So the next Video is about Phalanx battles especially the Macedonians? I've just want answers on how do Pike Phalanxes protect themselves from arrows with thin pikes? Because that doesn't make any sense & I couldn't find a video to demonstrate this
I now want a whole movie that is just realistically depicting a single battle like this. There would certainly be enough material for scenes from showing the back ranks insulting and throwing stuff at each other to soldiers dealing with having to be the next one fighting to the slow process of actually moving a unit somewhere else.
Imagine a whole realistic movie solely about the logistics and transport of an army and supplies to a battle location, forming ranks, and going through a day-long battle. Just like one small part of a conflict, but as realistic a battle as possible
not a movie, but if u mod bannerlord (game) u can have this effect, not entirely ofc since the ai and the game are limited, but u do get lines that dont go into eachother and can be very passive when attacking
"throwing stuff" has a limited appeal. Say the Romans throw first, next the enemy can pick up whatever was "thrown" and throw it back. That's the idea behind the Pilium. Doesn't throw back well. It also probably looked a whole lot like a Rugby Scrum.
We were overwhelmed by the positive response this series received. Thank you all for sharing your unique stories, opinions, and questions! As a result, we will be continuing this series with models of cavalry combat, hoplite warfare, common field strategies, and more. So make sure you are subscribed and enjoy the show!
This is incredible, very excited about all of them but I am most intrigued by hoplite warfare. Even though I have a general idea of how they did battle, your analyses are amazing and answer the most important questions.
It's really interesting to see just how many parallels there were between everything in this video and the later 18th-19th C. history that I work with. Formations are important! Someone had better tell Pullo.
@@HistoriaMilitum Can you make a video how The Roman Army distinguished themselves whenever they enemies or friendlies during the Civil wars? Because HBO Rome, both sides wearing the same uniforms & gear so how would they know which side they're on?
Holy hell this makes so much sense. It makes the ancient battles seem that much more realistic. The 3 officer system also works so well and the part about the flanks shows why it could be so devastating!!! Very well done Filaxim. Very well done. You're a gem on this app.
"Holy hell this makes so much sense" was my feeling exactly! I'd thought the details here remained murky - how far has recent scholarship come! 😮 It's quite satisfying when something complex comes into focus like this.
I think this is the first time I've finally understood ancient warfare. I'd love to see this applied to battles like Watling street where breaks would have been seemingly impossible
This is a very bold and interesting video rethinking what we already know and arrange it in coherent fashion as to see how we understand again the sources. Love it I hope to see more
As someone who reads about wars and military theory, I’m really impressed by the accuracy of the information in this video. Definitely one of the best series on this topic. Keep it up!
yes these videos certainly do give a different and additional perspective than even the best tactical and operational videos of a battle or campaign don't they. At the end of the day it all comes down to the individual soldiers and groups of men armed with swords and spears facing the enemy.
When you hear about field battles going on for multiple days, with armies returning to their camps for food and rest and redeploying formally the next morning, it become clear that a fair number of individual people during battles weren't actually engaging in frontline combat, but rather patrolling flanks and filling gaps. The bloodiest battle tend to be the ones where forced are closed in against eachother, eliminating maneuvering room, increasing mental stress and panic of the trapped force, and leading to a one-sided slaughter.
Great description. Very, very good. I have studied military battles since I was a kid and I am 47 years old. But this aspect of man to man combat are rarely covered and they describe the dynamics of the organization of armies. It is amazing how much psychology was a decisive factor in battles prior to or even after World War 2. Even soldiers armed with guns largely fought in large groups and at close range. Soldiers drew either courage or fear from the soldiers around them. Entire armies could route within minutes. My only personal experience from that was when I fought in "snowball wars" as a kid in school. But when I trained as an infantryman conscript in the army things were very different. You have your squad and you are quite isolated with about ten guys, not knowing much about what is happening outside of the squad. If you are defending you know instinctively that there is no safety in running away from the enemy as they will shoot you in the back and artillery might kill you if you get out of your trench, foxhole or cover. Very interesting.
Thank you for the comment and for sharing your personal experience! The Romans actually had a similar system of isolation into small squads. Each soldier was part of his own squad of only 8 men, who they ate, slept, and trained with. 10 of these squads made up the full century of 80 men which I present in combat throughout the video. So all of them would be standing next to close comrades and friends, so that they coordinate better. Cheers!
@@HistoriaMilitum yes you are referring to the contubernia. There are some great documentaries about that unit made by the Invicta and Imperium Romanum youtube channels. A very imporant logistical and social unit. Still aside from scouting or policing duties, they fought in the centurys/company equivalent.
With the little bit of sword and shield fighting I've done and the little bit of tactics I've read about and battles I've learned: this is exactly how I've always imagined a battle would actually look. I'm so glad there's actual research supporting it now.
@@vanivanov9571 what are you talking about. 1m is nearly 3ft. So saying there is 1m between Romans, or there is 3 ft between Romans is the same thing. I never said anything about 2.6m you're being dense and confrontational about something you know nothing about.
