Swiss Mercenaries: The End of Cavalry Superiority in the Late Middle Ages

[@SandRhomanHistory]

This is a revised version of an older video of ours. In fact the original video was one of our very first videos covering miltiary history. It was lacking both in terms of visuals and nuance, so we deicided to delete it a while back but then we thought there's nothing similar on KZbin, so we refined the argument a little bit (it's still true to wha the original was) and changed most visuals to better reflect the time periods we talk about (ancient Greece, late medieval Europe, early modern Europe). We've pretty much redone all the visuals from ground up and added some necessary nuance where we thought it was needed.

[@jothegreek]

I tend to believe that phalanx may used some similar thing to Swiss as natural evolution. Also the Macedonian Phalanx at least up to Alexander used Hypaspists as shock troops.

[@wojtek1582]

Revision was a great idea. New versions looks many times better thanks to adding many illustration you had created in recent years. Improvements in nuances are also important. Big fan of your work!

[@misterdanny8644]

Oh finally, it was one of my favorite videos of yours. I was so confused why it vanished.

[@AISafetyAustraliaandNewZ-iy8dp]

Really appreciate you going back to improve it!

[@LamiNalchor]

I don't know if this is already established, but 'Gewalthaufen' might rather be translated as 'crowd of violence'.

[@lucasfaco6445]

Swiss arms and armour The Swiss developed a number of characteristic weapons during their period of military activity in the 15th and early 16th centuries, perfected further during the Early Modern period (16th and 17th centuries). The halberd was the primary weapon of the early Swiss armies in the 14th and early 15th centuries. Later on, the Swiss added the pike to better repel heavy cavalry and roll over enemy infantry formations, with the halberd, longsword, or the Swiss dagger used for closer combat. The German Landsknechte, who imitated Swiss warfare methods during the early 16th century, also used the pike, supplemented by the halberd. The halberd is still the ceremonial weapon of the Swiss Guard in the Vatican. The Swiss armies of the late 14th and 15th centuries, used a variety of different polearms other than halberds and pikes, such as the Lucerne hammer. By the 15th century, the carrying of side arms (baselard, dagger, and degen) had become ubiquitous. Also common were the bow, the crossbow and later the arquebuse. The city cantons could also employ siege engines. Bern in the Burgdorferkrieg of 1383-84 used medieval types of catapults and battering rams, but for the first time also cannons and early handguns. The bladesmiths of Basel, Bern and Zürich during the late 15th and the 16th centuries perfected their production of bladed weapons, developing the "national weapons" of the Swiss: the Swiss dagger, Swiss degen, and later also the Swiss sabre known as Schnepf. A peculiarity of the Swiss armies of this period was the principle of self-equipment: each man was expected to purchase his own personal weapon, either pike, halberd or handgun, as well as his personal sidearm, and in the 18th century his own musket, bayonet, sabre, and uniform. Central armouries (Zeughäuser) which were able to equip the troops of a given city developed only in the more wealthy cities during the 17th and 18th centuries, specifically in Zürich, Bern, Lucerne, Fribourg and Geneva. These did not supersede the principle of the privately owned equipment; instead, the armouries offered standard equipment at a reduced price to the individual serviceman. Consequently, substantial reserves of arms and armour were accumulated in the armouries of the Swiss cities during the Thirty Years' War, especially by Zürich and Solothurn. These armouries were decommissioned after the dissolution of cantonal military forces with the formation of the modern state in 1848. By contrast, the population of the rural cantons in the conflicts of the Early Modern period was often armed with simple and ad hoc weaponry, especially clubs, and maces such as the spiked morning star. This was the case in the Swiss peasant war of 1653, and again in the Stecklikrieg uprising of 1802, called after the eponymous Stäckli "club" carried by the insurgents.

[@miliba]

Growing up in Switzerland, our teacher taught us a lot about Swiss History from 1291 onwards and emphasized the importance of the Swiss infantry

[@davidbrunnerchemeng]

It was looking into swiss mercenaries that led me to your channel, glad to see you revisiting them:)

[@battlez9577]

Great to see this video redone, been a pleasure seeing your skills improve through the years

[@Warmaker01]

It's an interesting look at the evolution of infantry beginning with the late middle ages. Disciplined infantry start becoming more relevant. Pikes were being used more as a counter to cavalry charges. Firearms arrive to mix things up but they were still in their infancy. Eventually firearms improve and we start getting into Pike & Shot formations. Things don't stay still. Eventually somewhere out in China, they invent the Bayonet. Now you can have these guns with all the advantages of modern firepower, stick a pointy thing on the end, and your infantry can defend against cavalry while still having lots of guns. The idea spreads. Then you have line infantry. This is oversimplified of course, but it shows how everyone is taking technology as it changes and improves, while figuring out better ways to fight. You're also correct that this didn't make cavalry obsolete. It had to change. Hell, fast forward into the Napoleonic Wars. Despite the mass employment of guns and massive formations of line and light infantry with firearms all over the battlefield, cavalry still had its place. Even in that era of warfare, cavalry was still being used as a mobile, decisive arm or reserve. I mean, they still had Lancers.

