@@catholicracialist776 he might have been being sarcastic with his comment, basically pointing out that Hollywood films and period pieces deliberately vilify us.
Worst pike line I've ever seen. Whats the point of having a pike line if your not going to stand there and cooperatively skewer the enemy as he attacks you.
J Dee these guys aren’t soldiers either. I believe ol John Smith was the only Soldier on the expedition. The Iroquois were also a very successful Native Empire so it makes sense they would put up a good fight against the starving and poorly trained colonists.
A lot of these people were simple farmers and tradesmen. They were not even trained as a militia until they realized the natives were attacking. It was dumb even having them outside the walls, though.
small scale vs. large scale. a few dozen men fighting is different than a few thousand. a garden in your backyard is worked differently than a 1,000 acre farm.
@@svt80221the thing is Hollywood just sucks at warfare, they always have, the colonists knew they would lose in the open so they forced the natives to fight them in sieges where numbers mattered less and their guns and armor were of more use, but that would have made too much sense so they just made the Europeans as bad at war as they could, though the colonists didn’t have the best war skill early on due to lack of arms and knowledge of their use since they weren’t allowed to own them back in Europe, so they took a bit before they got off the ground and stated winning
Why go to all the effort of building a fort if you then do nothing about the five foot high grass that completely surrounds the fort and provides the perfect cover for an advancing enemy? And then why would you go and stand outside your walls in the middle of that perfectly high grass so you totally negate your ranged weapons? Piss poor film
Brum Kid Sure, they conquered tens of millions of people, destroyed entire Empires, held colonies for centuries and discovered entire continents but yeah, you think Spaniards are dumb rather than the director chose to take liberties with reality because it made for a better visual story.
I see three morons who dont get a joke and yes i know my history question is do you because if you are millenniums then your little world only started about 30 years ago.
Imagine if Roman Legionnaires met their 15th century descendants Spanish Conquistadors armed with muskets and cannon. They would get smashed. Now think that Natives at the time of the first contact had less technology than the romans did. Of course they lost. But think how well they did and adapt. After a few years they learned firearms and many tribes like the Iroquois, Comanche, and Sioux defeated Euro-American armies in many battles. Not bad for a people that had only tech lower than romans only 150-200 years earlier. Another way to look at it is it took Europeans 200 years to conquer a continent that had low tech and was depopulated.
Vindexproeliator this isn’t true. Central Mexico was conquered quickly (with the help of thousands of Tlaxcallan allies to fight the Aztecs)but the Yucatán took 150 years to be pacified. Also the Comanches and the apaches kept the southwest from becoming very settled due to constant raiding. Basically in places you had an Indian kingdom with a strong central government, the Spanish conquered it easily once they defeated the king. However in decentralized areas with difficult terrain, the Spanish had a very hard time.
They were better off staying within the safety of the forts walls. A pike and shot formation was the model for most European militaries. Unfortunately none of the Jamestown colonists were professional soldiers, which in this case made the pike and shot formation useless.
I dont understand why do they have to go outside the gate and fight they could always use the gate as a choke point with muskets and cannons at the back that wouldve save lives..
An American film showing how dumb the Spaniards are and that the Americans are better even before they became Americans, there is no better arrogance then American arrogance which will be their down fall in the end.
That scene at 0:22 is actually strikingly similar to the fight that New England colonists had with the Wampanoag as they pulled out of the beach in Pocasset Country during the summer of 1675. Captain Benjamin Church relays this incident in his diary of King Philip's War. You can also read about it in the epic historical account, "Flintlock and Tomahawk" by Douglas Edward Leach. The 17th century wars in the English-American colonies were so brutal but so fascinating.