Also, if you do hema style fighting, take it with a grain of salt. It was developed by two dudes over tens years. A recent phenomenon like how mma was developed in the last decade or so.
Also hema IS about dueling or Gladiator fighting, there IS Difference between dueling and a full on Battle with several lines of men. Also the theory of spreading Out seems very fishy since they are way too many gaps a warrior can Cut through or an cavalry Charge can completely destroy the Units
Absolutely amazing! Please make a part 3, 4, 5 and 6+ and please talk about what happens when their commanders perish. More discussion on different types of units throughout history too. Thank you and please more
Can't believe 3 weeks passed but remember the Part 1 as freshly as possible. These two videos answered everything I needed to know about how the Romans actually worked in battle . Thank you from 🇨🇴!
Nice videos. - The game "A Legionary's Life" seems to nicely depict that "short frontline clash" nature of combat. - One thing particularly dangerous when routing was Elephants. I like to say that deploying Elephants would result in one of two outcomes: 1. The enemy routed and you won 2. Your elephants routed, fled through your lines and you lost
Elephants seem like the most useless scare tactic of armies throughout history. They were probably mostly status symbols. I can't think of many times they were pivotal to battles between even sided armies. I mean you would think they would be strong, like amazing shock cavalry, but they are slow and more afraid of you than you are of them. Good commanders almost always found ways to negate or exploit them. They are also extremely expensive to maintain.
@@vanivanov9571 When did I say never? When in fact they used a shield wall as part of their Phalanx phase? If you are done putting words into my mouth, can we start an actual discussion?
I’m interested to see what his research shows for cavalry fighting in general, but especially when faced against infantry. In movies and games, horses either smash through people like cars, or instantly die when faced with pikes or spears, losing all momentum when doing so, neither of which make much physical sense. There’s also the issue of sustained fighting between cavalry and infantry. Whenever I think about it logically, it always looks like infantry should be able to easily slaughter horses and their riders, so I’d be interested to see how that pans out.
@@Chewberto what i think is , due to their very high cost (horse and training on how to ride it), they will absolutely avoid being wasted, which means they will actually maneuver all the time to try to find gaps to exploit, and only attack when suck opportunity arises, like disorganized infantry. they might throw javelines at them to keep them pinned down, and even if they charge, infantry will support them to maintain the gap. But NEVER will cavalry charge into a wall of spears, and continue fighting the infantry after contact if they stayed organized. as for Cav vs Cav, i assume it almost never happens as a charge vs charge, more like a cavalry trying to outflank eachother and launching missiles at them, until one camp routs the other.
You should read Ardant du Picq's work Battle Studies on this matter, the first thing to acknowledge is that the casualties of cavalry clashes were always low, because, in Ardant du Picq's words: "(in cavalry clashes) 49 of 50 one side hesitated, disordered and fled before contact was made. Approx. 75 % of the time this will happen at a distance, before they can see each other's eyes." Cavalry clashes were always the game of morale, even more heavily than in infantry clashes.
Thoroughly enjoying this series! This is probably the thing I'd like to see the most in ancient times. How combat actually played out. It's such a mystery and do intriguing. Keep up the great work 👍🏽
Great work, finally explains perfectly how humanity survived through countless major battles. These were more often about surviving than about slaughtering. Would be great to try and study how wounded soldiers were treated or evacuated.
It would be fascinating to explore what happens to the troops after the route. Thousands of men wandering the countryside randomly? Did they often know where to regroup? Did many just desert?
The only real answer is "it depends". Some would desert, some would try to get back to their camp where maybe a proper defence could be mounted if fortifications had been set up, some would be cut off and slaughtered, some would regroup along the road as they fled (since most probably wouldn't flee through more difficult off-road terrain if they could help it). Sometimes an army might be broken and its baggage captured, but most troops are able to regroup and reorganise even if they have to still retreat in order to resupply. After the English rout at the Battle of Hastings, a mixture of things happened. The broken English mainly fled along the road to London, but some were scattered to the wilderness But one pursuing body of Norman cavalry ran into a prepared English trench and got trapped, prompting the fleeing English to regroup and kill a lot of knights. Some of the broken English fled all the way back to London, well over a day's forced march away, and when a panicked rumour broke out that the Normans were right behind them there was a crowd crush to cross the bridge across the Thames, which resulted in the bridge breaking under the weight and many men drowning. And Xenophon gave his amazing first-person account of the retreat of ten thousand Greeks back through hundreds of kilometres of enemy territory following a battlefield draw at Cunaxa. Their camp is taken but the Greeks maintain cohesion and are approached for peace negotiations. An enemy leader then provides the Greeks with provisions and offers to "escort" them peacefully out of Persian territory, but this is a trap and the Greek leadership are slaughtered during further peace talks. The remaining Greeks have to retreat under constant harassment but most make it back to their homelands.
