idiot Chefs Catapults existed since ancient times. And not every catapult has the capacity to damage thick castle walls. The most popular one that comes to mind is the trebuchet - a very large and difficult construct, which requires skilled engineers, and materials to be built on site. In addition, they required ammunition large enough to be able to damage said walls, which often were not in any close proximity of the besieged city. Since so many castles of medieval times still stand, one could assume that catapults weren't used as means of taking down castles all that much. They were mostly taken through siege, or traitors within the walls willing to open the gates.

[@theidiotchefs8920]

Observer29830 Sun Tzu lived in the 6th century BCE the earliest trebuchet did not appear until the 5th century BCE

[@Observer29830]

The Idiot Chefs I'll take note. What about the rest of the points I made?

[@theidiotchefs8920]

horses could be used to pull heavy equipment, heavy rocks were not their only ammo and they mostly did not aim for the castle they just take down the wall surrounding the castle so they could get in.

[@gastonjaillet9512]

At the time of William the conqueror, Normandie was speaking french, vassal of the french crown and populated with majority of french population from before the dans came. William had 1/3 of french blood, which was necessary at the time to consolidate alliances with neighbours. The normans spoke french. They were christians. They adopted the french way of feudality, and a lot of the noblemans were french. Normandie was as french as bourgogne was, that is to say a vassal submitted to the crown. As the kingdom of York was english at the time of William. You cannot say that a region is not part of something when you dislike it, and say that another region is part of the thing you support. It is not objective.

[@xalash]

When Joan of Arc was asked if the angels spoke in French, she stated that their French was better than that of her interlocutor. He added to the record that he had a particular accent.

[@Green0-3]

I just found this video in youtube's "recommended list". I remember watching this when it first came out, a good decade ago. Great reminder of how amazingly the quality of this channel has remained excellent for years, even if the video quality today is much better, and there's a million more fans than there used to be.

[@HamilkarBarkasScaleModelling]

entertaining video :) i never thought about the important role of sieges but your points about it are plausible.

[@koletonnelson6310]

"In a siege, you might not lose ANY of your men". HA! Say hello to my little friend. His name is dysentery. Losing a huge portion of your army was an unavoidable part of a siege (sanitation? What's that?). That's half the reason Sun Tzu so despised them. Also, the Normans were most definitely French. Just French with a teensy bit of Scandinavian blood and culture. Much like how my Highland kin, the Flatts, are most definitely Scottish. Despite being descended from Norwegian Vikings. Also also, Medieval European warfare was predominantly sieges, yes. However, most pitched battles occurred when one force was trying to lift a siege by another. Secondly, this was ONLY in Medieval European warfare; in other times and places, battles and sieges were...more or less even. Sometimes and places, battles were actually more common.

[@yunofun]

+Koleton Nelson For the time periods he is talking about it would be more scandanavian with a bit of french blood mixed in.

[@PureSeverance]

When Sean Connery crashes your wedding claiming to be a king and demanding to kiss your bride, you don't fucking question the man. You let him kiss your bride.

[@cynthialian5913]

This is one of my favorite channels.

[@WORKERS.DREADNOUGHT]

One of the difficulties with sieges is that the besiegers had to sustain themselves logistically as well as the besieged & often disease broke out in their camps or they themselves were starved. The best known siege of the Ancient world (apart from Troy - or maybe Tyre) was the siege of Alesia, where Caesar siege forces were themselves besieged by a Gaullish relief column.

[@squamish4244]

The Normans settled in France in 911, when Rollo was granted lands along the Seine River by the French king. William conquered England in 1066. That is 165 years later. By then, the Normans were culturally French. They spoke French, had converted to Christianity, adopted the French legal and political systems, intermarried extensively, etc. They were no longer Vikings. So yeah, England was conquered by Frenchmen. And your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries.

[@greywolf7206]

+valinor100 They werent French becoz they didn't have the same culture, only the same religion. Also, the language was different. It was some kind of mixture between Old Norse and the local Latin-Celtic languages.

