Battle of Sempach, 1386 - Swiss Oath Brothers fight the Austrian war machine 

Thanks For this as always 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

BETTER HELP IS A SCAM REMOVE THIS SPONSOR RIGHT FUCKING NOW NOT FUCKING AROUND, MATE! THE GRIFTERS DESERVE NOTHING FROM US - LEAST OF ALL FROM A REPUTABLE YT CHANNEL DEMAND MONEY FROM BETTERHELP FOR LYING TO GET THEIR AD ON YOUR VIDEO

BETTERHELP BAD

DO NOT HIDE THESE COMMENTS BETTERHELP IS A SCAM

As some others have mentioned, betterhelp seems to do more harm than good. It may be wise to do some extra research into them. Not only did they deceive their customers, they also sold sensitive information, especially personal medical information, to various social media sites like facebook and pinterest. The FTC actually forced betterhelp to pay for refunds in the amount of 7.8 million dollars last year due to their deceptive practices.

@@Ziuk1990 For sure, a difficult national role to play! And as "most Winkelried" of the Poles, I nominate Witold Pilecki.

And the 20th century was a prime example of that...

Heil Bruder! Salut mon frère Salve fratello

Hopp Schwiiz! 🔥

Even before watching, as soon as I heard Swiss Confederacy I'm pretty damn sure I know who wins

dSchwizer

@@divicospower9112"Heil bruder" das seit ke Schwiizer...

Not a phone in sight! Just people living the moment

@@konstantinriumin2657 do kids nowadays EVEN KNOW what mass death looks like? smh

​@xBu11Dogx Haiti today and the 30k Palestinians killed so far is mass killing in a matter of just months

So much different than the line infantry shooting at eachother centuries later

​@@xBu11Dogxdo u?

Thanks so much for the support! Much appreciated. Have fun on your cycling trip, be safe.

Very happy to see you like the video. Thanks so much for supporting my channel. Much appreciated!

Thank you for the kind words and thank you so much for supporting my work. Very kind of you.

As an Austrian American do our people always lose seems that way? Swiss, Napoleon, WW2, even lost to the Turks basically until the Polish saved our people in 1683.

​​​@@brettk9316 If you look at history, there are many countries that have lost wars because it wasn't interesting to them. The austrian Habsburgs preferred their bigger austrian lands and since the swiss fought good, they just gave it up as it wasn't worth it. But overall, I think Austria just simply doesn't have a big military history, after all, the habsburgs were known for their marrying, not their amazing Military, though there were definitely times were the Habsburgs did have one of the strongest armies and generals in Europe, like Eugene of Savoy (though that was a French guy serving the Habsburgs) And lastly the struggle against the turks wasn't really a loss until 1683, it was just a stalemate, and the few hussars that the poles sent did help, but there were many more troops from the HRE and Austria that were coming to aid. Austria just isn't a (comparably to France, UK, Germany and Russia) military focused state.

​@@ellidominusser1138thank you omg, of course the winged hussars and the polish king had a big impact, but by far the biggest part of relief forces were soldiers of the HRE, which was of course, leaded by the Austrian Habsburgs

@@brettk9316even?😂 The Turks were the strongest in that Time

@@brettk9316 Ellidominusser1138 has sadly no clue what he is writing about. I study history but my knowledge is more attuned to the middleages than early modern times but I did do some reading. Austria won roughly 2/3 of the wars it was involved in ( defensive and offensive ), others were stalemates, others were lost. Austria sat on the eastern fringe of the holy roman empire and was consistently threatened by eastern tribes which had to be fended off repeatedly ( those included Magyars but also -Huns- Mongols and later, the Ototmans ). The Habsburgs definetely had a capable military through most of history simple due to that necessity. The wars with the Ottoman Empire were not between Austria and the beforementioned alone but did include a large alliance of realms like Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth which clashed - like Russia - on their border with the Ottomans repeatedly. This military aimed at fighting the Ottomans struggled after initial victories against Revolutionary France once Napoleon took over but adapted ( from 1790s to 1812 a lot changed in the structure and make-up of the military ) and gave Napoleon some of the stinging defeats in the Napoleonic Wars ( Aspern-Essling, Leipzig ). Wagram was a loss for Austria but the Army was not destroyed but managed an ordered withdrawal while also inflicting significant losses on Napoleon's Army. However, post world war 1 the incentive was to downplay Austria(-Hungary's) ability and present it was a failed state. This lead to a number of ahistorical statements that made it into common knolwedge that are constantly repeated. Public history is always behind the curve of historical studies. We see this post world war 2 as well; the presentation of world war 2 has been warped due to German General's memoires yet they are filled with lies ( see Doktor Roman Töppls interviews ).

That's the hilarious part, technically those conflicts should be known as "Wars of Bernese expansion" but we love playing the victim so it's all the Austrians fault for not forking over the territiories we wanted...