As the previous commenter said, it depends. If the enemy mounted a chase, then many of them were cut down. Lot of them went back to their camp for their items/golds/to regroup, if it wasnt possible because of a coordinated attack on the camp, then they wandered along the roads, some went home, some deserted, foraged for water and food, some followed their leader and regrouped somewhere relatively safe place to resupply. At the battle of keresztes 1596 the christian forces were about to raid the ottoman camp and started doing so, because most of the enemy was routed, but their unorganized attack on the camp resulted in the ottomans regrouping and routed the christian army who previously won the battle on the battlefield.
As one who has since very early youth had questions about these details re. ancient warfare battles, I greatly appreciate the research you've done to provide much greater insights about the military tactics of victories, at the level of the men who fought them. Kudos !
I really like what you're doing with this serie ! Keep it up : ) I would just want to say that the point you make at 1:56 that the front rank would be alone in the "tension zone" doesn't quite pass the smell test I think. At the very least, the 2nd ranker would have to be close enough to step over the falling body of his 1st ranker before the enemy combatant has a chance pounce 2vs1 against one of the adjacent 1st ranker. I think the 2nd ranker would even be probably close enough to provide some physical support if the 1st ranker was about to be knocked over (but not too the point of shoving the poor guy back toward the enemy). Further, the 2nd ranker would probably be expected to step in and exploit any small gap created by the men in the 1st rank.
Thanks for the comment! Your reasoning seems quite compelling and could definitely be the case. We only over exaggerated the gap between the first 2 ranks to emphasise that the 1st rank would be fighting largely alone. But shorter spacing and even supporting 2nd ranks running up to help could very well be possible. Thanks for the comment!
People often forget the human aspect of conflict and treat combatants like robots ("Why didn't they just...") This does a great job of not doing that. Thanks!
1:43 I don't know about that conclusion, I mean in the modern day marksmanship is often highly valued but modern combat is almost entirely about a unit's ability to work together and their access to supporting assets. It's just that no matter how a weapon is actually used people tend to value individual skill with that weapon, if nothing else for the sake of competition and the ability to show off back at camp. We can find countless examples of competition and almost ritualized forms of combat that had little to do with how battles were actually fought, like medieval tourneys and samurai swordsmanship.
Bingo! Individual combat is useless in a battle. It doesn’t matter what era that’s in, fighting alone = death. As you said, modern militaries train in marksmanship. They test it. They drill it endlessly. They give awards for it. They hold competitions in it. They teach you to fire in groups and lay suppression more than anything in an actual fire fight. You have someone shoot in the general direction of the enemy while others move close. You repeat this until you’re literally on top of them and either and you bayonet or shoot from a couple of feet. Marksmanship is irrelevant at that point.
Love your videos. You're great at it. Video Suggestion: What happens post-battle Win or Loss in an area. POWs, all the gear laying around, villages revolt, plunder, raze, etc. I've always been curious.
Outstanding effort with none of the ridiculous stuff that used to be peddled by Classics academics firmly lodged in an ivory tower about units leaning on each other and going "heave" in a sort of huge rugby scrum.
I honestly never thought about it before but riot police fighting with rioter is probably the closest thing we'll ever see to roman battles with barbarians
Yep. And if they were 3 feet apart their formation would be broken in the first charge. That’s the only thing you needed to hear from this video to know the rest is just opinion with no basis. Seriously! A full metre between shoulders would have the Romans lose every battle against the superior numbers they fought in most conflicts. The first charge would completely break their lines.
But how? The infantry formation is deep, enemies entering inside would be stabbed by those in the back, right? Cops don't have 5-8 lines deep formations @@markarmstrong5234
He literally used a video of the riot police standing shoulder to shoulder as a visual reference of how ancient soldiers fought standing 3 ft apart.. 😂
@@markarmstrong5234they're crazy 🤣 They literally saw the video of riot police standing shoulder to shoulder and thought it a grand representation of how ancient soldiers stood 3ft apart 🤪
@@AustinMiller-dp9xythat really got me. Spend 12 minutes talking absolute shite and show a clip of a video that instantly disproves everything they said. It’s like they saw Kratos swinging his chain swords and thought “that must be how battles happened”.
No other channel covered a topic like this because the video is wrong. We’ve known for thousands of years that they stood shoulder to shoulder, because they did. If they didn’t, the army would be broken and routed at the first charge every time.
Hey great video I would ask you to reconsider your comment about not pushing with the shield and how it's not designed for it. I absolutely agree back ranks were not pushing front ranks forward that would just make it harder to fight. Though the center grip shield like used by the Roman's and the Norse are absolutely wonderful weapons as well as shields. You can definitely push quite well with a shield like that. I was in the SCA for several years. A good shield can be just as much a weapon as a tool for defense. I seen a 6 and half ft tall 300 plus pound guy run and jump as hard as he could into a shield wall. Lol he thought he could break through our line. He bounced off like a rubber ball went flying backwards and dam near knocked himself out even wearing his helm and armor. He was messed up enough he didn't fight anymore that day. That was not even professionals like the Roman's just some part time guys playing soldier lol. So if we could make a wall like that I could only imagine how good a veteran unit of Roman soldiers were. I just thought I would tell you about this as you can do so many things with a center boss grip shield you can't do with one strapped to your arm. Thanks again for the video
Tight formations. 1 meter between them, front ranks more 1v1 and more shelds 2:34 moral tension zone and stand off 3:58 aproching with range 4:40 deep ranks, flank charges 5:14 space between units 5:40 barbirans 9:46 replacing units, more on gaps 10:40 unique times 11:17 pursing
I Knew the Standard bearer was there to Show the Unit, and Direction to push. I didnt piece it together though as a Rallying Point(how you described it as a cell)but more of a Unit Marker to identify different units on the Field. Now I see Why The EAGLE was So important because of the NUCLEUS model You described. THANKS
The best analogy I use to describe what hand to hand battle was like, especially for the guys on the front line; if you’ve ever been to a hardcore music concert where there’s a mosh pit, and you’ll see people work up courage to get into the pit, then pop back out to catch their breath.