[@Boric78]

This was superb. The best explanation I have come across. This channel is a bit of a gem. Please tell me more..........

[@nicholasshaler7442]

This is my favorite video from this channel in quite a while. Really excellent.

[@theicepickthatkilledtrotsk658]

The Swiss were such legendary warriors of that period.

[@saxoDK_1600]

Landsknechts vs Swiss Mercenaries was some of the most fierce battles aswell. Roughly the same tactic meeting face to face on the field . Although in the end the Landsknechts would prevail

[@theicepickthatkilledtrotsk658]

@@saxoDK_1600 True.

[@methany8788]

Overall, the Swiss are truly a marvel. Over periods of time, they have been at the forefront of some of the pillars of our society. Warfare, banking, cheese...

[@FakeFlemishOfficer]

"Georg von Frundsberg wants to know your location."

[@Newbmann]

Back in the early modern era They only way you could get away with neutrality is everyone views fighting you as suicide. This is why the swiss managed to become neutral so early on there legendary mercenaries. Also why sweden managed to become neutral after bleeding poland,russia,denmark,etc out in so many close wars. Being strong helps alot.

[@DukeVictory]

I agree with all the technical aspects of the formations and weapons, but I think it also leaves out the simple factor, that the swiss normally had a strict no prisoners rule, for the simple fact, that a nobleman's ransom was a fortune for any farmer and would be a risk to the formation for people chasing after it. I also think that this plays into some of the fear and terror of those battles.

[@bigsarge2085]

Excellent documentary, I always learn something.

[@MotDoiAnLac258]

Thank you channel for sharing interesting and interesting historical information

[@dr_schneeplstein2637]

been loving learning about the decline of cavalry in the the middle ages recently, this video could not have been more perfectly timed for me.

[@xTheLemon]

Ah now I finally understand why Pikemen and Halberdiers do bonus damage against Cavalry in Age of Empires II. Thank you!

[@gabrielrussell5531]

The relation of pike formations to heavy cavalry is so interesting to me. Armored guys with lances on horseback fell out of favor for most because the pike formations became too effective. The Poles got around this with giant 15-25' hollow lances that could outrange pikes. Eventually lance cavalry became rare enough that people were comfortable replacing their pikers with musketeers with socket bayonets. Then because pikes weren't a thing anymore, everyone in the Napoleonic wars was super impressed by Polish lance cavalry and started using lancers of their own.

[@lolasdm6959]

That and you can break a cavalry charge with a well placed volley. Moreover, it is recognized that mobility is the true king of warfare. Having a pike square won't do you good if your enemy just outpaces you.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Good video. Tbh, I really think one of the things that made the Swiss so effective, at least until a workable counter to them was developed, was their sheer bloody-mindedness. (St Jacob-en-Birs springs to mind). "Some aristocratic feudal overlord want's to invade MY Canton and steal my toblerone? Onf us isn't going home mate".

[@acethesupervillain348]

I'd love to see some North American conflicts covered on this channel. Caribbean theater of the 30 years war, Aztec-Cortez war, King Philip/Metacomet's War, Beaver Wars, French and Indian/North American Theater of the Seven Years War, American Revolution, War of 1812 (and 13 and 14 and 15)/American theater of the Napoleonic Wars. The earlier wars were still fought with pike-and-shot era technology, though the far-off armies needed to employ radically different tactics in America and the Caribbean.

[@RygaCommand]

You're kidding me, Im literally writing a bachelor's thesis about this very subject right now

[@uelibinde]

well... unlike other youtubers, these guys are actual historians, so yeah... thats the difference I guess.

[@thenoblepoptart]

Are you done?

[@RygaCommand]

@@thenoblepoptart yeah

[@thenoblepoptart]

@@RygaCommand post it brotha

[@RygaCommand]

@@thenoblepoptart Post it where?

[@ahabist7967]

Thank you for this informative video! I didn't realize that the voice was swiss until it said the High German word "Gewalthaufen" :)

[@Philtopy]

It’s interesting to note that the use of heavy cavalry on the battlefield decreased simultaneous with: 1. the start of the decline of knights social importance. Caused the rise of the free cities and the diminished use for feudal networks to uphold public order. 2. the increase of pre-industrial productivity for weapons and armor and the simultaneous betterment of affordability of combat equiptment. By the 15th century owning weapons, helmets and armor became more and more standard in Europe and there are even documents stating some citizens had to own weapons and armor based on their income. A heavy cavalry charge wasn’t just the preferred way of doing battle, because it was effective, but because it was highly prestigious and a way for the nobility to „seek glory and fame“. So maybe they held up the role of cavalry for longer than it should have been because they didn’t want to depart from this important tradition?

[@SavageDragon999]

We're also seeing the decline of heavy armor now in Ukraine. The War in Ukraine might very well be also the start of the end of tanks.

[@elusiveshadow5848]

@@SavageDragon999 and at the same time we've seen that artillery is still not going away any time soon

[@apokos8871]

its good to see a remake of your older material, hopefully this an help bring even more viewers to this channel. im really greatful for all your work, as you always mention sources, compared to most of "history" channels on youtube

[@sivlannga3284]

Fantastic subject for a video. Good to see it covered.

