Very good point. Now, as I sit at my desk looking at spreadsheets, I can feel that I am too, in a way, Henry the V.
@scholagladiatoria
9 жыл бұрын
Marcos Ariño Hahahah
@Alduin101
9 жыл бұрын
Marcos Ariño Just take care not to become VIII.
@MoviMakr
9 жыл бұрын
Marcos Ariño "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day." The day before Saint Crispin's day was the feastday of Venerable Excel of Spreadsheets.
@viamilitaris011
9 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria Im not English but I like English history . Some time ago i read little about all those preparations for war and there is story about great amount of feathers (goos I think) for arrows they needded. Henry V had to bring law about buying off feathers from people and that was big problem but only one of many problems during preparations .
@christosvoskresye
8 жыл бұрын
+Marcos Ariño To paraphrase a different Henry, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome spreadsheet?"
@dajolaw
9 жыл бұрын
Old army saying: "Good generals talk tactics. Great generals talk strategy. Brilliant generals talk logistics."
@hjorturerlend
8 жыл бұрын
+dajolaw And generals who do their jobs properly, talk about all three ;p Feeding and equipping (logistics) your troops does not do that much good, if they don´t have any objectives (strategy), nor would know how to achieve those objectives (tactics)! It is true however, that logistics is the one that requires the most work, and resources, of the three :)
@svenwilson5668
8 жыл бұрын
+hjorturerlend A good general also knows how to delegate ;) Quality NCOs and officers in the field can take care of most of the tactical stuff, after all they are at the sharp end ;)
@fleadoggreen9062
3 жыл бұрын
@@hjorturerlend thanks for that , now I know wat logistics are
@Strategiusz
9 жыл бұрын
Every bandit is a businessman when he is not robbing.
@Nickname-hier-einfuegen
9 жыл бұрын
***** And every businessman is a bandit when he is not .... oh.
@tiffles3890
8 жыл бұрын
+Nickname hier einfügen You were saying?
@JWAlulis
8 жыл бұрын
As a former logistics officer in the army, it's really refreshing to hear you talk about all the work that goes into making war. Everyone ignores that part, when in reality it's what makes or breaks successful campaigns.
@freman007
8 жыл бұрын
Your talk about the support necessary reminds me of a comment I read. "Amateurs discuss strategy. Professionals discuss logistics."
@MartinGreywolf
9 жыл бұрын
First caveat that comes to mind is that most of the nobles weren't great lords - owning a house and three fields makes you set for life, perhaps, but not massively rich. This lower nobility (whether it was official tier in nobility at the time, or just a description of wealth) was mostly soldiers, though you did find some who were effectively merchants or scholars, especially later. More importantly, all this applies from about 1300 onwards at the earliest - honestly, last quarter of 14th century is probably more accurate. Before that, many nobles - including kings - weren't even literate, so paperwork duties fell to their servants. Lastly, chroniclers had a nasty habit of attributing any achievements to the highest ranking person around, regardless of who did the actual work. Since high nobility were mostly politicians, I suspect a lot of actual administration was done by their staff, while they themselves were dealing with politics. This is actually the most important part people tend to forget - practically every single noble had to have diplomacy and politics as a survival skill. An example I'm familiar with that nicely showcases this is the end of Hungarian interregnum at the end of 13th century. Charles Robert is credited with ending it and conquering many holdings from rebel nobles (most important source on these events was commissioned by his son, after all), but closer look at the sources reveals he personally led only a handful of actual battles, preferring to stick to strategy, at which he was quite good (kind of reverse Alexander the Great - strategic genius, mediocre tactician).
@titanscerw
9 жыл бұрын
You are looking at it from 21st century point of view of politics ... thats certain
@Riceball01
9 жыл бұрын
MartinGreywolf I think you hit upon a good point, how much of what these nobles did and/or were responsible for was actually the work someone underneath them. Like the example presented of Agincourt, while I'm sure that good King Henry was responsible for the overall strategy I'm sure that a lot of the logistics and other minutiae behind his overall strategy was the work of some long forgotten member of his staff. I also imagine that the exact deployment of his troops on the field of battle were the responsibility of his individual unit commanders, Henry would likely detail where he wanted his various and their troops to be while that individual lord or knight then decided where the individual troops, or possibly even sub units to be deployed within their AOR.
@MartinGreywolf
9 жыл бұрын
Riceball01 Agreed. Flip side of the coin is that some of the lower tier stuff was actually done personally by even high nobility. Command of their personal bodyguard comes to mind, though it should be said that this isn't universal - Charles Robert, for example, was personally present for very few battles, probably because it was something that didn't interest him. Alexander the Great or the Black Prince, on the other hand... Having people to do the parts of your job you don't enjoy for you is certainly a perk of being rich.
@mattd6931
9 жыл бұрын
When I am ruler of the world then, I will be sure to remember the little people who made my conquest possible.
@user-nb3db3gu5u
8 жыл бұрын
+Matt D (Frizbee) Frizbee for world domination
@ewokshoterz
8 жыл бұрын
I'll help mate
@MikeBenko
8 жыл бұрын
This actually goes a long way to explaining why Agincourt had such a profound effect on France as well. They lost a big chunk of the bureaucrats and business elites responsible of keeping France running.
@Imhornydadcomeinside
9 жыл бұрын
It's kind of funny that people have the same view of the samurais, many samurais, especially after the 1500 with the end of the Warring states period and centralization to the shogun, ws not a warrior class but just a nobility that spent their days doing more administrative things tan training for war or doing battle.
@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin
9 жыл бұрын
Imhornydadcomeinside Actually, samurai usually had their wives doing the accounting, so that they could live up to their 'warrior code'. The downside to that is that you have to make sure your wife is super loyal (even though in James Clavell's 'Shogun', the fictional wife in that book gets beaten, but still balances the books). :P
@Imhornydadcomeinside
9 жыл бұрын
Usammity No, they usually had their wives doing work so that they could drink. Again, Japan was not a meritocracy and many samurais was born into the role and didn't take the warrior code seriously, their were of course samurais that did, but that wasn't the norm. Then the samurais tried to romantizise themselves and overaxagerate the role the importance of the bushido code for the samurais in the warring states period when there ere no wars to fight and they had become useless for anything but administrative duties.
@fakename1545
9 жыл бұрын
Imhornydadcomeinside Were there soldiers that weren't nobility that were equivalent to the Samurai? Like men-at-arms?