Great video and insights. Makes it more understandable now why the Romans routed at the battle of Cannae. Huge numbers of infantry compressed together while they are being attacked from front, side and back.
awesome series about how roman battles actually worked! I've always found the ways battles are depicted in movies and games a bit akward, especially because it almost always seems as if the soldiers (and horses) don't really have any self preservation. this series really filled in a lot of gaps in my own knowledge of how these battles work out. thanks for the great video :D
Makes sense. Always wondered why flanking is so devastating in hand to hand combat. I mean, you just turn part of your unit to face the other way. Your explanation makes sense.
This series has been awesome so far. Looking forward to the next one Could you possibly cover PTSD or battle trauma in the ancient army? Surely it had to exist, but I've not seen much in the way of research in the subject aside from occasional references or little notes here and there.
Thank you :) You have on article on the description by Melchior who delves a bit into the psycological aspect of ancient warfare. There is also another one by Koreen Van Lommel covering the "mental breakdowns" of roman soldiers and how at some point might have been legally recognized as a discharge cause. On the grand scheme of things the topic is still in it's infancy. The romans psychological "wiring" was different from ours, things that might have broken a modern man would have been fairly normal by roman standards and vice versa. Then there is the PTSD itself which is still not 100% understood and what exactly triggers it. That's why researchers are still a bit cautious when approaching the topic and why we would advice caution and big grains of salt because we are not on solid ground
@@JonEtxebeberriaRodriguez I can't find where I read this since its years ago, but the reason why soldiers in modern wars are more prone to PTSD is because of the ranged nature of combat. I mean, instead of portions of armies flinging projectiles its nearly everyone. And oh, there is the artillery that can pummel you safely from a distance. Like, over a dozen kilometers away. For medium ones. Which lead to second thing. Battles may have lasted hours and often not have some deadly exchanges and its just back to stand offs. And skirmishers might need some break too and oh, gather some ammo from the battlefield. Today, the industrial nature means there is...alot of ammo to get and with the logistics of industrial nations and their motorized logistics, well, a lot of actions is afforded. Which is why soldiers in modern warfare are more prone to such pyschological conditions. Well, that was the speculation. Though, I can imagine the soldiers at Carrhae, not Cannae, Carrhae, where Crassus lead doomed Roman legions at Parthia and as well as Teutoberg forest to be suffering under this. Well, those who survived of course.
A lot of issues with your assumptions. For instance, in the early republic the most experienced and best fighters were in the last line. The most inexperienced and youngest would be in the front. The lines would be the Hastati (youngest) Princepes (middle) and lastly the Triarii (the most experienced veterans) this was likely because you don’t want to risk your best fighters dying on the front lines to javelins and missiles. Or, enemy traps like caltrops and other ancient surprises. Also if the rookies in the front line tire or lose heart and your front line breaks the veterans in the back are less likely to panic and run with the rookies start running from the front. Also the young soldier psychology was such that a soldier did not want to be embarrassed in the eyes of the veterans he likely looked up to and respected that were right behind him. A coward would have to run past the veterans that he respected and aspired to be as they looked on shaming the young soldier. As opposed to the veterans being in the front, if they broke temporarily and the young inexperienced soldier saw the best fighters falling back it’s likely to induce mass panic and retreat. My second issue is the fact the loose spacing cohort fighting evolved much later than the original manipular style Roman army tactics when they started fighting the barbarians like the Gauls in earnest after Greece and Etruscans had fallen. The original Republican army was basically a copy from the Etruscan and Greek army. And in their style of warfare, hoplites and phalangites in phalanxes the name of the game was staying in formation and working as a solid unit to break the enemy formation. This is how the Sacred Band of Thebes broke the Spartans, the allied army stacked its flank double depth in ranks and simply over powered the Spartan line by sheer weight. Once you “shoved” through the enemy line and it broke, the slaughter would start as the enemy broke formation and ran. The Spartan hoplites and Thebans and later, Macedonian Phalanxes, were so effective because the men were professionals and experts at operating as part of a unit. Individual skill was celebrated but the greatest emphasis was on the camaraderie and discipline of the unit as a whole. Ancient battles WERE NOT a bunch of individual soldiers running up and having a sword fight with other individuals and then breaking off and returning to their lines. This is absurd. For any actual soldier who’s been to real war, you know your courage and training is completely dependent upon the unit as a whole maneuvering and executing tactics cohesively in general. Individuals or small groups who charge into the enemy will die and die really quick. The Spartan, Theban, Macedonian, Roman armies were so effective because they were mercilessly drilled and trained to operate