[@squamish4244]

***** It was Norman French, which can be understood by people literate in the written modern French language. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language

[@greywolf7206]

valinor100 The same way it could be understood by the Norse.

[@squamish4244]

***** I'm not sure of your point. The Normans had indisputably abandoned their Norse legacy by the time they conquered England. As I wrote, they had adopted the French legal and political systems, intermarried a great deal, used French military tactics and built stone castles based on the French model. They had French names. So...?

[@greywolf7206]

valinor100 Wooow hold on, one thing at time: The Normans did NOT abandon their legacy entirely. The way they crafted weaponry and armor blended with the local ways, resulting in new types of stuff (Did you see those Crusader helmets used on movies? They were used in France, England and in the Holy Roman Empire, why? Norman Influence). "French legal and political systems" That's true. Next: "Used French tactics" What French tactics? The only thing they adopted was Cavalry. Infantry and Archery tactics remained the same as the Norse (I dunno if you noticed, but the French never made good archers till they had Crossbows, still William won in Hastings using ARCHERS combined to CAVALRY to break the enemy Huskarl and Spear lines). "Built stone castles like the French" The FRANKS, not the FRENCH, had castles, most other "French" peoples were even more Barbaric-Like than the Norse. Also, the Castle influence didn't come only from France: A lot of it comes from Italy and from the Jarl Holds themselves. The Norman castles were a result of the blending of Italian, Frank and Norse "defense engineering" "They had French names". My name is Júlio (real fact). My name is Italian (Roman to be more specific). I'm Brazilian. Why? Becoz in 1874 and ancestor of mine fled from the wars and poverty that were ravaging Italy at the time. But just coz my name is Italian doesn't means I am Italian, nor that I have Italian Culture. In the case of the Normans, they did have a lot of French culture (Mainly due to Christianism), but they did keep traditions from their Norse heritage, specifically their military tradition.

[@wilhelmvonlaer5699]

One question that really bothers me since several years: What can you win through the siege of a castle? I mean: You can rule a land without taking the castles, so why do you have to take them? Just let them starve to death in there while you get your taxes from the peasants who are the real ressources to finance your war. A castle can bear a maximum of some hundred men, if you keep it surrounded with 200 men and march on with the rest of your army, you are already controlling the crops; so what was the point in building castles? To bind so few enemies at the cost of years and decades of building??? Wouldn´t have been guerilla warfare a much less expensive method to bind enemies at locations he wants to control? Of course, it is another matter with city walls, because they protect much more men, economy, ressources. But castles protect a very little band of brothers with little meaning for the outcome of the war... I just mean: The relation between the costs of building a castle and the value of ressources it can protect just doesn´t correlate...

[@JudgeEomer]

It costs a LOT to keep soldiers in the field. Keeping a couple of hundred men by every hostile castle is a LOT of men, mostly levies, with no shelter, no stores, no hygiene... it wasn't uncommon for besieging armies to be in a worse position than the besieged. Morale would plummet, the soldiers would all desert, and suddenly you have no men, and the enemy still in control of the area. Make no mistake, castles were all about control. It enables your garrison to march out, hamper any enemy presence, and withdraw to a stronghold. If you possess a chain of castles, your forces can move between them without fear. At the end of the day, a castle is simply a dry, safe place to sleep. I should also mention that most castles were not lonely forts in the hills. That sort of castle is probably owned by a robber baron. The strongest were of course in cities, with most others dominating local economic centres (i.e. villages), and the ordinary people living there are likely to obey the nearest person with a sword. The value of those crops is only in who has the power to go out and claim the dues come harvest time. Finally, it's for the same reason revolutionaries seize government buildings. It's about taking control of the political nerve centre of a region. It's also highly symbolic. It proves you have the upper hand, and the biggest dick.

[@wilhelmvonlaer5699]

TheMetalPenguin I think I can imagine what you mean now... thx dude

[@groudas]

Castles were a thing from feudalism. The population at that point were dispersed and there were no more big walled cities like in ancient times, no more big empires or big armies. So, there were those small communities called fiefs that had no more than a few hundred people usually. Having a castle (even a wooden one) was really something necessary because the biggest menace was small warbands of bandits or small armies of other lords engaging on disputes.