@fakename1545
9 жыл бұрын
***** Isn't the reason for the term man-at-arms to denote well-equipped, professional soldiers? Not just knights? According to our friend wikipedia, all knights equipped for war were men-at-arms but not all men-at-arms were knights.
@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin
9 жыл бұрын
Imhornydadcomeinside Well, the core idea behind the 'warrior caste' is that they had the most free time, therefore the most time to spend training. Naturally, there would be many that would spend all day drinking and screwing. But also, they did have what were basically religious beliefs, such as detesting merchants (though maybe that was just hidden jealousy that merchants didn't have to be as loyal to a daimyo or wealthier samurai, and could potentially get more wealth than most samurai... the zaibatsu money lenders were especially coercive - sorta like relationship of the jew to the christian noble in europe). They also weren't as free as you might think - it really depended on their wealth. I think they had less freedom in the edo period than in any other time in history due to rising land prices and dependency on rice, and government centralization, while the merchants gained more wealth from trading in things besides rice. The samurai would have been truly at the top of the social ladder when the economy was entirely dependent on rice, and everyone was peasants. In reality, the samurai were only on top because they were basically legally permitted to kill those that offended them. All the while, depending on money lenders, and selling all their property and taking up menial jobs just to survive (and if they decided to kill their boss for offending them, no one else would hire them). Bit of a weird situation. :)
@90hijacked
9 жыл бұрын
TL;DR, Knights are a medevial equivalent of a raid / guild leaders
@SODEMO2007
9 жыл бұрын
In a modern western army it is estimated you need about 8 people working logistics/bureacracy for every one soldier in the field.
@AA-db9cb
9 жыл бұрын
I remember there being something with Henry V where he wanted to go fighting with a faction of the French to take over France. He made preparations twice but his French allies quit on him on the last minute twice. Now when those French allies prepared and went calling to Henry, it was Henry then who cancelled on the last minute. Unfortunately for him, his French allies succeeded in taking the capital.
@punchysonichu2234
9 жыл бұрын
Cheers, Mr Easton! I enjoy most of your videos, but I particularly liked your choice of topic _here_. I myself am a US Army vet, but I went in as a support MOS. I never deployed, never fired a rifle in battle, and spent most of my time behind a desk, filing paperwork and typing crap into a computer. The technical term the military uses here is a "chairborn ranger", and there are a lot of us. Even today (especially today), the larger part of any military force is given over to logistics. The Army, in particular, is known for employing massive numbers of accountants, truck drivers, quartermasters, technicians, plumbers, cooks, mechanics, musicians, parachute packers, carpenters, chemists, laundry specialists, and asthmatic intel geeks who could barely pass their physicals (yo). Practically any profession you can think of which might be useful for running a (very bleak!) city is represented. And that's just the folks with dedicated support jobs - even people like field officers and infantrymen spend the better part of their time doing unglamorous chores, such as bookkeeping and cleaning floors. A lot of people don't realize this, because washing truckloads of dirty uniforms or cooking man-sized pots of rice all day long doesn't come off as very glamorous, and popular entertainment invariably focuses instead on the crazy tough men (and now women!) storming beaches, leaping from airplanes, or shooting posh Frenchmen in the face with their longbows. But for every one D-Day hero, there are a dozen soldiers building roads, packing ammo crates, and writing numbers all day inside massive notebooks. For every minute a brave English knight spent kicking French butt, he would have spent days doing boring busywork to prepare. Anyways, slight change of subject, but what do you think about Dr Lambert's conclusion re: the number of ships Henry V sailed with? The argument which Dr Lambert presents in that article sounds convincing to me, but then, I am not an expert and have no way of judging the merit of his claims.
@justsomeguy3931
5 жыл бұрын
I learned in Total War games (perfectly reliable source!) that the ability of characters to manage cities and influence the population is more important than their ability to command armies
@Alefiend
9 жыл бұрын
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC
@buffewo6386
9 жыл бұрын
As a former officer in the U.S. military we used to say the following based on rank: Privates and Corporals study your weapons. Sergeants study tactics. Junior officers study manuver/opperations procedures. Field grade officers study strategy. Generals study LOGISTICS. An oversimplification, but it shows the most critical skill set for the group.
@JustEditingFUN
9 жыл бұрын
I like this shorter intro much better than the normal one :)
@michaelwoffindin
9 жыл бұрын
Great topic. And this is the best intro so far!
@andrewt4456
7 жыл бұрын
as the agnatic heir of line of one William ap Thomas - this analysis is spot on!
@DogsaladSalad
9 жыл бұрын
you've finally nailed the intro. the old grinding of swords was way too obnoxious, but a little tiny "shing" is perfect.
@MichaelCorryFilms
9 жыл бұрын
Most historians ignore military logistics but it is THE most important component in victory during a war.
@andymoody8363
9 жыл бұрын
Hi Matt. Really interesting points you make and I also share your interest in the 100 Years War. Having read the first three volumes of Jonathan Sumption's epic study of the conflict it is clear that finance and logistics played as much a part in mediaeval warfare as in modern times and that people like Henry V brother, John Duke of Bedford, were as much admired for their administrative skill as their ability and bravery on the battlefield. I do think however that we, particularly on this side of the channel, get a little too obsessed with the great battlefield victories of Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt which can blind us to the success of the more thoughtful tactics of people like Bertrand du Guesclin who understood the 'long game' and the fact that the French were ultimately victorious, as much due to superior politics, logistics and finance as military skill. Helen Castor's recent book on Joan of Arc is a great short volume work on the 100 Years War end game and illustrates this masterfully. Keep up the good work.
@Tellos
9 жыл бұрын
The majority of the work of a major invasion is typically how to bring supplies reinforcements and encampments etc. While less glamours yeah it's vital. D-Day's biggest machines were meant to move tanks and supplies efficiently and effectively onto a beach head once it was secure. The British Mulberry's come to mind as massive undertakings but were positively vital to a successful invasion.
@tazelator
9 жыл бұрын
Very interesting point. Could we have more like this, as well as more on the hundred years war? I´m also really interested in it, mainly because my favorite novel is set at the time. I´m just re-reading it and regarding the historical people (kings and bishops etc.) and most of the every-day stuff that happens is really well researched and accurate. The only thing the author doesnt really know stuff about is weapons, war and armor. The main character wears his armor whenever he is traveling, and their visors are always closed, even when there is no direct danger. I always smile when I think about how hard it must be to have a conversation through a closed visor, or when the armor is easily pierced by an arrow.