within a unit, an individual as part of team. Like a cog in a machine. The unit tactics changed but the goal remained the same. For individual soldiers to work in step with his unit. No, I’m sorry, Roman era battles were not single lines or small groups of soldiers engaging the enemy and then falling back it was generally speaking maniple and cohort maneuvering, pressing the enemy, maintaining formation and as one breaking the enemy unit so that when it shattered and ran the enemy could be cut down individually. It was very much a shoving match of sorts in Ancient Greek phalanx warfare and this didn’t change until late Republican Marian reforms and it simply evolved to be smaller more maneuverable units that would operate as one entity to close with, engage, wear down or break outright an enemy section/unit/area so a new weakness could be exploited by those units behind, hence the checkerboard pattern. Hastati would engage the enemy in semi disordered units as they were the least experienced, then the Principes would move in to either relieve exhausted front line Hastati, or exploit advantages created by the Hastati. If the Principes moved up and relieved the Hastati and they themselves began to tire and still no decisive breach or advantage was created the Triarii would move up as the best and most experienced units and press the attack on the enemy, you don’t get anywhere by having small engagements and letting the enemy withdraw and rest while your men rest that’s stupid. The Triarii would then as a cohesive well disciplined unit seek to break the enemy front outright or create an advantage for the reformed and rested Hastati and Principes units to reengage and achieve a break through. The one thing that was obvious is that the real slaughters didn’t happen until one side broke and ran generally speaking as mentioned. But the biggest fable of all is this notion of the Hollywood/Video Game idea of combat, individuals engaging individuals with feet of space between them and other combatants. No No No, ancient soldiers operated in cohesive units and sought to engage the enemy as a unit always. You don’t win a sword fight by being the greatest swordsman, you win a sword fight by blocking the enemies sword while your fellow soldiers stab him in the side or rear. Hence you worked as a unit always. Soldiers get their strength and courage from their comrades and very rarely would you see small pockets of individuals running up and engaging the enemy and then falling back. In fact, it is well documented that Ancient Greek battles always placed the veterans on the right of a line, because the tendency was for the hoplites to drift to the right, behind the shield of the man to your right. So you’d out your best men on the right to maintain formation and prevent a line drifting into the shadow of the mans Joplin next to you for protection. This is more evidence that ancient battles were fought by cohesive units working as one to break the enemy line.
Hands-down the best explanation of the checkerboard formation, the Roman unit cohesion, & most importantly the adaptability of Roman armies on the unit level. There are just a few points I'd like to criticize. One is that, yes, the cohesion of the unit was the key that had them conquer everyone. Two: there are no evidence or mentions that armies other than Romans used to replace already combated men throughout the bettle. Three: I think it's mentioned that the Roman soldier was protected by his fellow soldier to his right. The hand that carried no protection, & that side of the body relied on the other man over to that side. So we can guess that while the Romans did keep space for one-on-one, their space used to be less than their enemies used to have, especially barbarians, & especially their non-elite units, the bulk of gheir armies, who were ordinary men who just learnt individual combat, but not unit tactics & organization. Four: it is famously mentioned that the barbarians all charged & used up their energy in MAX 2 hours into battles, but the Romans could fight all day. Because, & this is in the records, they stood behind their shield & mostly stabbed, despite the barbarians who went out of their way & fought over-vigorously. The Romans kept the line at all costs. When fighting constantly, they had their line in order, & the safety of the man to the right allowed them to focus on the front & keep the order, instead of turning in any directions to fight threats oncoming through uncovered small individual gaps. So, keeping a cool head, they conserved their energy by exploiting exposures in their rival's posture & gurad & easily stabbing them through those, which takes far less enrgy that slashing. Slashing is why Gallic swords were longer than the typical Roman gladius. Gladius' length is proper for defending stabs most of all
Yep. It’s like the creator heard about a sword competition once and decided he had come to a revelation that contradicted 2,000 years worth of historians, military tactics and even logic. The formations aspect of this video is quite good. The 3 foot spacing is laughably stupid. A legionary with an unwieldy, full body sized shield and tiny sword would almost never defeat someone with a smaller shield and much longer sword or spear. Reach wins. Unless that reach is neutralised by say… standing in a line with shields that create some sort of wall.
Two of the best history related videos I've watched in a long time. Original, thought provoking, well researched, and logical. I regret I can only subscribe once. Would love to see your take on cavalry combat, and especially a comparison between hoplite combat and shieldwalls in late antiquity and the early medieval period, and how much the latter may have carried over or differed from the former.