[@cuscof2]

+TheMetalPenguin A properly provisioned city could hold out far longer than most invading forces. In one Italian city (Genoa, I think) the populace actually made cheeses from breast milk and threw them to the starving besiegers to taunt them.

[@Bloodshark123]

That's a bit like claiming dominion over someone's house while you camp in the front yard. Without that seat of power you're just a bunch of men in a field and you're army isn't going to be content to sleep outside when there's a nice fortified castle there to be taken.

[@stevo728822]

The worst scene in the Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie is where he is supposedly riding off towards Sherwood Forest in the background in one scene. But Sherwood Forest looks like a forest of a neatly planted grid of conifer trees laid out by the Forestry Commission.

[@chrisbillings9864]

This guy is seriously the best. Watching this in class right now. He's got a subscription.

[@Gufberg]

Does the "Sieges were common. Battles were few" idea also apply to early medieval Britain? It is my understanding that there were few fortified towns prior to the Burhs of King Alfred at that time and the literary sources do mention an appalling amount of battles between Welsh, Angle, Saxon, Danes, and Scots/Picts alike.

[@MoonfaceMartin88]

I am not well-informed in the timeframe you mention, but following the video's argument, the absence oft castles could be the cause oft the high number of battles: If you want to hold a strip of land against an enemy and do not have a string defensive position (that would have to be besieged) you have to do so in battle.

[@nilloc93]

Yes battle were far more common before castles became "common" because fortified towns would usually only have a low stone wall or a palisade around them. Post medieval seiges were also less common as forts became less useful unless they were over engineered to withstand the force of 16th+ century siege guns.

[@bernardorodero8374]

anyway, if you have to defend your town against invaders (or invasors?), you would sill rather fight behid whatever kind of moat and palisade you could get rather than open field, the only times you gather an army and fight the upcoming enemy (let say to keep them far from that town you want to defend) is if you find a good spot to ambush them or where the terrain is very favorable

[@AURORAZ99]

MoonfaceMartin88 you also have to take into account these "battles" during the early medieval times were on a much smaller scale, since there weren't really any unified states, just smaller land holdings and townships, so these conflicts usually consisted of no more than 40 persons. really more like lots of skirmishes

[@nilloc93]

AURORAZ99 uh no there were medieval battles with a fuckon of a lot more than 40 men. most small towns would have a garrison larger than that

[@Redl1me_]

I know modern day sieges happen, it starts with the name Rainbow Six.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

Actually urban centers are still impossible to clear without months of protracted fighting.

[@karlunderscore1]

I need no channel youtube! Nah if I'm Thermite I'd clear it in one minute flat ;)

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

+karlunderscore1 All of Sarajevo?

[@ArbitraryImposition]

I'm glad you are back!

[@jancerny8109]

Interesting that Sun Tzu ranks laying siege as the last thing you want to do in war. It makes you wonder if The Art of War wasn't a peace pamphlet.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

For the attacker it is preferrable to annahilate a weaker force in a field battle than to give them the advantage of being in a fortress.

[@spiritvdc5109]

"Supreme excellence is not in winning every battle, but in defeating the foe without fighting" his whole thing was how to end a war as efficiently as possible without needlessly expending lives or resources, so in that sense, his true objective was to bring peace via ending the conflict as quickly as possible ^^;

[@Treblaine]

It's like Sean Connery was in the room!

[@sunnyjim1355]

Yes, because it wasn't a room anywhere near Scotland.

[@SchmittPlaythroughFR]

...Normans were pretty much french by both blood and language by the time of William...

[@andthe4010]

+Schmitt Lenin sure this guy must know that.. I had the same mini thought when he mentioned that "they came from scandinavia"... William was the great-great-great-grandson of a Scandinavian... Richard I of Normandy, being the son of Rollo, surely grew up speaking old norse. Richard II almost certainly was exposed to old norse, but being the 3rd generation, this is probably the time when "Norman" as a language started really coming into it's own.