[@zebratoast278]

3:32 Native German here, I take some issue with the translation. Gewalthaufen can be loosely translated in that way, but it is far from the literal translation. Gewalthaufen is a compoundword of the words "Gewalt" and "Haufen". Gewalt in modern day German just means violence, but it could also mean something like control or force, but only in a certain context, namely control or force over, against or from someone. The closest translation of "Haufen" would be pile, heap or bunch, it describes a conglomeration of a lot of things that are somewhat difficult to put a number on. I think, if you stick with a loose translation just "force" would be more accurate or if you really want to keep it as literal as possible "heap of violence" would be better.

[@gaffy2822]

I live next to grandson and that video made me proud of my ancestors thanks great work

[@marcinstolarek8222]

You forgot about the Hussites and Jan Zizka, the 15th century and fighting in a fortified camp/Wagenburg. The Battle of Kutná Hora (Kuttenberg), The Battle of Německý Brod and many others

[@Lohgoss]

You are not wrong, but they say in the first minute that the swiss are just an example of pure infantry armies, hussites already have their dedicated video on this channel.

[@rogeransaloni2035]

The mention in this video reminded me of another video, probably some years ago, where you mentioned Alatriste, and man what a great movie. It has since become one of my favorites. Thanks for the tip and for the great videos

[@uelibinde]

good stuff, glad to see a better version of the video!

[@LamiNalchor]

I don't know if this is already established, but 'Gewalthaufen' might rather be translated as 'crowd of violence'.

[@RHampton]

"mounting challenges" We hear what you did there.

[@gryphonbotha1880]

I was wondering where the original went! Glad the updated version is now released :)

[@SimonLandenberger]

The Swiss killed almost an entire branch of my family in the ambush on Morgarten in 1315. Almost all of the “Alt-Landenbergers” were killed back then.

[@stevebaker4319]

I am interested in researching historical events. Could you give me any more data?

[@SimonLandenberger]

@@stevebaker4319 Julius Studer writes about this in his book "The Nobles of Landenberg" as follows: ""If the older Rudolf (1.) was alongside Hermann von Landenberg as a feudal tenant of Kiburg before 1264, then the grandson enjoyed the favor of the House of Habsburg. Alongside his brother Hermann of Mainz, Master of the Johanniter in Germany, he aided King Albrecht and Bishop Heinrich of Konstanz in settling a dispute between the Johanniter Order and the heirs of the Free Rudolf von Wädenswil, as announced by the king and the bishop from Mainz on October 17, 1300. On June 7, 1315, we find Rudolf with Count Johann of Habsburg-Rapperswil in Baden, and on September 10, with King Friedrich and Duke Leopold in Irsee on the Wertach in Swabia. As the castellan of Kiburg, Rudolf, undoubtedly at the head of the people from the Kiburg district, with his son Pantaleon (II) on November 15, 1315, joined the Battle of Morgarten, where both father and son fell under the fierce blows of the young Confederates (Eidgenossen). Thus ended the male line of the Knights of Alt-Landenberg. Yet Rudolf's memory lives on not only as that of a brave fighter in the bloody struggle; 'amidst the clashing of weapons in a warlike era,' when most other nobles 'fed themselves from the saddle and lived off the cuff,' i.e., had become highwaymen, he also found leisure to turn his attention to the art of poetry, which was then flourishing in Zurich around the art-loving Rüdiger Manesse,"

[@H3-Li-O-S]

Alt Landenberg like the ruins of alt Landenberg? Because I used to visit these ruins as a child quite often. So surprising to see that name again.

[@SimonLandenberger]

​@@H3-Li-O-S Yes, Altlandenberg Castle was the ancestral seat of the Landenberg family. In the 14th century, the family split into three main branches: Altlandenberg, now a ruin in Bauma; Breitenlandenberg, a ruin in Turbenthal; and Hoch- or Hohenlandenberg in Wila. These branches were significant in the region during the Middle Ages. From them, further lines emerged, such as the Greifensee line, among others. From the 16th century onwards, the Landenberg family increasingly oriented themselves towards southern Germany, though some members remained active in Switzerland until the 19th century.

[@majorfallacy5926]

3:30 From modern German, "Gewalthaufen" would translate to "heap of violence" which I think is funnier

[@hagbardceline1980]

Gewalthaufen would translated more accurately to something like "Violence Bunch" or "Violent Mob"

[@jeorgessportocontes768]

With my translator it goes with "how to pile trash"😂

[@drakon3386]

Wo si mini Schwizer Brüeder? 👇

[@annalenaguptara7130]

🇨🇭

[@justAnotherWaveform]

CH CH CH

[@el_dani]

De Sprächer esch au Schwiitzer, so guet wiener Gwalthuufe gseid hed

[@FenrirGrayhound]

CHCHCHCH !