An excellent continuation of battle breakdowns, you guys are providing rare and insightful information. I'm glad to see someone finally discussing the rotation of men in the front, as modern media makes it seem its a fight to the death scenario in the front. Also the spacing is a huge thing I have wondered about and as a modern swordsman I fully agree with this image of only the front row fighting and with plenty of room, melee combat requires space and fighting with many close together would greatly reduce effectiveness of skill. Thinking in this way does make flanking seem all the more devastating and helps me realize why battles were ended so quickly after successful flanking. This video also makes a good point about officers and makes me have an even greater respect for centurions, as it certainly would require a brave person to lead from the front to inspire. The idea of chasing after routing enemies that can then turn to fight reminds me of how they say the Normans defeated many Anglo-Saxons during the battle of Hastings, it makes sense. Keep up the good work, I'm really looking forward to the cavalry breakdown, especially if there is something about how they effect units of infantry.
@@lloydeaker3757 Unfortunately I have not had that experience. I've mostly trained with others in Medieval dueling techniques, with longswords. If I could manage to round up enough like minded people, I would definitely start my own Legion or Phalanx. I have done small skirmishes of about 5 vs 5 but it wasn't anything close to a formation. If you're interested in starting swordsmanship, I can point you to some good resources or possibly some groups.
@@vaskil99 The reason I wrote is I have participated in "melee" with hundreds of people on a side. Using sword and shield in the Society for Creative Anachronism. Not really a reenacting group. But much closer than most think. Having done that for almost 3 decades I can tell you that moving around is not really that easy. Especially if there are people with spears around. You pretty much stay close to the people around you to protect yourself. Because you WILL be blindsided.
@@lloydeaker3757 Were the armies highly organized or was it just a bunch of people meeting up for a once a year occasion? If such a large group was to regularly train in formation, like 3 hours a day, I believe there would be a huge difference. Also, the correct use of officers and planned strategy would need to be mastered, otherwise even a melee with less than a thousand would tend to become a chaotic mass of bodies. I mean no disrespect, but I believe it is hard to say for certain how such battles are carried out without having dedicated strategy and military discipline training while in formations. It's for this reason why I want to start a legion, so I can test all of these ideas and strategies. The difficulty is finding people with the passion and determination to train like this more than a couple hours a week.
@@vaskil99 As I said, I did this for almost 3 decades. We normally train to fight individually but participate in large melees usually monthly. Like most modern people, playing at our hobbies, we spend more time doing this than most individuals in the medieval period would have. Granted I am mostly speaking about the medieval but Roman legionaries, like most armies, actually do other things than practice combat on a training field I do not accept there being much difference. Much of the practice they did was also individually. This is why veteran units are so much superior they have actually done the fighting and have learned. Training as close to reality as possible is very difficult.
Cohesion would be held as long as possible for skilled armies. Heavy infantry would not necessarily be the 'hammer', but rather the solid 'anvil' for which the more mobile 'hammer' force would attack the enemy heavy infantry pinned by the shield wall. Holding a tight and disciplined shield wall wears down the enemy at a faster pace than the enemy's aggressive swordsman while allowing the battle to develop and openings for cavalry and light infantry to capitalize on. The tight ranks attempt to hold while the more aggressive side wears themselves out and exposes weaknesses. Frontal charges were rarely made against armies supposed to have strong ranks.
No, it is the elite part of your army that usually tries to break thru. Tjis can be cav, but it can also be infantrie. Im hoplite warfare it was usually the right flank.
@@giftzwerg7345 Theoretically you have a point, but reality intervenes. Most battles were fought just hoping to hold the army together long enough. Dramatic insertion of a quick reaction of elite forces was something Alexander or Scipio Africanus or Hannibal may have accomplished, but usual battles would have been more basic. Your birds-eye wargame aspect of control in the mayhem of large battles is difficult to replicate in the real world. Potent cavalry was also rather rare in ancient warfare. As the general, you prepare everything and set in in motion, but then you are generally at the mercy of the fates. Not much chance for a micro-manager.
Excellent video with excellent information - the rioting video at 3:09 is really persuasive in showing how ancient battles worked in reality! It makes sense and I can finally imagine! Thank you!
Except the riot video showed why this video is completely illogical. In the riot video they were shoulder to shoulder. There was no gap in their wall. Because a gap = death. There’s no way the Romans fought 3 feet apart. That’s instant death. They fought in a shield wall. Not in a staggered shield fence. The formations are logical. Not the spacing.
I don't comment on any video, but your work in those last two is fantastic. It is a doubt I always had, kept the difficult of trying to imagine how to combats went. Some things I had the right concept, some werer completly wrong. In most history books they talk abou the Grand Strategy behind, not talking abou the actual combat. Anyway, thank you very much.