Ye it always cracks me up one of the reasons they fought was because the natives (in NH specifically) didn’t understand the concept of private ownership so they would take pigs from farms and that caused the settlers to take up arms. 😂
But these are spanish soldiers of Tercios, see the helmets, the formation and the flag of cross of Borgoña based in the cross of San Andres. It was the flag of the spanish troops
@@TheRealForgetfulElephantwell when someone takes a month’s worth of food that was worth like five thousand dollars(in modern money) I would reckon that you would understand why they were upset, especially if you can’t just go get more from a grocery store
В 1948-1951 годах Израиль принял более 800-900 тыс. евреев-выходцев из арабо-исламских стран, многие из которых (особенно евреи - бывшие жители Ирака и стран Магриба) вынуждены были оставить свои страны, бросив имущество, перед лицом нарастающей в этих странах волны антисемитизма. Как заметила британский еврейский журналист и один из организаторов Ассоциации евреев-выходцев из стран Ближнего Востока и Северной Африки в Великобритании "Хариф", Лин Джулиус, сегодня в арабских странах проживают не более 4000 евреев. Это все, что осталось из многих сотен тысяч, которые в середине прошлого века еще проживали на территории современных арабских и иных мусульманских стран, где они оказались после падения Иудейского царства 2500 лет назад, то есть, примерно 1300 лет до прихода туда самих арабов. И еврейский исход с этих земель 40-е - 50-х гг. прошлого века, который стал крупнейшим потоком немусульман в регионе Ближнего Востока до массового изгнания иракских христиан во время "арабской весны", заметно превосходил число лиц, которые хоть как-то могли претендовать на статус мигрантов из бывшей британской Палестины. Таким образом, в известном смысле между Израилем и арабскими странами произошел своего рода "обмен населением", что было широко распространенным в первой половине ХХ века способом разрешения этнополитических и этно-религиозных противоречий. (Другие примеры такого же рода - обмен населением между Грецией и Турцией после Первой мировой войны, и Индией и Пакистаном в 40-50-е гг. ХХ века). Причем, в отличие от палестинских арабов в большинстве арабских стран, в Израиле евреям-выходцам из арабских стран было предоставлено полное гражданство - равно как и арабам, оказавшимся на его территории после окончании Войны за независимость (и уже на выборах в 1-ый Кнессет в 1949 г. участвовали арабские партии). Потому, хотя Израиль, как современное либеральное и цивилизованное государство, совместно со всеми арабскими странами готов взять на себя определенную гуманитарную роль в устройстве потомков "палестинских беженцев" там, где они проживают, или же в переселении их в те страны, которые пожелают их принять, с его точки зрения проблема беженцев закрыта. Заметим, однако, что в отличие от двух первых аргументов - что Израиль не является ответственным за проблему, которая возникла из-за агрессии арабов, стремившихся уничтожить еврейское государство, и не несет ответственности за то, что эта проблема законсервирована - этот третий аргумент долгие годы в Израиле звучал минорно. Важнее, было то, что на подобную схему были ни при каких условиях не согласны сами палестинские арабские лидеры, для которых принятие концепции "обмена населением" означает закрытие темы "палестинских беженцев", подрывающее ключевое звено "палестинской идентичности", а с ним их претензии на власть и ресурсы. С другой стороны, теоретически можно себе представить, что тема признания арабскими странами ответственности за исход евреев и присвоение их собственности, которая сильно усложняет их находящимся в капкане своей многолетней пропалестинской риторики лидерам задачу "продавить", на уровне местного общественного мнения, идею сближения с Израилем, парадоксально может стать и решением данной проблемы. Если дело будет представлено таким образом, что Израиль готов "поучаствовать в расходах", то есть, снять требование о передачи стоимости оставленного евреями имущества в обмен на экономическое устройство палестинских арабов и снятие "палестинской проблемы" с региональной и мировой повестки дня. Разумеется, здесь имеется и моральная проблема, причем уже на еврейском поле. Собственность огромной массы погибших в Катастрофе европейских евреев невозможно вернуть наследникам за неимением таковых, и эти финансовые или материальные ресурсы, в случае реституции передаются на нужды местных еврейских общин или Израиля, для распределения среди переживших Холокост и пострадавших от нацизма. В отличие от них, на конфискованную в арабо-мусульманских странах еврейскую собственность имеются или могут быть вполне конкретные претенденты - чьи права на нее могут быть документально намного более обоснованы, чем большинство аналогичных заявок арабов, на, якобы, принадлежавшие им дома в Хайфе или Цфате. Евреи арабских стран "не ждут компенсации за утерянное там имущество, но рассчитывают на извинения и признание вины за причиненные им страдания". А уже в рамках этих пониманий, Израиль и еврейский мир, судя по всему, сможет найти способ учесть и материальные претензии конкретных еврейских семей. Не исключено, что моральные и материальные права евреев арабских стран могут стать таким объединяющим еврейский мир фактором на нынешнем этапе..
the light from the fires they create will cause the enemy to be blind at night while they try to put it out. so yeah, it is more important to use flaming arrows afterdark. lol. its not like they can' jump up and stop them...