@WordBearer86
7 жыл бұрын
I learned a little something from back when I was in the Army about how for every one combat soldier there are at least 3 to 5 non-combat soldiers providing support in some direct capacity to keep that one soldier in a combat effective state.
@wesselstienstra7020
9 жыл бұрын
Cool video. On a side note, I like that you made your intro a little shorter and snappier.
@grazzitdvram
9 жыл бұрын
What you say is true of the english, the french on the other hand would lose their titles for conducting business or generally working according to the this lecture on voltaire I was listening to. Mind you voltaire was about 300 years later and things change but I think it might be worth double checking.
@scholagladiatoria
9 жыл бұрын
grazzitdvram Yes it's true that France was still quite 'feudal'. The English, Germans and Italians however were not by that time. France was the unusual one in that sense and France started to change during this period so that by the end of the Hundred Years War their nobility were becoming more similar to other countries.
@HaNsWiDjAjA
9 жыл бұрын
***** You were talking about a totally different period as he did, and in fact about a totally different thing. He was talking about the HYW period while what you described happened after that (although unlike what you said the English didn't embrace feudalism in that period, they embraced a parliamentary system of government). You were talking about systems of government, while he was talking about the behavior of the nobility. So perhaps you should read more carefully before you comment, bro.
@titanscerw
9 жыл бұрын
It is important to keep in mind that voltaire was actualy a rabid, bloodthirsty and disgusting republican revolutionary and as such not the most reliable source of information - more like liying politician scum like that French Hollande socialist guy they have now as their leader or something :)
@Duke_of_Lorraine
9 жыл бұрын
Also, Voltaire lived after Louis XIV made France an absolute monarchy, stripping the power from local lords. I wouldn't be surprise if Louis XIV creating this interdiction, preventing the nobles from working, in order to avoid having them getting too rich and powerful.
@charkvaror2112
8 жыл бұрын
+titanscerw Fyi Hollande is not "socialist".
@shink7163
9 жыл бұрын
Not sure if I love your videos too much or if I'm just entranced by that facial hair
@mjmal3741
7 жыл бұрын
Who else sees that 76 on his jacket and thinks, "We're all soldiers now..."
@khoatran-pc6tb
9 жыл бұрын
Paperworks never change yea?
@scholagladiatoria
9 жыл бұрын
khoa tran Well, since writing was invented anyway :-P
@TanitAkavirius
9 жыл бұрын
khoa tran Paperwork. Paperwork never changes...
@MrMleczkp
9 жыл бұрын
khoa tran actually it did not by much tho, the efficiency of administration work grow about 20% in last 100 years and some more in relation to the period in question but to compare efficiency of menial labor grew few thousand percent in last 100 years and much much more compare to period in question
@TheOhgodineedaname
9 жыл бұрын
I recall saying something about experts studying logistics while amateurs study tactics under one of your older video's As for logistics, medieval material on the subject is scarce. On the plus side wars relied on the same supply system with wagons until railroads came along so studying Napoleon (and even the US civil war) can be helpful. The price of three-two shillings for those ships seems awfully low though, I can imagine merchants not being happy about it.
@SenorOcho
9 жыл бұрын
"I am tempted to make a slightly exaggerated statement: that logistics is all of war-making, except shooting the guns, releasing the bombs, and firing the torpedoes." - ADM Lynde D. McCormick, USN
@MegaSweeney123
9 жыл бұрын
But look at things like the D day landings and Churchill's part in it, and you note that, although it was an important role, he was mostly monitoring other administrator's progress, giving the final verdict on some tough decisions, just generally overseeing the operation. The vast majority of the planning and logistics still fell upon dedicated administration personnel. So why assume it was any different for a king? Yes, there was a lot more theory-work and strategy involved than the immediate assumption would lead one to believe, but why wouldn't he, for example, say he needed 5, 000 soldiers over the channel, which will require X hundred ships, so he puts a man in charge of organising ships, then another in conscripting troops (IIRC, Henry V was the first to raise a State army rather than rely on the feudal system), and those men would hire others, etc. But, also, why assume the king was the one who decided on that particular strategy? Well, yes, he'd have the final say, but Military Advisors were a big thing haha I don't think it entirely accurate to say these people were primarily administrators, basically :P
@Kavetrol
8 жыл бұрын
I've seen somebody do some calculations comparing late medieval values to the ones we have today and what they came up with was an estate you would have to have to be able to afford to be a knight. I was about 20 million $.
@Matt-pr1xv
9 жыл бұрын
Xiahou Dun (d. 220) comes to mind. Ignoring the often silly portrayal of him in video games, he actually spent the vast majority of his time being an administrator. He served as a field general when necessary, and he was almost universally known as the general of this or that regardless of his civil title, but he actually seems to have been a pretty mediocre general (at one point being captured when an enemy feigned surrender). On the other hand, whenever Cao Cao needed a region integrated into his domains or otherwise entrusted to a governor who had a record of being loyal to a fault, Xiahou Dun was sent over there to make things happen. Not bad for a guy that caught an arrow with his eye, huh?
@HaNsWiDjAjA
9 жыл бұрын
Matt L You know for a guy who everyone was so convinced was the most brilliant military mind of his time, Zhuge Liang surprisingly made very few military decisions that has long term benefits to his employer Liu Bei. He seemed to be too much of an idealist, the Longzhong Plan was doomed to failure and ignored strategic realities from the beginning.
@Matt-pr1xv
9 жыл бұрын
John Huang Zhuge Liang was a consummate philosopher-administrator. Thing is, he *knew* that the northern campaigns were a bad idea. Before they began he described Yizhou (ie, most of Shu) as exhausted; after he executed Ma Su, he described them as "infeasible." The portrait Chen Shou paints for us in Sanguozhi is one of a man who was out of his depth, knew it, and who struggled on regardless because that's what was required of him. Most of the nonsense that's attributed to him appears in Sanguo Yanyi by Luo Guanzhong. Luo was about as much of a historian as Shakespeare was.
@illan731
7 жыл бұрын
Longer videos with a little more detail or combined topics would be even more fun! You've mentioned you don't like long ones because people get bored, I think? In actuality it's like "cool, that sounds like a really interesting one. Oh, only 5 min :\ I gotta look for more, after."
@MattFrisian
9 жыл бұрын
There's an old saying that amateur generals study tactics, while professional generals study logistics.
@ExarPalantas
8 жыл бұрын
"Questions...questions that require answering!"Gandalf is interested in the Battle of Agincourt.