[@billgreen576]

As interesting and informative as ever. And great Connery impression.

[@Adjuni]

You make a good number of logical points that I for some reason have totally overlooked

[@Amaral46]

The French also won battles against the English in the Hundred Years War, the most famous being Patay, where the French cavalry destroyed the English archers by using a pincer movement; Formigny, where the French destroyed the English attempt of reinforcing its crumbling position in the continent and the final battle of Castillion, where the French artillery was critical in helping the French army in virtually destroying the English army. But the fact that sieges were the norm is true, as the first pitched battle occured only three years after the beginning of the war. PS: Richard Coer de Lion was French.

[@robbieatvic]

Crecy (the flower of french aristocracy dead with arrows in them) poitiers (you lost your king at that one) agincourt (again another lesson in the english long bow) best off fighting from castles id say.

[@Amaral46]

The English are very picky on their battles and simply ignore every other encounter in the war, like the naval raids in the English isles, the fiasco in Spain and the battle of La Rochelle. In the second phase of the wr the English were thrown into the defensive until the battle of Agincourt many years later. From 5 different phases of the war, the French won 3, the English only two. And in the end, the French won. By the way, I am not French. ;-)

[@robbieatvic]

Filipe Amaral well you sure sound french filipe, face it, in open battle at crecy, poitiers and agincourt fancy french knights gave up thier lives to peasant yoemam archers. Not just because of incompetent kings, rain and bad ground. Because they were better at their craft. Your so called naval raids didnt stop any of these outstanding english victories. By the way filipe "im not english"

[@Amaral46]

Many brave man gave their lives in the war. The English lost many men in Spain (4 out o 5 died) and the Franco-Castillian tide was only stopped at the decisive battle of Aljubarrota, when the Portuguese - with a small English contingent - defeated a much bigger force. The Portuguese commander is considered a saint.

[@robbieatvic]

Filipe Amaral very true filipe, interesting consequence that following the damage yoeman archers had on the knights in spain I believe the Spanish king had all their yew tress cut down so no heavy bows could be made by his peasants or worse, sent to england. Fascinating the 100 years war was.

[@raglanheuser1162]

so how many sieges were there where the siege was broken off without a battle?

[@boriskapchits7727]

the bible mentions few.

[@travismoss3492]

You are just entertaining to listen to. And you are spot on 95% of the time.

[@harrydobson7572]

very entertaining and informative! keep making them please :)

[@user-ld4qt6ci7b]

so, the unbelievably boring sieges as a main tool of war in paradox games, and also the ai dodging battles, are historically accurate? What about battles when one side tries to defend a besieged holding?

[@yoco93cro]

well, technically, siege is a battle :D

[@RoboBoddicker]

***** A siege isn't a battle. It's an army setting up camp outside of a castle and blocking anyone from going in or out, until they either starve, surrender, or fight. The word "siege" comes from the Old French word for "seat" - as in "we're taking a seat right here till you give up your shit."

[@yoco93cro]

but, as you said, it might end up as a fight

[@RoboBoddicker]

Well, obviously a siege could result in a battle, but a siege itself isn't a battle and a lot of times doesn't involve any fighting at all. That's the point Lindy was making in the video.

[@yoco93cro]

yes, okay, thx

[@snape6156]

Well technically, no. That's the whole point of the video

[@lukboda]

I love your ramblings.. Greetings from Norway

[@SIXXX1POUNDER]

your videos are great ! cheers !

[@b33lze6u6]

Surely im missing something so if someone could inform me id appreciate it, but sieges arent like video games where, if successful you turn the castle your color. If they surrender and you go to siege somewhere else what makes them magically aligned to your cause? And even if the castle in question decides to defect and join and support their once besiegers. Couldn't the army of the empire re-siege ? Basically negating the oppositions land gains and forcing an actual battle?