​@@mnk9073Didn't Bern also run to the other cantons pleading for help after they did a "no-no" and the other cantons were like, "Alright Bern, we help you this time, but don't expect us to get you out of trouble all the time." Then Bern did an oppsie a second time and the alliance was like, "sorry, this time you're on your own." 😂

You too 🙏

@@MixedRaceAndProud1690thanks mate!

Your translation is incorrect. The lake is called "Vierwaldstättersee", where a "Stätte" is a term for a place, not a city. So the translation would be more like "Lake of the four forest places", which would be in line with the term "forest cantons" for the cantons Uri, Schwyz and Unter-/Nidwalden, and the canton of Lucerne. In line with that the French name for the lake is "Lac de Quatre-Cantons" and the Italian name is "Lago dei Quattro Cantoni" (and Romansch "Lai dals Quatter Chantuns"), which all translate to "Lake of (the) four Cantons".

@@JanB1605 well depends. In the region around that lake that i am from, people refer to it as a synonyme. Because Place or city is pretty equal as there are 4 cantons around it with 4 major cities. But it could be that the definition has changed in time. Anyway. Have a Good Day my Swiss Brother 🇨🇭

@@Stormgamer-xb7gvnope. 😂

Isch e schöni gägend

@@miliba scho so

Thank you very much!

Don't be so dramatic. Surviving is for drowning at sea. You either win a fight, or you lose because you're not good enough, outnumbered, or betrayed

@@Chino56751 Lame.

Thx you Im Swiss and i hope you doing Good in life and have a lucky life ( sorry my english is bad but why care?)

Swiss here as well, thanks so much for your comment. I'm proud of our origins although a lot is surrounded by legends. Through videos like this, I get proud of our nation, but at the same time I'm in love with all the different cultures and people out there. Today we hopefully don't fight each other anymore, but instead collaborate in this vast universe for a even better future

I am Swiss too. Thank you for you thoughts. You are welcome as everybody to visit our small country. Not everything is perfect, but I think we have today the best democracy of the world and traditionally a liberal way of living - even if nowadays some people think this would be oldfashioned. We have to thank God that Switzerland wasn't hit during the WWI and WWII. Compliments for beeing interested in european history. A minimum of historical knowledge is important to understand other cultures and policies. Apart of that all 90% of the american population (and I mean the whole continent) has firstly european ancestors (and nowadays asiatic too).

Thank you very much for the kind words and support! I truly appreciate it.

More to come! Thank you for supporting my work. Very kind of you.

The terrain was not suitable for a cavalry attack, the knights dismounted and had to cut or rather tear off the point of their pointed steel shoes (suitable for keeping their feet in the stirrups) to be able to walk in an almost normal way.

The previous battle

if the cav peels off it leaves the infantry to also flank their forces, also the freibourgers likely knew they had a number advantage however still a bit odd no flanking attacks made.

Thanks so much David for your support! Cheers!

😂😂😂

It's not in the pipeline yet, but I'll definitely get to it.

Legend!

They were just going on a little expedition to punish some local thieves and vagabonds (the swiss had disrespected property under habsburg protection). that's what we swiss were basically at the time. outlaw alliance. with excellent ambush tactics. most battles (after stripping the legends), the snubby nobility was charging headlong into a ambush, getting pelted and forcibly dismounted by rockfall and then slaughtered. while the swiss troops basically had the "unbreakable" cheat from start, it was only latter they got the armament and the tactics to face armies in open battle.

Well, we are still in the outgoing medieval times - not the 18th century or so - and Europe sufferered heavy population loss (1/3 of Europe) 1346-1353 due to the Black Death. Also the Habsburgs were not Emperors of the HRE at the time and it was still the Archduchy of Austria only - for the most part the same size of Austria as we know it today - and not the Empire of the 1500s ff (that really took off with Maximilian marrying Maria of Burgundy in 1477).

I think 4000 knights + merceneries were expensive enough

Yes, but you got one detail wrong. The canton is called Aargau, and it's capitol is called Aarau.

Id say it many times boiled down to the lack of proper scouting of enemy dispositions. At this current time, its hard to tell, if there was any capability of mounted knights performing large scale coordinated maneuvers, but even if there was, once released at the enemy, any chance of coordinating the whole action was generally lost. Even later with more profesional organization, especially if a body of knights defeated their immediate opposition with ease, they were carried off the field in pursuit abd contributing to overall loss of the battle. Swiss are almost always stressed as some antidote to mounted knights over and over again, which I feel is rather irrelevant. They were superbly disciplined and organized and well equipped to take any opposition head on in close quarters combat and mounted knights specifically werent some exception worthy of being highlighted, several battles mentioned here, plus several others in upcomming cca 200 years demonstrate it. Id say, at that time, compared to today, when we can get graphically informed about anything that happened on this planet almost instantly, word would spread slowly. French encountered flemmish militias at Courtrai and only afterwards, there could be a generation of commanders and knights that were hard pressed by experience to adjust and respect their opposition. For Habsburgs, despite earlier setbacks, this was probably not the case. Discipline and organization might not be immediately recognizable, until its too late, so despite great paper strength - higher numbers, long lances, heavy armour, these knights werent able to function to the level of integrity, as represented by the Swiss, especially after hard pressed. Once their cohesion disintegrated, their numbers were just adding to the deathtoll, probably greatly bolstered by carnage after they ceased to exist as a unified fighting body. In rhis regard, mounted knights would theoretically be at a grear advantage, as unlike lumbering on foot, it was much easier to get out alive. But even given all of that, while Id say Swiss many times kept detailes records of their battlefield strength and losses to be cross verified even today, the losing sides numbers and losses could have, more or less, been pulled out of someones arse and hence bloated and many of these encounters spiced by mystifications and confabulations. (e. g. overstating decisiveness of some engagements, or on the other side making ineffectual enemy opposition resulting in very light losses in actual combat hugely bolstered by consequent massacre in pursuit - which of course doesnt take anything from their overall tactical superiority enabling it - into some sort of epic Hollywood style struggle with every single swiss soldier being his own William Wallace in the fray.)