@@Korradoar flaming arrows are literally not physically possible think about what happens when you light an arrow on fire and shoot it the wind immediately extinguishes the flame
@@matthewaleman4401 aaand thats why you would have stayed home. don't need no 'i can't make my flaming arrows burn right' naysayer in my siege. thumbs down.
@@Korradoar your silly you talk about being all tactical with something that has never been used and defies reality and I wouldn’t have stayed home bro I’d meet you on the battlefield sword in hand
They had shotguns during this time (blunderbuss)...the concept of stuffing a lot of musket balls, ie. shrapnel, or making a giant shotgun was well know and understood then. Kind of like inventing the fork from the idea of a pitch fork. "Canister" shot was used.
Wow, that is some excellent strategy by a group that had better weaponary and a fort better than the natives. Should had box behind the fort and attack between the wall.
@andrew T That's not very true. The Spaniards were armed with steel armor and had melee and firearms training. The natives just outnumbered them and the Spaniards were pretty chill with the natives for a while until Christopher Columbus was ordered by his king to expand land for resources and for more settlers to come in. If you put one native against on Spanish Conquistador, there's no doubt the Conquistador would be victorious. Then again, if the Spaniard has no rifle and only an arming sword or polearm, it might be a bit more difficult. Besides most tribes were completely unique to each other. You can't just compare the entirety of the Spaniards to the entirety of the Natives. That's ignorant and stupid.
@andrew T It was a pretty common theme among Western European armies at the time - the whole "shot and pike" formation wasn't unique to Spain. Rather they perfected it with the tercio.
@andrew T I completely agree. When not comparing numbers, the Spaniard is superior in combat. What I also want to note about there colonization is there immense trading and how they exchanged their knowledge with different tribes that were more peaceful than others.
Not only that, their Pike formation was more than attrocious... only 2 lines and thinly dispersed like that? Any determined attacker could have broken that... Anyone with a blade and a musket dispersed along the sides of the pike block (at least 3 ranks deep, preferably 5), anyone who had a musket but no proper sidearm/close combat weapon would have been better off on the ramparts on the fort, allowing them to shoot over the heads of their companions in the pikeblock. Of course ultimately it comes down to what numbers and people they had available, but all in all... not too suprising that this whole thing devolved into a wild skirmish of one on one fights. Then again, seeing how this is a Movie... I rarely have seen proper Formations being decently portrayed in movies.
Always like how movies go for these nice formations at the start of the battle that don't really work and then as soon as fighting starts the entire formation runs into a field and starts spinning like a ninjago toy. Like if you're gonna have a pikewall, at least make it dense enough and stay in the friggin pikewall, don't run at the enemy.
You realize fire arrows existed in EVERY culture and was used by all those cultures lmfao just because Lindy Beige says something u follow him like a little sheep without doing some research of your own
@@colin8696908 lmao how is truth trolling lmao you aren't very bright are ya? You just spew out garbage you've heard before not even checking your sources
Imagine the natives encountering an ancient greek phalanx. I know they would probably just flank it instantly since they are highly mobile, but it's cool to think about a more melee focused unit from European history encountering the natives, and what the natives would have thought of it.
Well the phalanx wouldn't fall apart as easly as this, mostly because the would have light infantry/skirmishers of their own to prevent the flanking. Even if they don't have them, they probably would have use some other strategy or formation.
In a man to man combat greeks are quite deadly The natives are only able to win against the Spaniards due to unconventional tactics which easily breaks the tercio formation. Also pikemen are vulnerable to arrows (total war reference) Phalanx formation includes shield and I think the greeks are smart enough to quickly intercept flanking units
Ik the movie does not represent it to well but imagine going against a superior force of men you’ve never seen before and look completely different than you and have extremely better weapons and strategies built up from centuries of wars
European strategies were pretty terrible compared to native hit and run tactics. The technology was better, but not by much, a skilled bowman was just as or more deadly than your average musketeer. Europeans won because of disease and overwhelming numbers, a musketeer only takes a small amount of time to train while a bowman takes a whole lifetime. Europeans also enjoyed having a massive manpower pool while the native Americans in North America went from 60 million to 6 million in around a century due to old world diseases.