@watchthe1369
8 жыл бұрын
Anyone with a regular habit of hitting the gym today, if you turn those workouts into time spent learning the sword. Now you know what your average knight did. The Nobility, however, would be the equivalent of one of our modern day executives who kept fit.
@squamish4244
7 жыл бұрын
The Hundred Years' War is fascinating for many reasons. For myself, one reason is that it is a classic example of "Won every (or most of) the battles and lost the war." It's also an example of the power of logistics. France was too big, too rich, too populous. Once it was galvanized by religious fervour in the form of Joan of Arc, the English could not withstand the onslaught.
@act.13.41
6 жыл бұрын
The big difference is that today, armies are national and centrally managed. Their equipment is furnished by the nation's taxpayers. Everything is run by high ranking Generals with Army, Navy, etc., constantly supporting and supported. This costs lots of money and is why the military industrial complex wants constant war. Apart from empire builders, armies back then were a gathering of guards from lots of towns that were managed locally with soldiers paying their own way. I would imagine that the logistics of getting them all together with enough resources was a nightmare. They basically just wanted to be left alone to run their farms and villages and live in peace.
@ClausewitzMTH
9 жыл бұрын
Nice video, good that somebody make it clear that the nobility in medieval times were also admins. Many history lessons don't cover that.
@titanscerw
9 жыл бұрын
Republican history lessons usually omit huge parts of information especially about Middle Ages and Early Modern Era on purpouse cause education system in revolutionary republic wants you to arrive to "correct" conclusion or opinion about the era or event or system of that time past
@ClausewitzMTH
9 жыл бұрын
titanscerw I have to ask, do you refer with "republican history lessons" to the republicans in US politics?
@TheOhgodineedaname
9 жыл бұрын
Clausewitz MTH I think he means republican as opposed to monarchist. Anyways any good history class should've taught that landowners were the primary professional soldiers throughout history and that they had to administer their estate is quite obvious.
@ClausewitzMTH
9 жыл бұрын
DushinSC Wouldn't say throughout history, for example the roman army considered mostly of citizens and in late medieval times the majority of professional soldiers were mercenaries like the landsknechts or swiss. But yeah most of the time in the middle ages the landowners (nobility) were the professional soldiers. But it's also important to note that the army were also the goverment.
@TheOhgodineedaname
9 жыл бұрын
Clausewitz MTH Sorry I should have been a bit more clear. I meant cavalry soldiers, the chief makeup of cavalry soldiers have been landowners. In ancient civilizations such as the celts, romans and all those middle eastern lads they were the one riding horses.
@Duke_of_Lorraine
9 жыл бұрын
If kings are administrators, why don't they simply use a BANhammer in battle ?
@Jmat-tc8zs
9 жыл бұрын
***** Sorry mate. Server rules were hardcoded by some fella named God.
@MarcRitzMD
9 жыл бұрын
I can see why an American would think that D-Day was representative of WWII or feats of logistics but an Englishman?
@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis
5 жыл бұрын
more vids like this!
@100dfrost
9 жыл бұрын
Matt, well said. Logistics wins wars. Ask the Lokata & Cheyenne who won the first 2 battles of "The Great Souix War" in a dynamic fashion, but ran out of bullets, could not stop to hunt on a massive scale, & could not prosecute a war in winter, Generally speaking, logistics will win the war, thank-you, Dante.
@100dfrost
9 жыл бұрын
100dfrost Oops, arguably the Lakota / Cheyenne confederation won the first 3 battles of this war as they were in possession of the field after Powder River. sorry, Dante.
@cygil1
9 жыл бұрын
War is logistics, with the occasional a bit of fighting at the terminus of the supply chains.
@kmal2t94
7 жыл бұрын
This video essentially talks about POGery. "Bullets can't fly without supply!"
@nullite4589
9 жыл бұрын
Hey Matt, would you consider doing a video about the ways in which the soldiers of the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses were paid? I've heard the term 'bastard feudalism' thrown around. What do you think about it? Additionally, do you know any decent literature concerning economics from the 14th-18th century (1300-1700)?
@ZionLion44
6 жыл бұрын
Do an episode on fighting jack Churchill!!!!!
@SuperJogvan
9 жыл бұрын
I'd love to see a "shining knight in armour".
@winterishere4620
9 жыл бұрын
What's up Matt? Great video as always, they're pretty unique to themselves on the entirety of youtube, so props for that. There is something I would like you to do a video about however, since I am trying to figure out what REALLY happened. And the subject is - The Crusades. Since you seem to know some history yourself, I was wondering if you could shed some light on if you think it would've ever happened if not for Islam, and more specifically, what your opinions are on this video "/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo". I've only watched it recently, but I was fascinated by it, since EVERYONE that I know (including myself) in Europe, is brought up and taught as though the Crusades were a bad part of our ancestor's history - something we should be ashamed of. A dishonourable campaign with purely the aims of invading and pillaging. But if what this video suggest is true, (which after reading loads of source on-line, seems likely to me), then the Crusades were actually a defensive campaign, launched 400 years after Islam had conquered 2/3 of the Christian world; and without which, Islam may have conquered Europe too (meaning today the entire world would've been muslims, and 99% of our scientific discoveries would've never happened due to the leader of the caliphate outlawing science in 1100). I ask because it's such a tremendously huge part of our history on this Earth. And if the video that I linked is true, it really does change the viewing platform on so many levels and so many different things politically. It's the reason for India not being a leading world power, (which we generally call arabs, even though they're not, they've just had the culture of arabia imposed upon them by Islam), when if you look at it's population, it really should be. Apparently before Islamic invaders (which was incredibly bloody and brutal) they were actually one of the worlds leading countries, but of course new science was pretty much forbidden after 1100. It gives me a new perspective on places like Israel, which all Muslims seem to agree shouldn't exist, and the majority wish death & destruction upon it's people too. When you begin to consider the occupation of so many countries by Arabia, (sure it happened much longer before Israel started, but they are essentially the same problems). Why for example does Jerusalum (the most scared Christian city) need to be occupied by Muslims.. It meens nothing to them, other than a symbol of victory and defeat of Christianity. Their holy city of course is Mecca, And really the reason I ask is because (I've watched a fair amount of debates/politicalshows), and whenever anyone brings up the issue of Islamic Fundamentalism and Violence in Europe, it is always responded with "Well, you invaded us so what do you expect!". And im an atheist but you always hear them say "Look at the crusade, you and your ancestors have been invading and slaughtering our people since the dawn of time!" ectect.. So I want to know the truth... Because it seems like to me Christendom, (and a lot of these European alliances) would've never even happened if it wasn't for the cult Islam taking over 2/3 of the Christian world (which you NEVER hear about in the media or schools). I might be wrong in much of this, so make a video setting me straight - on whether the crusades sprung out of nowhere, or whether they were likely a strategically defensive movement by the European leaders, who recognised that Islam was rapidly taking over the world, and they needed to unite to do something about it. I think everyone would find it INCREDIBLY interesting... Because It's something that is so important, but almost nobody in the UK seems to know anything about, (other than believing we should be ashamed, which is the only way i've heard it brought up EVER and i'm 21 with an A level in History for christ sake lol!). So let us know your opinion. Look forward to seeing it! Cheers.
