The Biggest Misconceptions About Historical Warfare

Unlock the truth about historical warfare! Explore the misconceptions surrounding castle sieges, line infantry tactics, organized battles, plate armor mobility, and the surprising facts about ancient weaponry.

[JamesFromTexas]

The modern military body armor and full battle kit was 85 pounds when I was in Iraq. That's not even including a pack you would need for extended missions and those weighed 40 or more pounds. Knight's armor seems light in comparison.

[panpiper]

One of my pet peeves about how Hollywood portrays historical combat is the notion that you 'swing' your shield around like a maniac to intercept the enemy's attack. With the exception of very small bucklers, this is NOT how you use a shield. If you do, your arm will lose its ability to actually move within minutes. A shield was held close to one's body such that its center of weight was essentially in line with your stance, with virtually no weight actually being carried by the muscles of the arm. To defend yourself you basically 'ducked', you moved 'around' the shield to interpose it between you and the enemy's attack. You could shoulder shrug or crouch and such to move it a bit, but for the most part, shields were held largely in place. This was 'especially' the case when in formation with other shieldmen. Your compatriots gain little benefit from a shield wall if you are wildly swinging your shield around.

[Zinneps]

A good rule of thumb is that if you ever find yourself thinking how dumb these pre-modern soldiere were for not using or doing something that seems obvious, the chances are youre misunderstanding it.

These peoples lives relied on being effective at what they do. I gurantee you didnt come up with some brilliant new tactic while playing dark souls

[davidnoel]

Medieval armor was so mobile that there are videos out there of people in full plate doing forward rolls and cartwheels. As for swords, they were the ancient (and medieval) equivalent of a modern soldier's pistol, the secondary weapon you pulled out when your primary weapon (usually a spear or polearm) was broken or lost in battle.

[ItsHyomoto]

It really can be summed up as "people have been killing for a long time, and doing it better has always been the goal." The Hollywood myths are hard to separate because they are the lens through which we often view "the past" but much as the Egyptians could build the pyramids, ancient commanders could lead armies, and weapons and armor were not chosen randomly. The idea of "primitive man" is perhaps the most pervasive myth among humans.

[robertguttman]

Concerning the weight of medieval armor: When I attended fire-fighting school we were told by the instructor that the total weight of the fire-fighting "Turn-Out Gear" which we were required to wear (NOMEX fire-proof suit, helmet, boots, gloves, SCBA breathing apparatus, air tank and mask, etc) came to about 70 pounds, or approximately the same weight as a medieval suit of armor. Wearing full "Turn-Out Gear" we were required not only to fight fires in a multi-story structure, but to negotiate an indoor obstacle course in pitch darkness within a limited amount of time. Many of the men with whom I did the course were in the 40s or 50s, and some were in their 60s.

[Clippidyclappidy]

Simon is like the educational Rick Astley. It feels like every time I see a history channel I’ve never seen before I click on it and it’s him. 😂

[robertmooberry]

I think that people might be thinking that knights couldn't move well in armor because they are looking at suits of jousting armor. Jousting armor of the 15th-16th century were heavier (up to 110lbs) to protect the jouster and weren't designed for combat on foot. Also, they've watched Excalibur too often.

[obiwanfx]

1. Logistics in all its aspects were (and still are) way more deciding than battles

[ewokk]

Swords were, by all intent and purpose, sidearms for most of the pre-blackpowder era.
Infantrymen used spears and pikes, cavalry spears and lances.
Swords were backup weapon reserved for when pike or lance got broken or was lost.
Notable exception were Roman legions of the classical era, who used short thrown spears called pilum to disrupt enemy formation before closing in with their famous gladius shortswords.

[frednone]

People need to realize that the sword performed essentially the same purpose as a pistol on ancient battlefields, it was a side arm.

[erikr]

Late medieval jousting armor could potentially have been very heavy, sometimes with thick cast iron plates. I can imagine these could have been heavy enough for the rider to require help to mount the horse or get up if they were unhorsed.