[@b33lze6u6]

Ps: even if, upon surrender the besigers slaughtered the empires supporters and soldiers and re-staffed with their own, the army/supply of people would be continually drained via attrition right?

[@KahavaveCAPIPI]

Very few areas are taken without damage. A sieged city is often looted with a fair bit of death of its fighting population. Even if they wanted to rebel and fight back (which I'll get to soon), they typically would not be in a condition that would permit them to do that, and if they were re-sieged they would likely be slaughtered even more. They're just not really capable of doing anything. Nationalism only came about more or less in the 18th century; the conquered population didn't exactly align itself to their conquerors cause, but they were not usually aligned to the people in charge of them in the first place. The average person in an ancient/medieval city basically just wanted to live their life and not rock the boat. While there's a chance of it being re-taken by the original owners, remember that it takes a long time for information to get around. It would take time for a set of riders to get information to the original owners army, time for them to coordinate themselves and see if anyone's in a good position to take it back, time to arrange supply lines to make certain that they can sustain a siege, time to get sufficient forces there to siege, and probably a few other things I didn't think of. By the time a counter siege could be prepared, it would have been in enemy hands for quite some time and at least have the walls patched to acceptable (not necessarily good) levels, so they would need to change campaign plans and re-direct resources that would be otherwise necessary in their own advances just for the sake of getting back something that used to be theirs, all the while the army that took the city in the first place has been going on its merry way taking villages and possibly other cities. Staffing often relied on local minor nobility who were promoted by the new rulers (with a few exceptions) that formed the bulk of the lower level rulership; generally speaking, only a couple nobles from the enemy army and their private bodyguards actually stayed in a sieged city, and that wasn't a certain thing, especially when more decentralized empires were conquered.

[@crusherven]

When you conquer a stronghold, you either execute or capture the surviving defenders. They can't turn around a "resiege" because they're dead or captured. Meanwhile you either destroy the fortress, or leave a garrison that is strong enough to hold it for a time. If someone besieges it while you're gone, you go back and defeat their army. Or, more likely, when they realize that you're coming, they run away, because if they were strong enough to fight you in the field they would never have lost the castle in the first place.

[@KahavaveCAPIPI]

V. V. Malazan I don't see how that's relevant, given that looting would often happen in rather significant amounts unless the defending army surrendered with 'no looting' being part of the conditions for surrender.That being said, it would largely depend on both the attacking army and why they're attacking. Most soldiers received the majority of their pay through loot (or, in the event of a fully professional army, loot effectively doubled their pay or more), so they were interested in, eventually, storming the city. Roman generals had a habit of ignoring offers of surrender because a well paid Roman was a loyal Roman, and it was always cheaper to subsidize their pay with captured enemy gold and jewels then out of their own pocket (even if they still had to do that a lot).I'd say less professional armies had less storming in general; while the prospect of loot was still pretty good, a professional force could withstand dense urban combat far better then farmers filling the obligation to their lord in the off season. They wouldn't charge unless they had to, simply because the losses from an assault would be far higher then normal.Overall, however, I'd assume that the majority of sieges were both; you waited for several months while food and morale ran out, then you charge in and kill half starving 15 year olds for their grandmothers broach.

[@KahavaveCAPIPI]

V. V. Malazan Well, that's more to do with training; while non-professional soldiers who did fight for a living (say, Knights) would be fine in urban combat, professional soldiers (like those of the Roman Legion) were specifically trained to fight in dense formations relying on each other. A well ordered formation is necessary on the battlefield even if it gives certain weaknesses. In the streets of a city, those weaknesses basically disappear; they can only be flanked in the rear (which requires navigating an entire city) unless they're passing an intersection (which they can just take slowly for purposes of safety), they're so dense that even if cavalry could ever get in position to do anything (which was an immense rarity) they'd just crash against a wall of men and be summarily slaughtered, etc. Compare that with the one on one fighting of Knights (or any similar aristocratic military caste); while they were good at that, their advance would be more chaotic. They wouldn't fight in a formation because they weren't trained too, individuals would veer off from the group in order to raid, and the only sense of direction they would have is where the nice looking parts of the city were. Actually, private soldiers employed by Knights tended to be better simply because they learned to fight in groups. While late medieval knights were better about this, the whole aristocratic military thing and focus on personal glory did tend to put a bit of a damper in how effective they were at fighting in a group. Most troops, however, weren't on that level. They'd combine the worst aspects of Knights (poor group fighting, little direction, individuals fucking off to do their own thing) with poor training and poor equipment, as well as the fact that they were typically drawn from farmers so every time one of them died it would hurt the harvest a little. Sorry about the giant block of text, KZbin is fucking up for some reason. Won't let me space it out.