@glenndemoor3020
9 жыл бұрын
Winter is Here *TL:DR version:* religion and war are tools to achieve political goals, especially on geopolitical and macro-historical scales like that of the crusades; Islam expanded quickly because the secular and spiritual leader was one and the same, the Caliph; crusades themselves tended to have *purely politically motivated* origins from the fourth crusade onward; crusades where started in a time when the catholic church was no longer under threat, making the theory of a defensive nature highly unlikely. The scale of this topic is immense but I’ll say a few words (more than a few most likely). I’ll start with a quote by Carl von Clausewitz, a late 18th - early 19th century Prussian general and military theorist. *_‘The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes.’_* What he means is that war is always a tool to achieve a political goal. When we’re talking about the macrohistorical value of events, much the same can be said about religion, which on such a geopolitical scale is always entwined with politics, and is more often than not accompanied by war. As such, to see any form of crusade or otherwise violent religious conflict as a purely religiously motivated event would be extremely naïve and it is troubling to see that such a black-and-white perception of history persists in various interpretations of historical sources to this day. First we need to establish why Islam expanded so insanely fast - because that it did - especially in comparison to Christendom. After all both have Jewish origins and the three “peoples of the book” - as they are referred to in Islam - *share their three basic principles*: there is only one (male) God; there is an afterlife, accessible after God separates the good from the wicked; submitting to this faith is the only route to personal salvation and access to the afterlife. As they are intrinsically comparable we need to look somewhere else for the reason behind Islam’s expansion. Unlike Christendom Islam sees *no difference between secular and spiritual law* and as such there is no separation between secular and spiritual power either. That means that during the Early and High Medieval period the _Caliph_ - who is the Prophet Muhammed’s heir - was both the head of state and the head of church, presiding over the _umma_ (the Islamic people), who lived in the _Dar al-Islam_ (House of Islam), which in turn was separate from and in conflict with the hostile outside world, the _Dar al-Harb_ (House of War). This meant that the Islam created a strong sense of loyalty and kinship in the Arabic world, on a level above that of family or clan, headed by a Caliph who united secular with spiritual powers.A movement with a singular purpose. No wonder it was so efficient in its expansion, especially where the Caliphate gave rise to all-powerful dynasties - such as the _Umayyad, Abbasid_ and _Seljuk_ - whom could steer the Islam anywhere they wanted. This was a completely different world from Christendom’s patchwork of conflicting interests between the secular and spiritual leaders, as well as within the clergy itself. Now, for the crusades. In 1095 various bishops from France and Spain as well as the pope attended a council that discussed various matters. Among the topics were King Philip of France’s excommunication (he ousted his own wife in favour of an affair with the wife of one his barons), the investiture of bishops by secular leaders rather than spiritual ones, and the unlawfulness and ungodliness with which the nobles and their retinues terrorised the countryside. That is the context in which we should see his address to the nobility, *after the council*. He urged them to fight a common enemy, protecting their brothers of faith in the east. With the latter he meant the Byzantines. In 1091 he and at least one European monarch had received letters from the Byzantine Emperor, Alexos Komnenos, pleading for aid against the Seljuks. This was a great opportunity for the pope because of the schism between the western Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church and it allowed the former to increase its authority over the latter. It is very telling that despite the fact they were called to action by the Byzantines, *the new crusader states would be purely catholic, not orthodox*. Coincidentally, these crusaders were more often than not *unlanded sons*, younger brothers of primary heirs from noble families with little to no chance of inheritance and the foundation of new crusader states gave them the opportunity to obtain holdings of their own. Finally, I like to address the point of the crusades reputedly being defensive in nature. It makes no military, political or religious sense that the crusades only took place from 1096 onwards if that was the case. Jerusalem was taken by the Muslims in the 7th century and the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by The Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim in 1009, which apparently did not rise the pope’s ire to such a degree that he deemed intervention necessary. Contemporary expansion by the Islam was only done in the direction of the Byzantines and had not threatened the Catholic Church in any way whatsoever since Umayyad ambitions were thwarted by the Franks at Tours in 732 and even that has to be downplayed quite drastically (modern historians are careful in lauding it as the ultimate victory of Christendom over the Islam because of heavily propagandized sources). In fact the *Reconquista had already started by the early 8th century* so momentum was largely with the Iberian Christians from that point, not the Umayyad. Lastly, since the Third Crusade the crusades themselves became even less religious in nature. On the Third Crusade the Holy Roman Empire duked it out with the Byzantines because the latter were a bit too unwelcoming (Thessaloniki and Adrianople were razed). On the Fourth Crusade the Venetians grasped the opportunity to deal with their Byzantine trading competitors once and for all, and the outcome is well known. To conclude, there’s a lot more in play than Christendom versus Islam, especially from a historical point of view. Also, the timeframe in which the Crusades took place suggests initiative in Christian hands and not in that of the Muslims. This ended up being way more than a few words, but here you have it.