They probably used tight and loose formations too. Tight formations, gives the unit "weight" and not just becasue they would push with their shields, but stab over or next to their shield, even 2 person against 1 at a time, unless the enemy pulls themselves into a tighter formation they need to slowly back up because the roman formation becomes a grinding machine. Very effective downhill, and very hard to counter for an enemy with less cohesion, especially after many of them lost their shields to pila throws, but probably the basic formation was one like explained in the video, where they would stand a bit loose, to have space. The romans were really good to adapt, so they probably had lots of formations grinded into their legionaries, to choose the best suited for the actual situation. Just imagine that you are a gallic warrior from a random tribe, you lived your life in your village, and then you meet the romans, you hear the sound of horns, they throw their pila at you, people fall left and right next to you, but you are lucky, you only lost your shield, you hear another trumpet, and their entire army reacts to it as a unit, pulling their largely loose formation into a packed tight one, and they start to slowly move forward, from their uphill position. That must be scary for most of the tribesman.
brilliant work. would love follow-up of this, set during the technological hight of cold steel warfare and then on into the 17th (maybe early 18th) century. The human XP of pike and shot formations into the last days of the era of cold steel. can't wait for the video (mentioned at end) on different types of forces, like: cav, archers, inf and auxiliaries. wow 3 era's with 4 unit types per era, thats like a 12 video series. ur on to a good idea here.
OMG. NOW I understand why flanking is so important. thanks you ! Also I enjoy that modeling approach. Did you use a modeling framework to evaluate the accuracy of proposed models ?
Impressive to see an historian that even knows the name of personal retinue guards and how the battles was actually fought that is concluded from both history and logic. This is exactly how medieval and ancient conflict would look like because its precisely how we do melee even today and its by instinct.
Thanks for the comment 😊. It was time to show that history is something more than memes and generals. Specialized history can also be entertaining if it's correctly explained and properly researched
I really don't think the thin strip exists. It's too easy to get ganged up on when other soldiers start dying. It's much easier to replace wounded and dead comrades if they're almost right behind you than if you have a short distance to cover, because even a second can be the difference between life and death. Again, like I said on Part 1, I think our best comparison for ancient warfare is linear warfare with muskets, pike and shot warfare as well. Longer engagement distances, but we also have charges and brutal hand-to-hand combat. No shields or armor for infantry is a big difference, but most other things should be similar. Modern riot police versus a mob isn't similar because most of the time, the mob isn't armed.
Completely agree except for with the riot police. They’re the perfect example to use. The creator even used them in this video in a way that disproved their point. The riot police were stood shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. When the mob rushes them they can’t get through. Now do the exact same thing but have the police 3 metres apart. The line is broke in the first charge. I don’t see how the person who made this video could use that video and come to the conclusion that it did anything but disprove their theory.
0:40 what othismos was really like is also somewhat contested due to scarcity of descriptions and the fact that it wasn't even second but third (or more) hand explanation. It's also important to remember it was the type of warfare characteristic for late hellenistic era, not what peloponesian or persian wars would have been fought like
What othismos was is pretty clear, though - a bullshit misinterpretation of source material used as the main pillar of an outdated traditionalist model that got its start with ideologically-fuelled 19th century historians.
So the Roman command structure actually accounted for human psychology. They took steps to counteract the terror and trauma that pretty much anyone would experience going into battle and made that a part of their battle strategy. Fascinating.
Appreciate this info. The checkerboard strategy is genius, seems both efficient and hard to deal with. Hollywood's depictions are generally a disservice to the intellect and strategy of ancient warfare as well as it's difficult realities. They really thought about war, just as much if not more than we do today. I'd love to know if we have details about any specific formations used against the Romans, successful or not.
a question i have is about the part where you say that the soldiers at the back only served as replacments to thoes in front. i wounder then why in some cases high concetration of men caused a breakthrough through enemy lines. im not sure which roman battle it was but there was a part where the romans pushed many men at a certain point and broke through the enemy line. so how does the increase in numbers really help a front line? since it seems that it would only serve as a great pile of replacements according to the video. and that would only help with long term battels. another question is about the roman sword. if you say that soldiers had space to fight the enemy, and that they werent side by side packeged together. then how would the short roman sword become advantageous? if the romans werent shoving thier lines against the enemy line while sliding thier short swords every once in a whille, wouldnt a longer sowrd be more useful in this case? since if they have space, and as the figures in the videos showed only the front line was fighting, then it seems like they were having mini duels at the front? what im trying to ask is was it posible that the front line was in reality side by side with no space to create a wall and use the short sword to stab between the shild wall?
That’s exactly why they had a short sword. It’s existence shows the logical mess of the creators theory. The gladius is useless in hand to hand combat. Reach always wins. ALWAYS. Skill pretty much never defeats reach. That’s why knights who were trained from childhood in warfare died to peasants who served a few months a year if even if they held a pike. Being good with a sword is irrelevant if you can’t get close to your enemy. And in the case of a shield wall, reach is neutralised because there’s no room to swing. So short stabbing swords won. That’s why Rome conquered basically everything.
These videos are great. I do think we may be underestimating how numb veteran soldiers can get to the adrenaline and fear. Of course they would still get tired and still get a rush but we know from modern times soldiers begin to get a bit numb to the potential death.
Use my link get.atlasvpn.com/Filaxim to get Atlas VPN exclusive deal with 82% OFF!
So the next Video is about Phalanx battles especially the Macedonians?