@@JohnDoe-sw1rs that is complete nonsense european battle strategies were completely superior in every way. Same with weapons a musket is a far superior weapon. The only times they did lose they were completely outnumbered. This hollywood movie shows a pike phanlax breaking shape the second they have contact that would never happen. It also shows steel armor completely useless which in reality would have stopped many of the attacks dead.
This is actually from the movie "The New World". Its a fictitious romance with Pocahontas, John Smith and John Rolfe. It was a good movie but damn it takes a while to get through. Its like a poem in the story telling
Yerp white people's biggest weapon (which they weren't aware of) was diseases they brought from the old world. Whilst Eurasian continent was immune to them, Native Americans hadn't come into contact with these diseases until Europeans arrival.
@@Komnenos83What ? He is proud his people at least showed reisstance to the intruders who massacared them and launched dogs to rip their throats and aöl that just to dig gold. Spain and other conisers are rhe devils of american people
That's just how things go. The french settlement next doors don't like your silly colony so they and their allied tribes pick a fight. Or it's the other way around, their tribal allies have a fight with your tribal allies and it's only fair you help your ally tribe out.
Wouldn't have mattered if they hit anything at all they wouldn't have lasted in hand to hand combat which is what the natives specialized in. Those were farmers and maybe some ex soldiers
daylon boender if all of them hit their targets then yes it would matter. Had they had proper formation, yes it would matter. Ex soldiers are still trained at this point with melee weapons. Weapons a lot longer and better then the shorter clubs and spears of the natives, which wouldn't be as affective against the heavy cotton/wool clothing of the Europeans. Guns are amazing, formation is amazing and training is amazing. The ex soldiers should have had something to throw into the fight.
In Europe you had the english fighting the french, the portuguese fighting the spanish, the spanish fighting the dutch...can you imagine the breath of fresh air when they got to the America's..."WTF, are these guys for real???"
@@jorgeguanche5327 I don't know if you are spanish or not, I know spanish people like to call themselves a lot of names, castileans, leonese...whatever, as a portuguese they're all spanish to me, and therefore you can find bellow a shortlist of portuguese vs spanish conflicts during the three centuries that comprised the beginning of the Iberian expansion: 1° Fernandine War 1369-70 2° Fernandine War 1372-73 3° Fernandine War 1382-83 Battle of Atoleiros 1384 Battle of Trancoso 1385 Battle of Aljubarrota 1385 Battle of Valverde 1385 Battle of Toro 1476 Battle of Guinea 1478 Battle of Alcântara 1580 Battle of Salga 1581 Battle of Baia das Mós 1581 Battle of Montijo 1644 Battle of Linhas de Elvas 1659 Battle of Montes Claros 1665 So...MEEEEEK...yes they fought against eachother...a lot!
@@jorgeguanche5327 Dude honestly...I know you can write, so just type Portugal and check out Wikipedia. Portugal is a recognized kingdom and country since 1143!!!!
The film is totally "woke." This version of Pocahantas won't help anyone get elected. The Fetterman Massacre (and the later Custer Massacre) is in fact what caused hatred that led to the massacre at Wounded Knee... Hard for uneducated immigrants (mostly Irish and Italian) to feel a shared humanity with people who mutilate the dead bodies of your comrades... However, there was some confusion between trapdoor Springfields and muzzle-loading weapons among the soldiers. The bits of marching with flags and then the entire line of troops firing at a single rider was unrealistic even for Fetterman. Whose troops were just there to try to protect lumberjacks... You can read about these events. And even Wikipedia is more accurate than that film.
There will come a day when truth is told. Make the natives in your country truly equal and then let them wallow equally in their sin as you did in yours. Europe wasn't worse, it was just better at killing. With some exceptions. Just like in South Africa, the peaceful tribes had already fallen to the warriors of Zululand, in West Africa the first slaves were blacks sold by black merchants, the more peaceful mercantile civilizations of Mesoamerica were used as slaves and offerings to the gods by the brutal and savage Aztecs. This is why we had allies where ever we went in colonization. Many didn't see us as worse than those already there.
@@ActionableFreedom yeah ur ar worse of the worse.. U ar virus to the peace earth.. Hell is your belong... U r call ur self an American.. U Just invader with so many excuse..