[@Osvath97]

0:12 I would argue that it was even more extreme than that. Cavalry was, in high medieval Latin Europe, usually not on the wings, but rather were the frontline itself during the main part of the battle, with infantry being a stabilising backline. Most high medieval sources depict the order of battle as being in the initial screening and setting up phase of a battle as: (3) Cavalry (2) Infantry (1) Crossbowmen, and then in the main-combat part of the battle, the order went to: (3) Crossbowmen (2) Infantry (1) Cavalry. One exception to this is the late 1200's Aragonese armies, which usually had half the frontline held by mounted knights, the other half held by almughavars. I haven't really seen mentions of the wings being cavalry and the centre being infantry until we get to the Late Middle Ages. Not saying there weren't cases of that in the High Middle Ages too, I have by no means read all primary sources, but it seems to be a rarity.

[@methany8788]

"[...] that cavalry would face mounting challenges." Nice one!

[@navox933]

I think a more vivid translation of Gewalthaufen, is horde of violence. It also stays true to its meaning.

[@Robozgraggi]

Gewalt can mean both violence as well as force depending on the context. In this case both would make sense.

[@olivertoth4122]

I think "pile of force" actually is the nearest translation. As "Haufen" is a pile and "Gewalt" in this context means force.

[@toddr4532]

The Swiss infantry was not that great. They won most of their battles because of their flag. It was a big plus.

[@markstream7058]

Brother…

[@mesajongte]

😂😂😂

[@bretberry8911]

Lol

[@leandrogalvao1132]

Like enemies thought it was a battalion of nurses coming and welcomed the attack? How long they took to realize that pikes are not band aids?😂

[@awesom-o1570]

Attack of the nurse 😅

[@Dayvit78]

Yesss! The staggering return of early modern era warfare!

[@giacomomorandini6770]

Such interesting topic and amazing quality production, as always

[@johnmrke2786]

lmfao at the painting at 9:15 of the dog running away with the Burgundians

[@kleinesschreckgespenst319]

It's really fascinating to me how such a simple weapon as a spear/pike could proof itself to be one of the most efficient weapons if used by the right people.

[@wojciechpatalas6660]

Because it did not.

[@kleinesschreckgespenst319]

​@@wojciechpatalas6660of course it was. Why did most of western militaries adopted their tactics if it was not effective? What is your point?

[@wojciechpatalas6660]

@@kleinesschreckgespenst319 Mainly because western cavalry was not especially good which was proven again and again with every invasion from the East. Your undefeated infantry formations were ripped apart time after time when they faced eastern cavalry in open field. And I am talking about 16th - 17th century not medieval times.

[@anomanderrake1634]

@@wojciechpatalas6660 Lmao a Polish man taking about Western cavalry when in fact the Polish hussars were one of the most overrated and worst cavalries of all time they could only win when they faced untrained peasants who couldnt even hold a weapon properly and every time the dumb hussars faced a real army wielding pikes and halberds they were either destroyed or fled from the battlefield with their tales between their legs lollll..

[@anomanderrake1634]

@@wojciechpatalas6660 Lmao a Polish man taking about Western cavalry when in fact the Polish hussars were one of the most overrated and worst cavalries of all time they could only win when they faced untrained peasants who couldnt even hold a weapon properly and every time the dumb hussars faced a real army wielding pikes and halberds they were either destroyed or fled from the battlefield with their tales between their legs lollll..

[@sterneis1]

True Suisse People, friends l have as a turkish living in Switzerland, l can tell you. Helvetians are heavy set and physically strong and tall. They are very good soldiers and have brave hearts, fighting intelligently. Real Eidgenossen are stubborn and are loyal. 🇨🇭👍

[@samuel.andermatt]

3:30 "The literal english translation is crowd of force" I guess that sounds better than "Pile of violence"

[@loganclark4660]

I just want to say, this channel is amazing! the effort that goes into these videos must be immense to put in this much detail. I especially love your, "How to Raise a Medieval Army" video, as it really goes into detail about the topic, even adding in small notes to make sure the audience is informed. One thing I just can't seem to find is where the noble lords and knights get their retinues from, people often, "men at arms", but what does that mean and where do the nobility get them from? Again, this channel is incredible dude, and I hope you continue to succeed.

[@lug3237]

Love the return to covering this era!

[@Kyoptic]

Another excellently researched, fantastic video, thank you!

[@bladdnun3016]

3:27 If you want a literal translation, the closest I can give is 'pile of violence'.

[@PHILTente]

thats the modern translation. in the middle ages "gewalt" meant just force or power which is "kraft" in german today and "haufen" was a millitary term meaning troop or in modern german "einheit/truppe" so in modern german "gewalt haufen" would be "kraft truppe/kraft einheit" or in english force troop or power troop. its funny to think that they would call their unit "violence pile" because of the immage of a violent orc mob comming to mind but thats not what those words ment in the 15th century

[@عنادمطهر]

Ancient Greeks: ‘Invents philosophy, geometry, and the marathon.’ Me: ‘Invents a new way to avoid exercise.