[@WintersunForever]

Oh, Lloyd, if you weren't a crazy climate change with us being the cause denier, I'd marry you. Down with the frenchies!

[@birdiemcchicken1471]

What Caerere said! As soon as we start lumping people who *question* the current model of climate change into the same box as people who deny Climate Change *SOLELY* because they are oil barons and the wealthy elite with a vested interest in trying to convince people that climate change made is up by scientists, then the the arguments for stopping Climate Change break down and we just become yet another Tumblr group.

[@nimbalo300]

i like a song of ice and fire for this exact reason in it everyone remembers the battle of the crossing but very few, mostly the people who were in it, remember the siege of storms end

Wow. I am so surprised that this video was posted back in 2011. And today, I am watching this in January 2017!!! I am pretty sure I would have had lot of interest in your videos if you even had any back in 2008. I only found your videos just recently in late 2016..... But maybe it is today, that I appreciate even more about your videos and so well descriptions.

[@aLukepop]

I thought that They raided france and the land was granted to them.

[@randomdude4136]

"granted" quiet convenient that the "french" "granted" them land after their army was incapable of repelling the Normans lol

[@theanonymousmrgrape5911]

The Normans most certainly were French. By the same token you can say people from York are also Scandinavians. First of all, you say Normandy wasn't a part of France but that's just plain wrong, they were vassals of the French King and were considered a part of the French Kingdom. While many more wealthy Normans had scandinavian ancestry, many of them were the same people that had been living there, and all of them spoke a dialect of french, by that I mean one of the Langues d'oïl, it may not be exactly like modern French but the again you could take the same logic and say that Asturians aren't Spanish, Westphalians aren't German, or Venetians aren't Italian. Your aggressive dislike of the French is getting in the way of what really happened.

[@BigManBand22]

Great video, very informative.

[@rollovaughan]

I really dig your videos

[@dIRECTOR259]

Well by your definition half the Frenchmen are "not French". The Bretons were Celts, the Occitain people of southern France what about them, etc... Who are "the French" in the Middle Ages? I'd say its safe to call the subjects of the King of France who spoke French - Frenchmen. Trying to go by ancestry and genetics won't get you anywhere in that regard.

[@szepadam5]

I think speaking about nationalities before the 19th century is just... pointless. It seems like to me, that it was more like a cultural thing back then.

[@jukahri]

Not even that, there was no 'french' or 'english' culture. The HYW was actually instrumental in starting to shape the english and french cultures as distinct entities. Before that (and honestly even a long time after, particularly in the case of France), your culture would be strictly limited to the region you lived in and anybody living more than a hundred kilometers away would be a foreigner.

[@sunnyjim1355]

Not so much cultural as ethnic, and you can't divorce the two - which is why multi-culturalism is just a Commnunist myth.

[@ZheadMonkey]

Great and grand digressions, good stuff..

[@JKno1]

Everytime I watch one of his videos I learn a dozen or so things that I didnt know before. I love it !

[@Narjoso]

I think you are bias when you say that William the conqueror was not french. Then you can say that an american is not an american but an englishman or a dutch or a german. William was born in France, spoke french, was friend with the french king, was duke over a french territory...yes his grand-grandfather was Rollo who came from Denmark but that was like 4 generations apart. I think you english have a complex over being conquered by some frenchman that ruined your saxon culture. Also if William the conqueror was not french why did the english royal house claim the right to the french crown in the "100 years war" ? Cheers / Fan from Sweden.