@winterishere4620
9 жыл бұрын
Glenn de Moor Very interesting Glenn, thanks for your post! But I must say, for someone who is knowledgeable in at least some history, I'm amazed you couldn't address the main question which I posed - "Was it a primarily defensive or primarily offensive war". You only addressed it once saying: "Finally, I like to address the point of the crusades reputedly being defensive in nature. It makes no military, political or religious sense that the crusades only took place from 1096 onwards if that was the case." Which I don't really think is a accurate view either. I'm no history student, but even my basic knowledge of this periods would lead me to disagree. Military&Political sense - They were busy fighting so many different wars inside of Europe pre1000. Religious - Christianity hardly had the numbers pre1000 and the Pagans posed a much, much, higher threat to them than Islam. I think it's rather obvious if you use common sense, to see why the crusades didn't happen in pre 1000AD, for so many reasons. (I'll number them so you can reply easier and maybe educate me a bit on these points.. Because for me, they seem to obvious to be correct! lol) --------------------------------------------------------------- 1: The lands of Jerusalum were thousands of miles away, and it would've undoubtedly took time for the realisation of just how much of a threat and rival that the Islamic Religion was to Christianity. 2. When Jerusalem fell to the Arabs, most Catholic states weren't really concerned, the Pope's authority back then was much to weak to rally these half-pagan people in Europe to travel thousands of kilometers East, leaving behind their homes and families. 3. I don't know my history very well, but I'm certain that most of Europe wasn't even Christian in 700. Russia was waring with the Byzantines till 1000 for example, before it was converted to Christianity.. Similarly Britain was largely divided. Hungary was constantly waring until the 900's, as were the Vikings all over the continent. 4. I personally would imagine the most obvious reason, is that their main focus during the period of 700-1000 would've been the neighbouring pagans who were kicking down their doors, (funnily enough the thing that got me reading into all this history was the 99% fictional TV show "Vikings", because it has 1% of historical retelling, where the Princess of Francia marries a Viking as a truce because Paris had to pay them off when they invaded. They hardly sound in shape to mark thousands of miles to the East and leave their homes unprotected now do they?). 5. However with the conquest of England in 1066, the end of Viking+Hungarian invasions, aswell as the Russians converting to Christianity, it then seems easily understandable (to me atleast), as to why that it was only at this time when they could launch a counter-defensive attack at the cult of Islam. Only after they had secured they homeland. Is that not a fair statement? ------------------------------------------------------------ Look forward to hearing you reply. I'm completely new to this era of history, any dates are just ones off of my head, so feel free to correct me where & when. Though I must say, your first reply was rather off topic - you spent so much time discussing religion that I didnt read much of it. As I already said initially in the premise.. I view Christendom and the Crusades as an act of protecting Europes lands from invasion, rather than it protecting Christianity.. So I don't need you to keep emphasising like you did here: "To conclude, there’s a lot more in play than Christendom versus Islam" ORLY? lol. I think it's a truly interesting topic as the Crusades were a monumental period in history, that really changed the world. Any light you can shine on those 5 points I made, would be appreciated. But I think your opinion that: " the timeframe in which the Crusades took place suggests initiative in Christian hands and not in that of the Muslims" Is ignorant of so many other factors that were at play inside of Europe during 700-1100. Although as I also have stressed numerous times, I'm new to this specific era of history, so if there's something I'm missing and ignorant of regarding those 5 points, please let me know! Cheers. P.S. If you could try to keep it in as simple terms as possible, (not to confuse terms with details, details are good!), I would appreciate that too. Thanks Glenn!
@guidokreeuseler9566
9 жыл бұрын
Winter is Here It's pointed out in various sources, tv-shows, recent books (Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade) and even primary sources (the Komneniad) that the first crusade was kind of an accident, something that went out of hand and ballooned into this massive armed pilgrimage. As the/that story goes: The Byzantines were under a lot of pressure from the Seljuk Beyliks in Anatolia and suffered major defeats (the battle of Manzikert, the loss of Nicea) so Emperor Alexios asked the Pope for help, as in "Sent me some mercenary companies of hard-ass knights I can use to bolster my weakened army and beat back the invaders" However. the Pope saw it as an opportunity to 1. Direct the aggression of all those minor warlords in Europe to somewhere else (i.e. not killing fellow christians), 2. Increase/regain his influence in the Orthodox east and 3. gain more authority over Western Europe itself by creating -in a way- an Army of the Church out of the Crusaders or to at least set a precedent for Popes to raise armies from the whole catholic population in Europe. As it turned out, his address in the council spurred on a much larger movement than either he or the byzantine emperor had anticipated. Imagine the pope as a war-movie Colonel who is requested to have a select detachment of his regiment execute a mission with as only objective "reinforce position X (Byzantiyum)" and then tells his troops "I want volunteers for helping the troops at position X occupy position Y (the Holy Land) and if you all do this you will never be punished for stealing or pillaging or deserting ever again." Needless to say, the whole regiment plus all kinds of guys from other regiments in the army are like "awesome!" and instead of a reinforcing detachment the Colonel (or his XO) leads a major offensive into enemy territory. Junior priests who heard the sermon started spreading the idea's all over Western Europe and pretty soon the Nobility was selling lands and recruiting armies while a veritable horde of common people up and left their homes following Peter the Hermit in a half-genocidal trek across Europe. Note that Religion was central to medieval lives and especially warlords were mentally torn between being powerful warriors who killed everyone who opposed them and extorted the people for their own gain during their mortal life, and what they might face in the afterlife after having led such sinful lives. the promised plenary indulgence (forgiveness of all sin) was a huge motivator because now they could both fight and loot and pillage and get rich and famous, AND go to heaven. whereas if they kept up their usual raids and skirmishes against their neighbours at home, they would go to hell (or at least purgatory) when they died. So many knights and Lords said "yeah let's do this!" and Alexios got waaaay more than he asked for.
@allenthrasher4883
7 жыл бұрын
Glenn de Moor Recent scholarship has concluded that it was the fief holding nobles, who were the eldest (surviving) sons, who went on crusade. The younger sons would go along with Dad or Big Brother, because they wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise, unless they were lucky and someone gave them a fief of their own, or they married an heiress. To go on crusade was enormously expensive, and nobles would often impose a new tax on their subjects, mortgage their lands, or sell off part of them. Again and again you read of kings and high nobility going on crusade, fighting a few battles so that they could think their vow and their honor were satisfied, and skedadling back home when their continued presence would have helped the cause. The crusader kingdoms were not economically self-sufficient and required huge subsidies in the form of these military expeditions financed from Europe as well as the landed wealth conferred on the military orders (Templars and Knights Hospitallers), and free will offerings of the faithful.
@allenthrasher4883
7 жыл бұрын
Glenn de Moor Recent scholarship has concluded that it was the fief holding nobles, who were the eldest (surviving) sons, who went on crusade. The younger sons would go along with Dad or Big Brother, because they wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise, unless they were lucky and someone gave them a fief of their own, or they married an heiress. To go on crusade was enormously expensive, and nobles would often impose a new tax on their subjects, mortgage their lands, or sell off part of them. Again and again you read of kings and high nobility going on crusade, fighting a few battles so that they could think their vow and their honor were satisfied, and skedadling back home when their continued presence would have helped the cause. The crusader kingdoms were not economically self-sufficient and required huge subsidies in the form of these military expeditions financed from Europe as well as the landed wealth conferred on the military orders (Templars and Knights Hospitallers), and free will offerings of the faithful.