[@richardlampert-t6j]

Gewalthaufen translates also to pille of vilence or heap of vilence And that sounds rad

[@jodofe4879]

In modern German, yes. In medieval German it doesn't. "Gewalt" in 15th century German translates more to 'strength' or 'force' than to 'violence', and a "Haufen" is strictly a term for a military unit, so it translates to 'troop' or 'unit'. "Gewalthaufen" to contemporary German-speakers therefore would have meant something along the lines of 'strong unit'.

[@shiro8936]

Gewalthaufen is a terrifying term. :D Heap of Violence would be a better translation. :D

[@stephensedlon8414]

You forgot to mention those legendary Swiss mercenary units: The Swiss Cheese The Swiss Chocolate And most infamously, the Swiss Army Knives

[@datensaft]

Nice video. Side note for all the people in the comments who didn't get it: (because the vid only touched on this topic in passing) A Gewalthaufen(TM) was NOT just pikes, it is not a copy of a Greek phalanx. It is a combined force of pikes, halberds, two-handed weapons and crossbows/rifles. To all the people complaining that their favorite army would have surely beaten the Swiss mercenaries from that period if only they had met. (Hussars, Mongols, Klingons, whatever). The modern Swiss army would probably make Swiss cheese out of any Hussars or Mongols that would try to storm us today ;) Sounds like “My dad can beat up your dad” because it is. ... this is about history, so don't take it too personally?

[@stevo271]

Why so many trolls in the comments??? Sheesh! Swiss were extremely effective vs cavalry and many other troop types on several occasions.

[@Стефан237]

Such a good video, the knowledge is pouring out of you. I'll surely check more of the videos. Thanks.

[@jtms1200]

0:34 what's Nicholas Cage doin on the battlefield?

[@michaelp6427]

When I click on the timestamp I instantly saw it and laughed

[@whoisaiahmoore9100]

Love these

[@wiktorberski9272]

It was really interesting to watch this movie. A lot of information indeed

[@Wilhelm-100TheTechnoAdmiral]

M'lord, the Swiss have defeated us with their advanced technology. What technology? A bunch of dudes with really long sticks, Lord. My God have mercy on us all.

[@marcmonnerat4850]

It's not surprising that this type of infantry formation, which challenged the superiority of chivalry and thus the established order of feudalism, developed first in regions like Switzerland, the Low-Countries and Scotland, where the social organisation was slightly different and more egalitarian.

[@LonersGuide]

"...cavalry would face mounting challenges..."

[@Kalenz1234]

Gewalthaufen literally translates to "pile of violence".

[@neptun6761]

Depends For example; Force of nature = Naturgewalt Translation is not always that straightforward

[@Kalenz1234]

@@neptun6761 "literal" translation means the words are translated directly word for word which is straightforward and is "pile of violence" in this case.

[@thenoblepoptart]

it LITERALLY translates to “wieldheap” because wield is the closest english world to gewalt and heap is the closest word to haufen

[@Kalenz1234]

@@thenoblepoptart Gewalt literally means violence.

[@thenoblepoptart]

@@Kalenz1234 wield is the closest etymological antecedent to gewalt, violence comes from Latin violentia whereas Wield and Gewalt share the same IE lineage

[@hermannschonbachler4481]

Dr schwizer akzent vom komentator isch herrlich! Gruss,Hermann,Rosswood,Kanada

[@gameer0037]

Er häts aber voll im griff. Emal ich han erscht gmerkt daser en dütschsprachige isch woner wort wie "Morgarten" fählerlos usgsproche ka hät 😅

[@hermannschonbachler4481]

It tippe: A Innerschwizer/ vielich Luzerner?

[@Elbrasch]

I think ViolenceHeap or ViolenceMob captures Gewalthaufen better as a literal translation.

[@nercopolis99]

11:22, I will never complain about my life or responsibilities again. Thank you Cosmic Forces that I have my nice little studio apartment far away in distance and time from angry spear-wielding armies.

[@Trebor74]

Cavalry superiority was actually ended when sharpened stakes were hammered into the ground. The Scots taught the English at Bannockburn. The english perfected it at Agincourt.

[@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont]

The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield. The French repeatedly defeated the Flemish (Mons-en-Pévèle (1304), Cassel (1328), Roosebeke (1382), etc.) Courtrai was certainly an exception, not the norm. English victories in the mid-14th and early 15th centuries (during the Hundred Years' War) owed much to French mistakes. The French launched disorganised cavalry charges without taking into account the terrain, whether muddy, sloping or covered with hedges. When the French finally stopped messing around, they scored a series of victories that enabled them to drive out the English invaders. For example, a surprise charge led by a few French knights routed the entire English army at Patay (1429): the English knights and mounted troops fled the battlefield, leaving the English archers completely disorganised and harassed by the French cavalry... According to historians, on that day the French lost 3 k.illed and 100 wounded and the English 2,500-4,000 k.illed or captured. Another example is that of the Battle of Formigny (1450): the bombardment by two French light cannons forced the English archers to come out of their defensive position and attack the French (who were outnumbered by the English). However, the Breton cavalry (allied to the French) appeared on the flanks and completely crushed the English, allowing the French to definitively reconquer Normandy.