@@dochteur1886 Yeah it's a frightening thought that everything which is casual and mandatory to us now could be forgotten just 2 generations later if nobody write it down or document it otherwise. I am aware that absolute intelligence about a ongoing battle is reserved for computer games, but still riders, flags and horns are no new invention :)

Knights on horseback could be described more as warriors than soldiers - it might be a little romanticized, but as horsemen and fighters overall, they were ideally extremely versatile, able to fullfill any role imaginable in warfare, be it infantry, cavalry, scouts etc. Compared to drafted cavalryman lets say napoleonic cuirassier, both man and horse on average were several leagues above in every aspect. Perhaps even on a smaller scale, they could be at least similar - groups of knights, broadly speaking, would be organized around their feudal superior and in theory would be used to working and charging together. Plus, they were under this mans authority, organized around his banner, which should at any point serve as a rallying method. Of course, there would also be other instruments, which would vary to say the least. Nevertheless, dozens of knights and their attire, as I understand would work greatly as a unit. The problem arises with deployment on tactical level, when action of thousands of knights is to be organized on the battlefield to achieve a single goal, like surrounding and destroying a sizeable enemy formation. In this case, but I might be mistaken, at least untill mid 15th century, there is no indication of solidified drill and even then any semblance of system might be probably traced to the latter half of 16th,or rather into 17th century. Problem wasnt just with the lack of drill, but also with how hierarchy worked at that time, so various interests and other personal interests of people in command of each small element might interfere with the overall ability to achieve greater tactical goal. Same problems would be faced both on foot and mounted. Sempach might be good example, same for Laupen, Id say the video understated how little would it take to turn it into Swiss defeat. The battle really was won by swiftly dispatching inferior enemy infantry, let alone taking into account, how would it play out, if knights could be recalled en masse to push the rear of the Swiss. I dont think theres any clear indication of how it exactly played out, as this period lacks the scope of record keeping of something like 19th century. Good contrast would be to look at battles of Albuera and Quartre-Bras and how many sources and records can be mustered and referenced regarding cavalry actions there. There are accurate casualty figures and many eye witness accounts from an era that already took such recording with more of an naturalistic and rational approach. Short version: Knights in big infantry blobs wouldnt be as effective as Swiss, despite better gear and bigger numbers and on horse would be the most effective in engagements involving smaller numbers and only if their first charge is also the one that wins the battle for their side, in both cases because due to the lack of training and drill at this level, their employment devolved into chaos rather quickly. But even at this time, there were exceptions arising from seasoned armies with experience, like english armies in France under The Black Prince, or for example french army under captains like du Guesclin. (some other examples from this period might be condotierri companies, like that of John Hawkwood. These provide contrast examples of well coordinated forces comprised eminently of knights that were able to effectively coordinate combined arms actions involving knightly cavalry striking in great numbers at crutial spots and regrouping to do so repeatedly roughly from the same era as the battle of Sempach. Unfortunately for them, austrian host there could rather be compared to french at Crecy for example in their overal performance, trying to brute force their way forward without any solid plan, or detailed knowledge of what theyre dealing with.)

@@dochteur1886 So in short it was greed again They focused on the defensive enemie before them and refused to play they part in the battle in thr hope of easy loot.

Cause then the schiltron would have hit the flank of the army I guess. Its very easy to spot tactical openings from a birds view. But in a battle things were very confusing loud and dusty I assume. Hard to keep the overview

because the schiltron is still a threat to their rear

It’s uneven ground. It’s bad for flanking attacks. The front is more narrow than it seems. Also a schiltron can defend well against flank attacks. The Swiss are using halberds not spears. This weapon is quite flexible unlike the pikes and spears used by the Habsburgs.

Thr knights were already winning the battle. No need to go around, if you're already killing most of the enemy in front. Of course, later during the battle, the Austrians had no cohesion or discipline left to go around.

Hills, mountains, broken ground and lack of knowledge of terrain. When you don’t have good reconnaissance, you attack what you see…. Or if you’re smart, retire from the field until you can gather good intel and favorably deploy your troops.