@GunFunZS
9 жыл бұрын
The Schlinnggng is back!
@jello788
9 жыл бұрын
Took a hour to get here, now bad.
@LARPBeard
9 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria I always assumed that the difference between a soldier and a hired warrior was just that- the logistical part. just like the Roman legions. one of the biggest reasons behind their success was road building and structural engineering.
@HaNsWiDjAjA
9 жыл бұрын
LARPBeard Plus all the boring military bureaucracy that went on behind the legion; the masses of clerks and the even bigger masses of paperwork that made sure the soldiers have everything they were supposed to need, at least most of the time. The amount of paperwork the Roman army generated made it feel very much like a modern army!
@MrBirdistheword444
8 жыл бұрын
Well said. But I don't think you could get people into history, or even make films about such historic subjects if a lot of it focused on people doing spreadsheets lol. :)
@justsomeguy3931
5 жыл бұрын
I read the article you posted. It was good, tho they had a link to the bogus science study with people walking on treadmills in jousting armor, and claimed it explained Agincourt...
@ThePivoteer101
9 жыл бұрын
Oh... All that administration... D-day, and the Henry V invasions, without computers... :O
@rsALEX
9 жыл бұрын
New into noise is so much better.
@fakename1545
9 жыл бұрын
So men-at-arms would be knights without the title, holdings, and admin? Or what's the distinction?
@12hauch
9 жыл бұрын
Interesting video. Any ideas how the vikings managed to land 30,000-40,000 warriors in England with the all the above mentioned problems in mind?
@HaNsWiDjAjA
9 жыл бұрын
Clemen hauch When did a Viking army that invaded England ever included anywhere near 30,000 warriors? The largest Viking armies to ever step foot on British soil that I knew of would be either that of Canute or Harald Hardrada, and they mustered scarcely more than 10,000 men each. And these were large armies by Viking standard, as Canute and Harald had the resources of a kingdom behind them when they assembled them, inside of a ad-hock gathering of Jarls. The Great Heathen Army that nearly extinguished the Anglo Saxon kingdoms in 865 were estimated to number at most in the low thousands, and as low as 1,000 men. The population level and political disunity of Scandinavia at that time simply did not allow armies of 30-40k men to exist.
@Khanclansith
9 жыл бұрын
To the Infantry the only job in the Army is the Infantry! I love pointing out to them that without Supply, no beans and bullets; Intelligence, they are just wondering in the dark; HR, they aren't getting promoted, Payroll, their families back home aren't getting paid.
@Riceball01
9 жыл бұрын
Khanclansith Yup, the infantry may be the shiny tip of the spear but they ain't getting fed, paid, or supplied without POGs, or in the case of my unit, they ain't getting anything that flies without taking to my unit first. I'm sure that the grunts started to think of "wingers" a lot of less as POGs whenever they needed a ride or, more importantly, some CAS, or a medevac for one of their wounded buddies.
@Khanclansith
9 жыл бұрын
I am not infantry, I am a POG and a Fobbit, I wear these titles proudly. I am the one in headquarters telling the high and mighty officers that they can't do what they want to do, for all sorts of reasons. So I protect the Infantry from the good idea fairies.
@willnonya9438
9 жыл бұрын
A blacksmith shoed a horse, and the horse carried a messanger who had an urgent message for a general, the shoe fell off, the message was lost, and the war was lost. All because the blacksmith didn't do his job right.
@greenghost2008
9 жыл бұрын
If I was a king I'd never do admin. I'd pay people to do that. I'd campaign 24/7. I'd expand our borders double fold.
@rogue5495
9 жыл бұрын
greenghost2008 And I'm superman! :^)
@NoahWeisbrod
9 жыл бұрын
And go bankrupt within the year, leading to your entire army deserting you when they realize they aren't actually going to get paid.
@dahakaguardianofthetimelin4780
9 жыл бұрын
greenghost2008 Wow it's so simple! You're such a genius, here we are praising all those mighty historic icons when they're all just bunch of losers who didn't have the wit and wisdom of the mighty greenghost2008 who decided to just expand his borders double fold while campaigning all the time himself. I wonder how come no one ever thought of that... Tell you what, if you have the infinite amount of money which in this theoretical scenario you do, obviously, because you'd need it to not only keep people doing admin work for you but also you'd need magic armor to survive on the battlefield on your 24/7 campaigns, you'd also need people handling internal affairs and people doing your work while you're off at another part of the world doing hell knows what. Then you'd need an intricate spy network to obtain knowledge of best parts to invade, weaknesses in their defenses also you'd need spies to keep eyes on your confidants to whom you've handed your admin work and internal affairs. Also those people would have to be pretty darn good at what they do, because if they are not and if they handle something like tax size wrong, guess what, viva le revolucion, dear lord, it'd all be YOUR fault and it'd be your head flying off into the horizon. If you have the amount of resources to maintain such style of lording, you may as well just BUY the damned lands from more considerate lords who would rather keep their heads on their shoulders and their people happy and calm...
@RyuFireheart
9 жыл бұрын
greenghost2008 Your people will think you are a mad conqueror that can't be a ruler. And you will be fighting a lot while expanding borders, so you will get more chances to die and more enemies will hate you and make alliances to fight you from all sides. Also, you will be rarely seen in your kingdom and people will start to think you are a stranger and maybe try to assassinate you. So you will never be able to rest even in your castle, be careful everytime you drink some wine, it may have some poison in.
@greenghost2008
9 жыл бұрын
No way. I'd be like Carolus Rex and triple the size of my empire with my elite Swedish warriors. I'd be like Ghengis Kahn.ride the world in a sea of blood from china through Europe. I'd be like Hirohito and you'd need atom bombs to stop me. I'd be like Napoleon and you'd need multiple coalitions to stop me and even then I'd make a come back. No one would betray me because I'd rep like Saint Olga burning whimps with with their own birds carrying fire right after I buried a ton of them alive. I'd be like Charlemage and protect the faith from the heathens in many a battle. Also, I'd out rattle mcs and burn CDs because this all sounded like a rap battle.
@andersbenke3596
3 жыл бұрын
Which explains why IRS-agents are armed. it's tradition.
