Comments by "Faramund" (@faramund9865) on "SandRhoman History" channel.

  1. Kräl? You mean Karl?
    10
  2. I've besieged quite a few by now, but some tips could always come in handy.
    5
  3. Reginherus is just written that way because the chronicles are in Latin. -us is nominative. Reginher or something that sounds like that would've the Frankish variant of his actual name, Ragnarr. By the way, that extra -r at the end is that exact same nominative, and is from the same origin has Latin -us. Regin = ruler, her = army.
    5
  4. Only disappointment in this video is the depiction of Joan. Her contemporary image is clearly blonde with blue eyes. Why mess with that? Also seems a heck of a lot more believable people would follow someone with such a noble appearance rather than the look of a foreigner.
    4
  5. Lets be honest here. Raiding was not done first in the 700s, in fact raiding was a Germanic past time for the young and unproven wolves. Perhaps this time it was on a much larger scale, which is why it was recorded by the Bri'ish.
    3
  6. THANK YOU. Finally I have the name of the document. 'Ordre op de wapeninge van het voetvolk'. THANK YOU!
    3
  7. Wow, thanks for mentioning Cruso. I did not know about this manual! I'm so excited to explore it!
    3
  8. Just gotta find the right channels and subscribe to them. And turn off all the crap that YouTube uses to otherwise track you and recommend garbage to you.
    2
  9. While generally it's a good channel, it's not infallible. He mainly takes from secondary sources which are in my opinion infamous for quoting other secondary sources and creating and maintaining entirely made up "facts". Same goes for channels like 'Invicta'. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching it most of the time, but it's something to be aware of.
    2
  10. Believe it or not, I live in a star fortress. Maybe this will be useful some day. And yes I am Dutch lmao.
    2
  11. So please refrain from calling him Reginherus unless you're willing to do your entire video in Latin and call Charlemagne 'Karolus Magnus' etc.
    2
  12. And Charles the Bald as: Karolus Calvus. You see how it makes no sense what you have done? Otherwise, thanks for the entertaining video.
    2
  13. Well keep in mind, you too probably had a gun in your hands with better accuracy than theirs. Or you were a pikeman and were being paid to stand there and die.
    2
  14. Cool video man, thanks!
    1
  15. I find that you refer too often to 'historians' who just bloat something based on nothing but an educated guess. Much prefer the times when you actually refer to a historical account of a siege.
    1
  16.  @SandRhomanHistory  Well if that's where you got your info, that makes sense. I personally like to go straight to the sources that historians mention and read those. If they don't mention any, they're just blabbering.
    1
  17. Something something defeat in detail. What poor strategy on the Russian side...
    1
  18. Perhaps you could compare high medieval cavalry to artillery in later centuries. The bulk of the army was infantry, but if the enemy had shot your artillery to bits, they now have free reign to tear through your infantry and thus you have lost. "God is on the side with the best artillery".
    1
  19. Title didn't seem appealing to me so it took about three times of scrolling over it before I clicked. But I'm glad that I did.
    1
  20. I'm a ScHoLaR duUuuUuude!
    1
  21. I think what you depict is also not right. I'm fairly sure the projectiles were shot or throw from the front ranks. You can imagine it's impossible to hurl or shoot at someone with friends in front of you, especially when those friends are face to face with your target. As you can also see in the Bayeux, the rear ranks were holding the collection of spears, the front is throwing them.
    1
  22. He is still a folk hero here.
    1
  23. In your videos you keep saying 'ah there are so few guns in this age, they were so insignificant'. But even in the American Civil War they had 1 gun to a thousand infantry or so. These are normal proportions and apparently the most effective, why else would they use these proportions?
    1
  24. Oof. So basically towards the end of pike and shot, it was not done to shoot at pikemen as they were only there to protect the musketeers from cavalry. And I suppose since the musketeers were eachothers threat, they would simply shoot at eachother. Which is funny because with the introduction of the bayonet, that was most of what warfare was, people with muskets shooting at eachother. Although of course cannons had a massive influence too. Dunno how effective cavalry was in this period.
    1
  25. I think the pike and shot era resulted in noblemen only engaging in warfare as officers. I don't think they could handle being on a level playingfield with the regular folk. And this resulted, I think, in the detachment of nobility from reality and eventually their demise as they were replaced with republics or fettered with constitutions. Perhaps if they would've kept making their sacrifices on the battlefield, they would've been tolerated. But instead they became insufferable landhouse-dwelling snobs.
    1