[@PaulMurrayCanberra]

Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.

[@atlas_of_prescottia]

As a person of largely Norman decent, I appreciate the distinction made in you tangent.

[@F_Karnstein]

Very interesting as always :) I liked that you went adrift on the topic of medieval languages - Maybe I should make a video about that topic myself, so many horrible misconceptions around there...

[@CrabTastingMan]

So you are saying the Normans weren't "French" in the way other peoples of the regions we today consider "French" aren't. *rollseyes* It was funny to see you get emotional in trying to discredit the French on every turn, you British jingo. Can you elaborate on how lots of French words started being incorporated into the court language (and eventually common English today) right after William the Conqueror? "They only spoke French, they weren't French." Language has a big identity and cultural significance in any ethnic group, don't try to down play it. And if you ever think of using Americans and British as examples of anglophones not being the same people, you will just make a fool of yourself, as migration of people overseas over great distances is hardly something to be relevant and brought up in the case of something in the 12th century.

[@ngamashaka4894]

+CrabTastingMan You hit the nail on the head: Good point

[@TheBaconWizard]

After they conquered that bit of France, they conquered England. According to you, that makes England French.

[@ngamashaka4894]

Well mostly. If you spoke french you would know that about 1 third of your words comes from French. A well known fact is if Jeanne d'Arc didn't won, all English and French people would be speaking French. As the Normands took the place they made French the official language of England. They did not put Swedish as the official language but French.. I'm amaze how much English put a side all the things they don't like. Must be a side effect of British politeness (not a bad thing btw)

[@tyvandm]

+CrabTastingMan Furthermore to the introduction of what was then the French language, what did William bring with him to win the battle of Hastings? A lot of cavalry. While national identity doesn't yet exist in this time period, cavalry was a very "French" way of fighting at the time, compared with the Scandinavian peoples who did not fight on horse back. Culturally, strategically, technologically, and by birth, William the conqueror was French.

[@Biczeschlappe]

+Ngama Shaka French has NEVER been the official language of England. You are correct that at one point the english nobility was predominately norman-french speaking, but it was never directly adopted by the common people, the anglo-saxons went on speaking anglo-saxon for a good long while. Over time, old english absorbed bits and pieces of french forming middle english in the mid 1100's. This was the language of Geoffrey chaucer, though it had borrowed words from french, it's plain unintelligible to french speakers. Every king since Edward I (late 1200's) has spoken English at least passingly well, and in 1362 English was made the official language of parliament, a good 50 years or so before Joan of Arc was even born. Henry IV of england (late 1300's, died a year after Joan of Arc's birth) Spoke EXCLUSIVELY english. And I will grant you that a third of modern english is partially if not totally derived from french, I think you'll find that such words are usually technical, not often found in common speech.

[@lokitus]

Please keep making videos!!!!

[@SalohcinZerep]

Your videos are awesome

[@timothyheimbach3260]

Interesting note about coming to a battle. During the previously mentioned hundred years was the battle of Poitiers. Edward the black prince was raiding in France and the king he was raiding sent an army to deal with him. Edward was caught but had "allowed" (I put it in quotes because he really was caught at an ideal location for the English) himself to be caught. He had the advantage of the terrain and the French didn't seem to realize it and attacked anyway. My point is the English didn't want the battle, they were "running away " after a raid. But they had the better terrain and a defensive position; the French still attacked

[@trentward5587]

You sir, are a fascinating person.

[@Losloth]

Actually I like your rambling style - it has the right amount of repetition. I'd never remember that point of you just said it in a single sentence. Keep on! (Only discoveren your videos today, but I think I must have seen 25 by now)

[@thomrobitaille3942]

I love it! You can ramble more than me! Love your videos, even the digressions. And I thought all English kings had Scottish accents, lol.