@johnsamu
7 жыл бұрын
So you win a war/empire primarily by logisitics, getting the right stuff (including soldiers) at the right moment at the right place. (Also the main reason why germany lost WW2 btw ) It is the essence of the chinese treatise of Sun Tzu ; "The Art of War", a fact already well known for about 2500 years. But indeed history only remembers the glorious fighters and kings and not the people that make it happen.
@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin
9 жыл бұрын
Woah, youtube changed again. Better keep it up youtube, or your millions of users will get bored and leave.
@brokenursa9986
9 жыл бұрын
Note to self: Being a footsoldier is much more interesting than being a knight.
@dorsin174
9 жыл бұрын
+Ryan Cauffman Yeah... Right until the moment when you get viciously stabbed in the face.
@The_Gallowglass
9 жыл бұрын
The same is true of Roman equestrians/knights. Most of the time they were collecting taxes and administrating land, running businesses.
@kokofan50
9 жыл бұрын
The same thing happened to samurai if not more so.
@greatcornholiotha2nd
9 жыл бұрын
Probably true for any nation following the feudal system at that time.
@albertrogers8537
8 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of a comment I made about Solomon's harem. 700 wives, 300 concubines: Imagine the book-keeping problems.
@greatcornholiotha2nd
8 жыл бұрын
Albert Rogers How do you keep track of the kids?
@albertrogers8537
8 жыл бұрын
Great question! Isaac Asimov's book on "Canaan" points out that the excess of sons solves itself when the king dies, mostly by the assassinations of all but one of the half brothers. I presume that in those day, the daughters didn't matter much. I've read that if you were a Pharoah, you might very well sleep with some of them.
@greatcornholiotha2nd
8 жыл бұрын
Albert Rogers I'll have to check that out. Thanks!
@taolandin
9 жыл бұрын
Hi Matt. Just out of curiosity are you a martial arts teacher by profession or do you do something else to earn an income and this is just a hobby? Thanks.
@scholagladiatoria
9 жыл бұрын
Rad Bromance I am both; registered self-employed to run events/youtube etc and I also have a regular day job. The former does not pay enough for me to live on, so I have to have a 9 to 5 job as well.
@taolandin
9 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria Wow interesting. Do you mind if I ask you what you day job is? I'm just curious to know what a historical martial artist would do 9 to 5.
@scholagladiatoria
9 жыл бұрын
Rad Bromance I'm a finance analyst for an international organisation.
@taolandin
9 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria Wow how incredibly unexciting. LOL. Though probably not as bad as accounting. I'm a CPA so I would know. Haha.
@kiba3x
7 жыл бұрын
How can a knight or lord go bankrupt when his wealth was the land and the land never expires. It was good years and bad years but they cannot go bankupt. I think Matt just mixed Middle Ages with later, more modern times. :)
@fox21231
9 жыл бұрын
Wew!
@MrWeAllAreOne
3 жыл бұрын
That facial hair cut🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@typorad
8 жыл бұрын
Are the logistical difficulties the reason for defense being so powerful, larger armies simply unable or unwilling to perform the logistics?
@77gravity
8 жыл бұрын
I don't know who said it, but "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics", which ties in nicely with the comment by the American general Bedford Forrest "Get there firstest, with the mostest".
@Drudenfusz
9 жыл бұрын
I don't get it, what is the difference to a modern soldier? I mean the logistics are still part of modern military actions, soldiers today are just as much part of an army and have to secure bridgeheads where resources to advance the campaign get landed. The bureaucracy is today still there. So, that makes them just soldiers, since nothing has changed really in that regard.
@scholagladiatoria
9 жыл бұрын
Drudenfusz The difference is that most of the admin that medieval lords had to do was nothing to do with war. It was to do with managing their incomes and outgoings - either farming or other businesses.
@Drudenfusz
9 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria Okay, I agree on that, but since you talk mostly about war in the video then, that point was maybe not clear enough for me. Maybe next time separate it more so that it become clear that there administative duties have not just been there for logistics of armies. Otherwise keep up your good work!
@ciaran1029
9 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria Would the lords/knights actually do it themselves or would they hire other people to do their admin for them?
@FalkFlak
9 жыл бұрын
mmh, the D-Day took several years of preparation including geological and other scientific surveys (finally the allies shot artillery on their own beaches in south england to estimate crater sizes as obstacles for their vehicles). There is also good reason to believe that the soldiers ate too back then and needed other ressources. So comparing warfare is not so expedient. The Nobles were accountants in the first place, I'll give you that. But we don't need to argue with warfare to make this clear.
@seanrea550
9 жыл бұрын
ciaran1029 nobles may have had stewards and lesser officers. i would think they atleast had a management staff but ultaimate decisions, authority and responsibilities for their lands came down to them.
@theknightofbadassness301
9 жыл бұрын
You mean between England and the bad guys! Right?
@filipeamaral3074
8 жыл бұрын
Funny you think that this is not be a soldier, because soldier is a profession and also a rank, and logistics are not born outside the military organization, most of the management strategies used on civilian world born on military philosophy. Just think what is a difference of a recruit to a Sargent to a lieutenant to a captain to a coronel to a general ... they all fight (of course the generals knows but dont because of age or position on the ground) but basic ... ranks improve the number of ppl you command maybe 20 to a sargent, 200 to a lieutenant, 1000 to captain 10000 to a coronel and the arm for the general, numbers can change from period of time. In order to manage this many skills of soldiers are required, to be more specific, logistic is a soldier skill, strategy is a soldier skill, geography is a soldier skill and diplomacy and politics is a soldier skill. Just make sure what is the rank of the soldier you are and you will see witch skills will be the most important for him.
@freefallfalcon
9 жыл бұрын
Don't forget about the extortion...
@EhAmes94
9 жыл бұрын
I guess one guy disagrees....... I guess?
@scholagladiatoria
9 жыл бұрын
Rollo Red That's my number one stalker :-)
@EhAmes94
9 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria He or she may be your number one stalker but they're definitely your worst critic :P
@TheLordKell
9 жыл бұрын
Um, did you really say "Up until D-day it took massive logistics for a military op."? Do you know that logistics D-day had? Many of our knights/lords/kings (generals/officers/politicians) had to do as much admin, planing, and logistics, as was done for Agincourt. Hell, one of our best generals (Patton) was babysitting a bunch of inflatable tanks as a decoy. And even when I was in the Air Force (early 2000's) it took far more people, both officer and enlisted, to put a single pilot in the sky, than to field a knight. Now, I'm not disagreeing with your statement that knights, lords, and kings were not just soldiers, but the fact that you seem to think that anything has changed.
Пікірлер: 184