Weapons & Food of the English Civil War

Рет қаралды 5,948

Living History UK

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 41

@jesterofspades3903 7 ай бұрын

Great that this underrated war is getting some coverage

@caseysilkwood47 11 ай бұрын

An excellent video, it's criminal that it hasn't garnered more views! As an American, it really scratches the itch for an often overlooked part of history on this side of the pond. I've been scrambling to learn all I can about the civil wars after finding Colonel John Hutchinson on my family tree. Cheers!

@LivingHistoryUK 11 ай бұрын

Thanks for your kind words. Really pleased to hear you enjoyed the episode and great family history by the way!

@graemer3657 Жыл бұрын

The beauty of a potage is that it makes the large quantity of bread (the mainstay of the ration) endurable. The WW2 Wehrmacht did the same as midday meal from the mobile field kitchens was always a soup made communally so somethings perhaps don’t change that much over time. Why were the trousers tied below the knee.

@danielmaher964 29 күн бұрын

Was it to keep the stockings up?

@benjaminhulme6103 6 ай бұрын

Great vid! Good for research

@LivingHistoryUK 6 ай бұрын

Thanks 😃

@lancerixson9984 Жыл бұрын

A really fabulous video, gentlemen!! 👏🏻

@LivingHistoryUK Жыл бұрын

Thanks Lance, glad you enjoyed it.

@michaelwalters4249 Жыл бұрын

A great video! It really brings history to life to know how ordinary people lived and what they ate

@chrisdavies8202 Жыл бұрын

Great video as always, lads, thank you 👍

@LivingHistoryUK Жыл бұрын

Cheers Chris, glad you enjoyed it.

@bombfog1 4 ай бұрын

So how many rounds would the infantryman at the beginning have on him. In Iraq and Afghanistan I carried 210-270 rounds of 5.56 for example.

@LivingHistoryUK 3 ай бұрын

Averages at about 12, but it really does depend - they made musket balls themselves and powder was a scarce commodity.

@bombfog1 3 ай бұрын

@@LivingHistoryUKWow! That’s seems like a shocking paucity of ammo. So the 12 Apostles that soldiers wore were just enough powder for one shot per “Apostle”?

@LivingHistoryUK 2 ай бұрын

@@bombfog1 yes 👍

@Henchman34 Ай бұрын

What's the name of the gentleman who wrote the books they talk about while cooking?

@LivingHistoryUK Ай бұрын

@@Henchman34 Stuart Peachey. Some of his books are for sale here:- www.middleton-hall.co.uk/category/all-products

@danielmaher964 29 күн бұрын

@LivingHistoryUK your reply is only visible on newest comments mode

@drizzle952 2 ай бұрын

👍

@FelixstoweFoamForge 2 ай бұрын

2 Pounds of bread, a pound of "meat", a Potle of wine and constant pay per day, was one of recruiting points of the New Model Army. Almost screams "give me scurvy", doesn't it?

@rhedges9631 27 күн бұрын

Fresh meat can prevent scurvy

@pe003 10 ай бұрын

So it's basically English risotto

@vgamedude12 2 ай бұрын

I always find this time period funny because firearms largely rendered armor less effective, and armor rendered arrows less effective. But if you encountered an army armed like the musketeers with no armor crossbows and bows would actually arguably be MORE effective. Just a weird balance act going on.

@adanadanyou 2 ай бұрын

Muskets had far better range than longbows. Muskets have big muzzle energy than longbow. Training with longbow is hard you must have big stamina. Even after 12 shot you will get tired shooting arrows from longbows. Flintlock muskets also have bayonets another advantage over longbows. A battalion with muskets can defeat bowmen. Even native Americans adopt muskets. Equipping large numbers of soldiers with longbows and arrows are bad for economy and logistics. Please refer to military historians. Watch videos below from historians. 2 videos btw. 1. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqjKf6OEet-ssKssi=aTp3UPWCrYwVHRKh 2. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6a1dXmegb-berMsi=O0rsCwYPYMKZYNTK

@vgamedude12 2 ай бұрын

@adanadanyou Brandon self admittedly has no knowledge of medieval warfare and states musket engagements were 1-200m max in that video if my memory serves (correct me if im wrong) and he is referencing later muskets over matchlocks also no? That is well within the range of archers. A archer group firing a volley at a line of musket men would surely be devastating. Yes you didn't see it, and obviously muskets replaced bows that is clear, but my point was it's an odd turn that if they theoretically revived an archer company from the not too distant history it would've matched well vs the especially early arquebusers and matchlock infantry. Don't get me wrong I understand it didn't really happen alot or at least not to my knowledge. I'm just saying a volley of arrows against matchlock men who take that long to fire and wear no armor would be devastating.

@dolsopolar Ай бұрын

@vgamedude12 the answer is actually not that complicated.. because guns are more powerful than bows. the reason military archers died out even though armor fell out of favour was despite all the pop history channels tend to only speculate on this topics, their are many accounts of arquebusiers facing archers (and won most of the time), arquebus were praised for its superior accuracy and power over bow and arrows by contemporary sources.

@vgamedude12 Ай бұрын

@@dolsopolar They are more powerful but my question is how much does such a thing matter if someone is unarmored? I know for example in late 1500s Japan the bow and gun were both used, and I know possibly earlier both were also used in europe, and I cannot imagine firearms advanced all that much in that timespan of like 50 years or so especially if were talking about matchlocks still

@dolsopolar Ай бұрын

⁠@@vgamedude12 your question is why didn't the decline of armor bring back archery in large number again since nobody wear armor so gun's penetration power doesn't matter.. again, the answer is simple: because guns aren't only better at armor penetration. as I stated previously that arquebuses were praised for it's accuracy and power. so what did I mean by that? the answer is that bullets travel much much faster than arrows, and being faster means more stopping power, penetration power, cause more serious wounds, reaching target faster, less affected by winds and much flatter trajectory, all of this vastly improve accuracy and effective range. arrows also can be easily being blocked by simple defenses like shields or wooden walls while muskets require much more complex system of earthworks and heavier immobile defenses.