These jousting armors were a bit like an ice-hockey goalkeeper's outfit - good function and protection for a specific limited context, but certainly not something you'd wear on a battlefield...

[applejuice]

One big thing is we assume they were all stupid. Their tactics were state of the art for their time, humans are the same, we are the same, just that technology has culture shaped us

[MutheiM_Marz]

Ashikaga Yoshimitsu himself experienced the Yari (Japanese spear) effectiveness in combat and if I remember correctly he once said "give 1 gold bar to a Samurai he could make 1 nice Katana, Give me 1 gold bar I could make 300 Yari and left over to hire a man to use it" In medieval Japan spear is everywhere, if you serve your load as a farmer at lease you would have a spear head at home.

[ignitionfrn]

0:50 - Chapter 1 - Castle warfare
3:10 - Chapter 2 - Line infantry
7:00 - Chapter 3 - Order & chaos
9:00 - Chapter 4 - Heavy armor
10:35 - Chapter 5 - Ancient weaponry

[spragger]

Chapter three is my biggest pet peeve in depictions of ancient and medievel combat by Hollywood. It is well documented the great lengths units of infantry would keep tight ranks and order and discipline. There are exhaustive manuals on how the units could keep their lines absolutely shoulder to shoulder and be relieved by fresh units if order and morale started to break down. A unit that broke formation was generally defeated in short order.

[seanmurphy]

My kit minus rucksack in Afghanistan was 65 pounds. That's M4 and M9, 210 rounds of 5.56, 32 rounds 9mm, one hand grenade, two smoke, MBITR radio, interceptor body armor, helmet, camelback, NODs, M25 binos, boots, uniform and other stuff I am forgetting. Historically the soldiers load (for combat) has remained 45-65 pounds.

[FinxOmally]

From what I learnt a while ago about the line infantry (musketeers) is it played a massive psychological part.
A big part of the strategies used was front line knelt whilst aimed, second line behind them aimed standing, so a highly concentrated firing squad, and all fired on command together. So a volley of musket balls all all the same time. This also meant that the smoke would not impact accuracy on the opening shots, and that the smoke would clear all that the same time for the line for the next volley. Rather then a almost permanent cloud from the random firing.
So any one advancing on their location being aimed at, all got hit at the same time, the charging enemy watch their enemies disappear in smoke, and the first few lines of their team instantly drop dead. Imagine being 2-3 back from the front, feeling a little bit secure at least. Then a bang and front few lines of your squad mates in front of you drop dead in a instantly you realise you are at the front and next to suffer the same fate, from an enemy you cannot clearly see what they're doing. Crushing moral in a single bang.
Do you help your brother in arms? Do you step over them and continue to charge at an enemy you can't clearly see what they're doing next? Or do you run away? Moral is shattered, and in this time, the musketeers are reloading.
Where as if it was a 'fire at will' situation, people dropping one by one would not break moral nearly as easily in comparison.

[gordonl]

I always figured there was a good reason for lining up and firing muskets, but it's good to actually hear it broken down this well

[hiltonian_]

The musketeer as replaceable had another benefit. Archers had to train constantly, and owned their bows and some arrows. Therefore they were a force that could be bribed or otherwise convinced to turn against their lord. Dangerous to have around, tough to replace. Musketeers could be brought up to scratch quickly and once trained they didn’t have to keep practicing. The muskets themselves could be kept in an armory so the erstwhile musketeers were no more dangerous than any other peasant.

In the era of professional armies, the technology dictated tactics. A smoothbore musket was not accurate at any distance, so a mass of them was needed to create the hail of bullets necessary to do damage. A lot of lead went into the ground or overhead.

In the flintlock and bayonet era (18th to early 19th c) the British especially relied on the bayonet. Musket volleys were to soften up the opposing line before closing with bayonet. Before the Napoleonic wars, firing ten shots in a battle was considered “hot work.” It was about maneuver for advantage and a flanking bayonet charge.

With the advent of the rifled musket and minie ball in the mid 19th c this became semi-suicidal.