[@McPingvin]

Good to see you again :)

[@Dimitrij90]

Love your vids :)

[@Locahaskatexu]

Lindybeige Excellent movie (despite it being 4 years old :P) There are a number of points I would like to make... (See if you agree with me) 1: your point about battles vs sieges. I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment that battles were risky etc, but I do not agree that battles were wholeheartedly agreed affairs (inasmuch as you were making that point anyway, I apologise for missunderstanding if you weren't) Most battles as we know them, if one looks at the underlying stuff, were primarily accidental meetings (Agincourt I believe was either an accidental meeting, or else, the English digging in and awaiting the french, I cannot be certain), or in other cases, quite deliberate, but were mainly fought so that one Lord could force the opposition into a weaker position. The Battle near Hastings that you mentioned is a good example of that. according to conventional wisdom, Harold Godwinson chose the area that the battle was fought at for both its geographical advantages (narrow causeway surrounded by boggy marshlands to force William to approach from a certain direction) and its topographical advantages (Godwinson deployed on what was most likely the road to London, so that if William wanted to advance further inland, he knew William *HAD* to cross that part). The way I've always read the Battle of Hastings was Harold forcing William to battle, because for him, the benefits outweighed the risks to do so. Another example of this assertion of people forcing battles to deny the opponent something or dwindle their forces is the Battle of Stamford Bridge. The battle was a very rapid affair, and was fought because Harold considered himself in a position of strength (He came upon the Viking force of Haralðr Hárðraði whilst they were unprepared and essentially happily loitering about, who wouldn't force a battle with those conditions...) There is another thing about sieges, stability, barring someone mobilising an army to attack you from behind, you can slowly strangle a city/castle into submission if you wish, if the surrounding lands are lush enough, you'll have plenty of supplies to feed your troops, after all, like the point you made in the ironclad articles you made, the besieger has got all the time in the world.... they're not going anywhere. (there's an excellent Time Team Special about the battlegrounds near Hastings, it can be found on youtube, it's special number 20) 2: your point about the French... up until certainly the 13th century, most sources describe the people we know as French, as being *Franks*. a prime example of this is a late 11th Century manuscript about the 1st Crusade, which is titled Gesta Francorum (which means "Deeds of the *Franks*") When exactly the word French is used to describe that people is not precisely known to me, but certainly up until 1200 they are described as being Franks, probably after that as well. In the 14th Century they are most certainly described as French. it's possible that during the 13th century, a c/k shift occurs in the language, which turns the consonant sound of the c to a softer s instead of a hard k, but that is beyond my knowledge at present. 3: Richard Coeur de Lion was Frankish, spent about a week in London for his coronation, and then decided to just sell the country as much as he could to dig up funds for his Crusade (the 3rd Crusade), he loathed England, considered it a backwater, and was quoted as saying he would sell London if he could find a buyer for it. (There's an excellent series done by Terry Jones, called Medieval Lives, I believe part 1 deals with the missconceptions people have of kings, he speaks at length about the Lionheart) EDIT: (oh, and ironically for the purposes of this youtube film, he died at a siege, April 6, 1199, during the siege of Chalûs castle)

[@tims8299]

Very interesting, thank you

[@althesmith]

@Torome86 : Good point there. In the 1863 Vicksburg campaign, Grant ordered the initial assaults with that in the back of his head- that standing in one spot in the summer months in Mississippi might be disastrous to his army.

[@flamefang]

FINALLY! I've been waiting for more of these for.... AGES! =D

[@bevross935]

yes, you are a fabulous history teacher and I hope you make bags of money for your videos

[@ironflea]

I'd have to agree that sieges are a much more "calculable risk" than land battles, as its also an easy tactic to draw out enemies to force them to fight on your own terms. But siege battles tend to be long and expensive, as you'd need engineers, sappers, siege weapons and such. I think most sieges would last around a year or two, since foraging is quite common in maintaining food supplies. btw glad to have u back in the scene lindyb.

[@lindybeige]

@minigun20 Athens was indeed largely abandoned, yes. Some die-hards held out on the Acropolis for a while.