[@Trebor74]

@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont when you understand that a horse will not charge at a sharpened stakes,then it is the end of cavalry superiority. A pikeman is merely a movable stake 🙂

[@protek3167]

Actually horses were taught to charge pikes, very long spears layered together, as well as how bite, stomp, and generally kill people, quite effectively as well. However knights would usually not engage pikes, after all their archers and pikemen would be far more effective at countering enemy pike formations, and pin them for the knights to hit their sides or rear. If they had no other recourse, a cavalry charge on good terrain against well trained pikemen would succeed half of the time. After all, even the most experienced of pikemen are susceptible to the terror of a heavy cavalry charge. The ground would shake like an earthquake, they would see the long spears ready to impale them at high speed, and the front rank would know that they will die, even if the charge fails and they're wearing the best armor in the world. A lance with the full weight of horse, man, and armor going at high speeds could go through the heaviest of plate, chainmail, and gambeson layered on top each other. What really made pikemen effective against a charge was terrain, muddy ground, rivers and hills, or a wooded area would kill a horse's momentum. Or entrenchment, even a simple 1 foot long, wide, and deep hole would cripple horses and send riders flying. But pikemen and cavalry are ill suited to fighting each other, in a one on match up it'd be stupid to have only one. What actually happened was combined arms warfare, cavalry, infantry, archers, engineers, etc. working together would stomp any army that didn't, after all in a rock, paper, scissors game the best move is to play all three at the same time. However, guns changed this dynamic, they gave a pike formation a similar hitting power to a lance, at range, while not needing as much training as archers. Essentially making pike formations offensive in nature, Cavalry went from the strongest arm of any army, to second place, while eliminating archers altogether. Cavalry wouldn't regain their glory until bayonets made pikes and halberds obsolete, and field artillery became small enough to move fast, allowing cavalry to become more important.

[@jackblack7827]

The Mapuche in Chile also used pike formations to counter Spanish cavalry charges. They eventually formed their own cavalry and were able to defeat the Spanish in the field of battle. The Mapuche were never conquered by the Spanish colonists.

[@ianbruce6515]

At the Battle of Agincourt, there was negligable cavalry action. The original plan of the French was to attack the English flanks with cavalry, while advancing on foot in the center. Crecy had already proven that a frontal cavalry attack on a prepared position with stakes, pits to break horses legs--and archers to take out the horses--was a potential disaster. The English chose their field well, however, with dense woods on both flanks. There were ineffectual cavalry attacks on both ends of the front line. Then came the primary attack--French knights advancing on foot, heads down to not expose the slits in their helms. This was the real attack at the center.

[@TheRamblingBooth]

Thank you for making these. Please don't listen to what the haters say. I love your videos and they're very informative!

[@jrlonergan6773]

Great video

[@maasbekooy901]

I'll love if you could make (a video of) a list of movies with realistic battles

[@panagiotisg83]

It is surprising how much this system resembles the one developed by Nikephoros Phokas to campaign against the cavalry heavy armies of the Caliphate in Syria. Of course, he also had cavalry, but the main formation was a square where a small number of pikemen (menavlatoi in his writings) were used to receive cavalry charges after which the normal infantry (skoutatoi) or cavalry would finish the enemy. It is very well described in "Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century" by Eric McGeer.

[@Leif-yv5ql]

My favorite unit in Sid Meier's Civilization.

[@EokaBeamer69]

nice video like always

[@MrCattlehunter]

Those horses @12:50

[@HalfKaztBoy]

hahaha how funny does that look

[@dansmith4077]

For the algorithm excellent video

[@2384]

I know this video is dedicated to the Swiss, but i think it is necesary to mention the Hussites and Hussite/Bohemian/Czech mercrenaries of the second half od he 15th ct when talking about the demise of European cavalry. I believe that there isnt a single instance of cavalry charges defeating them in battle and later on, these soldiers of fortune would find them selves fighing cavalry formations from France to Bulgaria

[@bellgrand]

First, technically, the Hussites were cavalry themselves (or horse infantry), and they fought crusaders who were primarily cavalry. Second, the key innovation of the Hussites was the wagenburg, in which companies would move around in horse-drawn wagons. When threatened, they would arrange the wagons in a square and defend the perimeter while holding the horses in reserve inside the square. When the enemy was repelled, they would exit the square to attack, often pursuing them on horseback.

[@julio5prado]

Excellent as usual! The Swiss were great and also reliable and committed, when other troops abandoned the Swiss stood firm. There is plenty of examples of their bravery and loyalty (despite being mercenaries)

[@philjohnson1744]

Excellent analysis.

[@michaelmoran3946]

Quite good 🎉 a concise coverage❤ of a fairly complicated subject. I am a little surprised that you did not mention that Swiss mercenaries still function as the Vatican Guard.

[@mariushunger8755]

Are there any examples of gendarmes defeating a "modern" pike square?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

What do you mean by modern pike square? The Swiss pike squares were defeated in the italian wars by french gendarme. Although never routed by gendarmes, other pikes were but to my knowledge all Swiss pikes were able to retreat in fairly good order when defeated by gendarmes.