@@vicePVic It's extremely sad that white people are so hated nowadays too I hate that so much hatred exists, Colored people for whites and Whites for colored people ☹️
The second film is a version of the Fetterman Fight. In real life Fetterman and eighty men were mostly armed with muzzle loaders ( although at least 2 civilians were equipped with lever action Henry repeating rifles.) Crazy Horse and a small group of Lakota lured the detachment several miles from Fort Phil Kearny. Once they were over the ridge line they were ambushed by at least a thousand Lakota warriors. Some Lakota have said that they were more warriors at this battle than at Little Big Horn. If accurate that would mean 2 to 3 thousand men!
This movie, "The New World", made by Terence Malick, has nothing to do with spannish conquistadors, it is revisiting Pocahonta's story that, you, Americans, know very well.
@@waynebrown9564 No that's what the English wore also, and all western Europeans wore that style armour and helmet. Basically the costume set is accurate. Aren't you American? You should be familiar with your own history
The English come to establish a trading post, the Indians say sure, Captain Newport goes on the river and gets attacked, the fort gets attacked, and so begins the expansion of the British empire of North America.
The early colonies are small. They prefer to ally with local tribes instead of getting into big fights with them. Your british settlement might have an allied tribe, while the dutch neighbours further north have their own friends. Sometimes you get pulled into fights because your ally tribe has a feud with some other tribe or the french, sometimes it's you who call on them to come help you out with the french.
@@gc8328 actually your wrong lol many native tribes were very strong and Earupoeans got tierd of fighting them becouse well you guessed it they came in numbers and are extremely skilled native Americas know the wild better then any Eearpeon dose, it's a comeback also many earupoeans just made peace with natives with trendies and stuff the ones that you are talking about that lost were the ones that didn't had numbers and we're out in the open and ofc many died from disease which was just not even fair so who actually really won no one did.
Is it for this reason that currently in Spanish America the mestizo and Indian population is the majority and on the contrary in Anglo-Saxon America there are no living Indians??? (irony)
The population density of the native populati0ons in Latin America was many times denser to begin with@@catolicosubditodelrey4287 . On the other hand, the result also shows the much inferior assimilation power of your civilization
Sí, sobre todo d cortar cabellera de nativos , tanto hombres, mujeres y niños, costumbre q como todo el mundo sabe la inventaron los españoles ( españoles llegados d Inglaterra, claro!).
This actually was a serious problem in early colonial America. A lot of regions were still densely wooded, and poorly mapped, giving Natives an intense home field advantage no matter the era. A harquebus often required an aiming fork to rest upon, since it was so heavy, meaning that the weapon required preparation before firing added upon the long reload time. Pikes and halberds would be far less useful out of formation, especially with the lower manpower available in an early colonial setting. Don't forget, these weren't professional soldiers most of the time, the professional mercenaries mostly stayed in Europe for the major conflicts, whereas these guys were mostly an inexperienced militia, dependent upon their commanders for leadership and discipline. Versus the natives, who usually preferred guerilla tactics, raids, shock tactics, and honorific dueling, all of which are highlights of tribal and endemic warfare, would mean that colonizers were only be in their element at a fort.
@@conlinbryant5037 yes, but this is a situation in which those European weapons would thrive. All they had to do was not march OUTSIDE the walls and get slaughtered like complete morons.
Watching modern Hollywood, it seems incredible that not only did the Europeans capture the Americas, but that the Indians did not go onto conquer all of Europe.
Ummm, I appreciate the attempt to PC the Noble Savage’s success in battle with the Europeans... but it begs that question how Cortez and - especially - Pizarro took out THOUSANDS of Aztec and Incas with essential the same armor and tempered steel blades... Yes, Cortez and allies... but those allies were never powerful enough to threaten the Aztecs and Pizarro had horses... but he couldn’t fight entirely on horse back... I suggest this was more for the narrative of the movie than any attempt to tell how utterly devastating blade and armor was against stone axes wielded by naked men... and if any one disagrees, you are welcome to come at me NAKED with an ax and I’ll keep the breastplate, helmet and sword (not up mention they would probably have liked!) and we’ll see who wins 999 outta 1,000 (which is pretty much what Pizarro was dealing with in odds else there would have been NO New World
“Small pox” killed a thousand Incas on Day One of the battle to save Montezuma? Naw, it must have been “The Road from Kuwait back to Baghdad” in which technology left the losing side decimated.. and the rest died of open flesh wounds in a tropical climate.