[@inconspicioussharter7614]

Rocroi perhaps?

[@tibsky1396]

Marignano 1515

[@lorenzocracchiolo]

Masterpiece video

[@ralambosontiavina7372]

Excellent work !

[@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont]

The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield. The French repeatedly defeated the Flemish (Mons-en-Pévèle (1304), Cassel (1328), Roosebeke (1382), etc.) Courtrai was certainly an exception, not the norm. English victories in the mid-14th and early 15th centuries (during the Hundred Years' War) owed much to French mistakes. The French launched disorganised cavalry charges without taking into account the terrain, whether muddy, sloping or covered with hedges. When the French finally stopped messing around, they scored a series of victories that enabled them to drive out the English invaders. For example, a surprise charge led by a few French knights routed the entire English army at Patay (1429): the English knights and mounted troops fled the battlefield, leaving the English archers completely disorganised and harassed by the French cavalry... According to historians, on that day the French lost 3 k.illed and 100 wounded and the English 2,500-4,000 k.illed or captured. Another example is that of the Battle of Formigny (1450): the bombardment by two French light cannons forced the English archers to come out of their defensive position and attack the French (who were outnumbered by the English). However, the Breton cavalry (allied to the French) appeared on the flanks and completely crushed the English, allowing the French to definitively reconquer Normandy.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

"The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield." -Hmm, yeah I agree. I also would like to point out that we don't use these examples to argue that cavalry declined. We included these battles simply because people tend to know and mention those battles. we argue that these battles were won due to circumstances, field fortifications or other specifics. in our view the decline of cavalry !superiority! (not the decline of cavalry) occurred later with the more frequent use of pike squares (due to various factors such as tactical and administrative changes).

[@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont]

@@SandRhomanHistory Thank you for your reply! I really like your channel! 👍 In fact, my comment was mainly aimed at the other commentators (I suspect they're only interested in English victories), because I agree with you about the role of pikemen's squares in mitigating cavalry advantages on the battlefield.

[@Melodeath00]

Pretty sure that's exactly what he said in the video?

[@micheldesjardins8813]

The scottish schiltrons during the first scottish war of independance back in the 14th century. Also battle of Courtrai 1302 where the goedendag used by the flemish were excellent at repelling the french's charges.

[@candlesinwoodenroom4888]

Goedandag is a weapon right? First time i heard it i laughed, cus it looked like a mace and goeden dag sounds like good day. And i imagined a knight on horseback smashing a peasant with a mace and saying goeden dag(good day) 😂😂😂😂

[@paulhenderson5399]

Battle of Stirling Bridge 1297.

[@jameslawrie3807]

The Scots didn't have the evolved missile systems. The Swiss had mobile missile/infantry on horseback and ribauldquin organ-guns in the flanks that once pikes fixed the enemy in place could smash the immobile enemies and deter cavalry charges to the flank. Much later at Flodden Field the Scots' pikes failed because when the pike block hit a barrier (the infamous ditch) these troops weren't there to batter the English.

[@MustacheWins]

You can see the logical progression from this to the Tercio formation later on.

[@GortonaGaming]

Jetzt git's eis uf's Nüssli! :)

[@derknusperhase_ivi]

meinsch es het mol eis ufs nüssli geh. vo kiffffäää git mer si nur selber ufs nüssli. seb isch gwüsst, hopla chorsch.

[@dennispommes100]

Sprecht ma' richtiges deutsch und nicht euer Bergziegen Ding

[@Mad_Flavor]

@@dennispommes100 welches ist das richtige deutsch?

[@Samuel.Bachmann]

​@@dennispommes100 häb de latz

[@peterw.5700]

I haven't looked it up but as a German I would argue that word by word crowd of force is not the correct translation for Gewalthaufen In German nouns can be chained together to create new nouns that usually have the same meaning as the nouns they are made of combined Gewalthaufen is made up of two words the first beeing Gewalt=violence and the secound one Haufen=heap/pile Crowd of force would be something similar to Kraftmenge. However menge not only refers to a crowd of people, but can also literally be translated to amount and set (as in a set of numbers). In my oppinion violence-heap captures the meaning of Gewalthaufen a lot better, because it sounds dirty and brutal. This makes sense, since the word literally refers to a heap of lowly born men stabbing an hacking at you with polearms.

[@Bird_Dog00]

Given that the guys behind SandRhoman are german-speaking swiss, I'm sure they have considerd this. As a matter of fact, I do recall that in an older video they did translate Gewalthaufen as heap of violence. I'm sure they had their reason for translating it differently this time, but it would be interesting to hear about that reason.

[@hectortroy8671]

Force can be substituted for violence in English.