@John Ratican Even at close range a musket ball was often not capable of that, it would usually be lodged in the bone of the initial victim, as recorded by countless injuries of the time where lead balls remain lodged in patients.
@@SStupendous Okay, thanks for ruining the joke, it flew right over your head. The joke is that I am mixed, that means I have native and spanish blood. Just to clarify, my great great grandparents do not appear in the video. I feel that I need to clarify you that. Think before you comment.
@@andrewmg5915 Just to clarify, I never thought your grandparents were in the video, or implied that. I said you said your grandfather killed himself, which is what it implies. Think before you comment.
Or having common sense. It doesn't take a 4 star general rank to realise that it's much safer to fight within the walls instead of not using any of the defenses they took the time and effort to build.
If I was a army of Native Americans I would rather fight 1870s settlers than these settlers. Sure, 1870s settlers had 3 and a half times the rate of fire, but these settlers having plate armor have 11 times the chances that I would fail to harm them.
The Powhatan massacre of 1622, where Indians on pretense of wanting to trade launched a sneak attack killing 400 men, women and children in various settlements. This was a substantial percentage of the white population. The Indians misjudged the English reaction, they thought they would leave instead the English banded together with re enforcements and started a war of extermination against those that had attacked them The Indians lost.
Those natives were tough... They fought against fire guns and cannons, things that they never saw before, with courage and determination. Unfortunately it was not enough.
What defeated them was an unstoppable combination of inter-tribal jealousies that prevented the tribes from cooperating effectively; smallpox; superior white armaments, and beverage alcohol. Also, the Indians' essentially pessimistic religion told them that they must fight, and if necessary die bravely, whereas the whites looked on Christianity as the thing that would help them win.
It impacted morale. The Indians' religion was dark and pessimistic, their gods distant and terrifying creatures to be placated, not really worshipped. Their stoic warrior ethic told them they were doomed before the fight began -- so you do your best, but the most you can really expect is an honorable death. The Spaniards, by contrast, felt an intimate connection with God, who was considered good; that He was fighting actively on their side, allowing them to win by His special favor, and that those that those Christians who fell would be the exception. Anyway, they'd end up in a better place -- rather a more encouraging picture of the afterlife than the Indians had.
A Terrence Malick movie like The New World is two hours of watching grass grow while listening to the characters' thoughts and 15 minutes of "They're coming over the walls...HOLD!"
Its the perfect example of how warfare has changed so much in 1 region that its completely ineffective in another. Weird to think about but their ancestors who fought with sword and shield were probably better equipped to fight this then they are
did you watch the same clip I did, cus they managed to use none of those weapons the way they should be used. Why go outside the walls, why have 5 foot grass outside your walls, why not use a pike as a group weapon instead of going one on one like idiots, why spit up your forces like that, why not keep your guns up on the walls, for gods sakes they had fire arrows...
By the time the natives were wiped out it wasnt even the european colonists anymore. It was first and 2nd gen Americans at that point, it had been almost 100 years by the time you could say Americans even won, Trail of Tears was 1830s and little bighorn was 1870s. Even then, the Sioux and the Seminoles were never conquered in battle.
The initial settlements had a skewed ratio of persons. Many found labouring work beneath them,it's amazing Jamestown survived at all,other attempts did fail. Smith was a man with flaws but kept Jamestown going. I've just got two recently published military histories(I'm Scottish)the first is published by Helion and Co,by David Child's and called New world's ,old wars covering the campaigns from 1607-1678 and the other is Osprey books Campaign Series on Jamestown,studying the start of the colony from a purely military perspective. I've also got a great book by Pen and sword books on uniforms of the various colonies from around 1600-1700 which is handy for I've purchased a 28mms scale English army of the Jamestown early period for wargaming using pikemans lament rules by Osprey.