[@lasnavasdetolosa58]

would agree with your translation. Gewalt=violence and Haufen=heap/pile. Like angry hooligans power 10 in ruthlessness

[@PHILTente]

@@lasnavasdetolosa58 as i commented on another similar comment: the transaltion of haufen to pile and gewalt to violence is modern german not medieval german. in the 15th century those words had different meanings. gewalt meant just force or power much closer to the modern german word "kraft" and haufen was a millitary term meaning unit or troop. I dont agree with translating haufen to crowd as crowd refers to any body of men where as haufen is millitary or paramillitary in nature but it is much closer than pile as pile can be used for objects where as old haufen was only a word describing people. The definitions of those words changed over time probably because of the violence and chaos those terms would be associated with in the 30 years war. but thats just a guess

[@captnmaico6776]

The later version was called "Gevierthaufen"

[@silverchairsg]

How did calvary warfare and/or pike/spearman squares evolve in areas of the world other than the West over the course of history?

[@TheSunderingSea]

What's the music playing in the intro?

[@Ahtalon]

funny to think about that the emergence of firearms also raised the importance of cavalry again since they are the "counter" to musketeers/arkebusiers and artillery

[@AnonYmous-ic5kd]

Love your channel keep it up!

[@TheOrderofTheBoanerges]

an example a near infantry victory over a cav force is Harold Godwinson defeat against William the conquered. he very nearly won.

[@planescaped]

13:14 love your job like red sleeves+ granny hat here and you'll never work a day in your life, lol.

[@glenng8185]

Amazing

[@evanneal4936]

I believe it was simply a matter of poor training and discipline that caused infantry to break and route against cavalry. Many historic events say that we'll disciplined infantry who held their grounds and were professional soldiers, almost always beat cavalry using standard tactics, this is true before and after the middle ages, it's just that during that time armies were small and not professional enough. Even poorly trained Hungarian infantry beat gheangis Khan mongols, and varangian vikings beat the byzantine cavalry on foot.... it's just all about training and discipline and it helps to form a square formation as well, something that the Greek and Roman armies both did that we apparently forgot all about until napoleon reintroduced it.

[@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont]

The examples of Courtrai (Battle of the Golden Spurs), Crécy and Azincourt are not very convincing in explaining the decline of cavalry on the battlefield. The French repeatedly defeated the Flemish (Mons-en-Pévèle (1304), Cassel (1328), Roosebeke (1382), etc.) Courtrai was certainly an exception, not the norm. English victories in the mid-14th and early 15th centuries (during the Hundred Years' War) owed much to French mistakes. The French launched disorganised cavalry charges without taking into account the terrain, whether muddy, sloping or covered with hedges. When the French finally stopped messing around, they scored a series of victories that enabled them to drive out the English invaders. For example, a surprise charge led by a few French knights routed the entire English army at Patay (1429): the English knights and mounted troops fled the battlefield, leaving the English archers completely disorganised and harassed by the French cavalry... According to historians, on that day the French lost 3 k.illed and 100 wounded and the English 2,500-4,000 k.illed or captured. Another example is that of the Battle of Formigny (1450): the bombardment by two French light cannons forced the English archers to come out of their defensive position and attack the French (who were outnumbered by the English). However, the Breton cavalry (allied to the French) appeared on the flanks and completely crushed the English, allowing the French to definitively reconquer Normandy.

[@fiddleriddlediddlediddle]

You cover a lot of "military revolutions" in Europe. Would you consider covering similar military revolutions in China, if there are any?

[@bogdan3907]

It is interesting that in eastern Europe the pike was not used. For example, the romanian countries (Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania) fought especially against the turks, tatars, hungarians and poles. Although some of them had powerful heavy cavalry, the pikes were never used. Besides, in the romanian vocabulary there is no word for pike, only for spear and lance.

[@lolasdm6959]

There were pikes thou, just not as common as in Western Europe. Interestingly there is no word specifically for pike in Chinese too, just spear and lance, so pike is just long spear/lance.

[@MrReijer]

Bit weird you mention countries like Transylvania fighting Hungary as it was an actual continuation of the Hungarian kingdom.

[@lerneanlion]

Question: How did the Ottoman military dealt with such thing as pike-and-shot formation?

[@apokos8871]

from what i've learned from the Osprey publishing books on the period, it was that the Ottomans used a very different approach. their infantry was pretty much only ranged, meaning a unit of X ottomans against a unit of X westerners had fire superiority. on the cavalry front, they brought more (and arguably better?) cavalry than most westerners. their infantry didnt have to worry about protection from cavalry (through pikes etc) as it was their cavalry's job to protect the infantry from the enemy cavalry. so, to sum up, their infantry could (theoretically) win every straight up firefight against a mixed pike&shotte unit and their cavalry could (theoretically) handle the enemy cavalry. of course, in the grand scheme of things, the ottomans didnt usually fight against pike&shote armies, they fought against Poland, Hungary, Romania and the border regions of Austria. all of these places didnt exactly use pike&shotte in the same way western europeans did. i hope my answer helped, i did quite a lot of research on this because i had the same question as you do

[@lerneanlion]

@@apokos8871 Thank you for the answer. It was satisfactory!

[@hindermannbjorn9507]

Ottomans were at that time also leading in artillery. Not good for big closed formations...

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

Most important is probably that the Ottomans almost always have superior numbers and had the money for a properly equiped army. Yeah they foughed against non small nations but those battles were always far away from friendly territory for those nations what hardly ever works well.