@@Igor9011998 Well in this scenario and situation you're not wrong at all... Buuut the thing is: A. The Roman military was arguably the most disciplined military of all time! And history's first professional military. B. Dover Colonial soldiers, a lot of soldiers are sent out of Europe were not the best soldiers stood in Europe guarding their home countries. C. Warfare change so they did what they knew. What made Shield walls almost obsolete was the Knight & his 15 foot lance and the shock Warfare they practiced. The European Lancers of the Middle Ages were simply a very mobile & fast moving Macedonian Phalanx on horseback who charge almost needs knee in a mounted phalanx formation. Such Lancers didn't really exist anywhere else during the time & did not exist in ancient times either. Medieval Knights can blast through Infantry formations especially a shield wall. So that's why you see Warfare the way it is in the medieval times, and the Infantry had to adapt to that.
And almost forgot: D. With plate armor and pike formations these can stop arrows. How can pikes stop arrows? Well by having pikes in different degrees/angels vertically acting as a "projectile shield" from above and a bit in front. Shooting arrows at a pike formation is like shooting at people in a wooded forest, probably not going to hit many of them and if you do hit some they have some steel armor. This is one of the reasons why bows and arrows were becoming less popular in the battlefields of Europe by the 1500s.
@@ales811507 with pizaro the natives came in armed and we're routed by cavalry, musketeers and pikemen. I don't know about Cortes but I'll take your word for it.
In December of '66 you met me face to face. I decoyed your Captain Fetterman, and we never left a trace. Into our Sacred Homeland your blue coat soldiers came, and we just taught you a heap big lesson in the Battle of a 100 slain.
Look at all these professional history people in the comment section. They all know why these natives won. But it's just a movie, how little we differ still from the people from the middle ages.
Chao Tiep The native Americans fought against eachother and stole eachothers land for thousands of years. But there’s always a bigger fish (European countries)
@Afro Highborne I know you are black but gunpowder is not a gun btw and i dont think Chinese even create gunpowder and to think you have that for 1.000+ years and never think to make a wepon out of it is prety bad but then there are you that create notihng and have power just to destroy.No point in talking more since you will lie and care nothing about the truth.
The first scene is similar to what the Spanish went through in the New World. Their armor, horses, and formations were not able to counter the hit and run attacks by the natives completely but at least they were veteran soldiers that held the line breaking down the attacks with heavy injury casualties.
Well honestly During the colonization period 1 Spanish solder can fight 3 to 5 native warrior face to face. Why? Because Spanish has metal armor helmet and steel sword And native warrior has no armor and usually use wooden or stone axe
Yeah... If this happen in a movie. Because in real life fight against 3 to 5 fearless people is barely impossible, they can put you down, take your sword, put an axe in you throat, take off your helmet and do whatever shit they want to.
Armour doesn't slow you down, that's hollywood fiction. As for body armour being too hot, soldiers wore steel body armour in the desert heat. Native american warriors were far from fearless and generally suffered from poor morale and easily ran from combat. Both of you should think before you leave a comment, as i can tell you're both European hating south americans who don't have a good understanding of what they're talking about.
@@thedon9247 The question in not if their morale is high, if they run from combat, if they have no organization or things like that. The man who commented first said 1 spanish soldiers can face to face 3 to 5 natives. The fact is that this is barely impossible, because in real life people uses the brain when fighting, it's not scripted like in the movies...
@@churclan000 Many ethnic groups that were enemies of the Incas made a pact with the Castilians. Black soldiers also arrived from Angola, Irish, Jewish converts, Guaraníes, Aztec warriors, and many people with the desire to get rich.
abandons fortified settlement (that has artillery no less) to sally out and meet the enemy in the field. Forms a nice formation and begins by firing the first volley. afterwards the line is rushed and immediately broken, the well armored, allegedly well trained regulars breaking formation and scattering into separate melees and somehow being over powered by a foe that does not have armor, nor a refined martial artform. It would have been a much cooler scene had they actually bothered to make it remotely realistic.
just realized, i can literally see men on the battlements mid fight, like, why would you keep random soldiers inside the walls if you planned on sallying out? obviously your foe has the advantage of numbers so to be frank leaving the walls was a bad idea to begin with, but if you are, not having multiple rows of muskets to lay down continuous fire is frankly awful planning. idk, i just hate watching unrealistic fights, even a grain of thought into it just blows it wide open for me. I genuinely think I could have directed a more compelling fight, even with them sallying out. edit: oh god the natives used fire arrows, thats just the cherry on top ahaha.