I've just want answers on how do Pike Phalanxes protect themselves from arrows with thin pikes?
Because that doesn't make any sense & I couldn't find a video to demonstrate this
_ pes 20 T numerol _ 20 sid gamadion _ pythagoras tetractys hexagram 20 _ atlas _ atlast20 _ 048 even _ 1235679 odd _ english T 20th letter _
I now want a whole movie that is just realistically depicting a single battle like this. There would certainly be enough material for scenes from showing the back ranks insulting and throwing stuff at each other to soldiers dealing with having to be the next one fighting to the slow process of actually moving a unit somewhere else.
Imagine a whole realistic movie solely about the logistics and transport of an army and supplies to a battle location, forming ranks, and going through a day-long battle. Just like one small part of a conflict, but as realistic a battle as possible
not a movie, but if u mod bannerlord (game) u can have this effect, not entirely ofc since the ai and the game are limited, but u do get lines that dont go into eachother and can be very passive when attacking
"throwing stuff" has a limited appeal. Say the Romans throw first, next the enemy can pick up whatever was "thrown" and throw it back.
That's the idea behind the Pilium. Doesn't throw back well.
It also probably looked a whole lot like a Rugby Scrum.
@@wizardkevin101makes me wish history Channel still covered history😂
first minutes of HBO ROme show this
We were overwhelmed by the positive response this series received. Thank you all for sharing your unique stories, opinions, and questions! As a result, we will be continuing this series with models of cavalry combat, hoplite warfare, common field strategies, and more. So make sure you are subscribed and enjoy the show!
So happy for that!
This is incredible, very excited about all of them but I am most intrigued by hoplite warfare. Even though I have a general idea of how they did battle, your analyses are amazing and answer the most important questions.
These are fantastic! I love them ! More like this please
Can't wait! Keep up the great work!
Fascinating topic and suberb presentation. Thank you for doing this. Appreciated 💯
It's really interesting to see just how many parallels there were between everything in this video and the later 18th-19th C. history that I work with. Formations are important! Someone had better tell Pullo.
The man never wanted to share the glory with his colleagues... what a shameful display 🤣
Indeed! History tends to rhyme, and military formations are no different! :)
@@HistoriaMilitum Can you make a video how The Roman Army distinguished themselves whenever they enemies or friendlies during the Civil wars?
Because HBO Rome, both sides wearing the same uniforms & gear so how would they know which side they're on?
Hey, Brandon here!
Drunken fool.
Holy hell this makes so much sense. It makes the ancient battles seem that much more realistic. The 3 officer system also works so well and the part about the flanks shows why it could be so devastating!!! Very well done Filaxim. Very well done. You're a gem on this app.
"Holy hell this makes so much sense" was my feeling exactly! I'd thought the details here remained murky - how far has recent scholarship come! 😮
It's quite satisfying when something complex comes into focus like this.
Do you know what game was used for some of the animations?
Rome total war 2 @@Mr.Spade1
I think this is the first time I've finally understood ancient warfare. I'd love to see this applied to battles like Watling street where breaks would have been seemingly impossible
@@Mr.Spade1 Total war Rome 2, great game
This is a very bold and interesting video rethinking what we already know and arrange it in coherent fashion as to see how we understand again the sources. Love it I hope to see more
As someone who reads about wars and military theory, I’m really impressed by the accuracy of the information in this video. Definitely one of the best series on this topic. Keep it up!
Been at the study of Roman military history for well over 40 years and these in depth videos are so welcome. Please keep it up friends!!
yes these videos certainly do give a different and additional perspective than even the best tactical and operational videos of a battle or campaign don't they. At the end of the day it all comes down to the individual soldiers and groups of men armed with swords and spears facing the enemy.
Dude…both of these videos were outstanding. I absolutely love history but never even considered switching soldiers and what not. Amazing video really
Thank you for the comment, I am glad you enjoyed :)
When you hear about field battles going on for multiple days, with armies returning to their camps for food and rest and redeploying formally the next morning, it become clear that a fair number of individual people during battles weren't actually engaging in frontline combat, but rather patrolling flanks and filling gaps.
The bloodiest battle tend to be the ones where forced are closed in against eachother, eliminating maneuvering room, increasing mental stress and panic of the trapped force, and leading to a one-sided slaughter.
How did they fight at night during the pitch black?
This is definitely one of the most interesting channels on UA-cam
Great description. Very, very good. I have studied military battles since I was a kid and I am 47 years old. But this aspect of man to man combat are rarely covered and they describe the dynamics of the organization of armies. It is amazing how much psychology was a decisive factor in battles prior to or even after World War 2. Even soldiers armed with guns largely fought in large groups and at close range. Soldiers drew either courage or fear from the soldiers around them. Entire armies could route within minutes. My only personal experience from that was when I fought in "snowball wars" as a kid in school.
But when I trained as an infantryman conscript in the army things were very different. You have your squad and you are quite isolated with about ten guys, not knowing much about what is happening outside of the squad. If you are defending you know instinctively that there is no safety in running away from the enemy as they will shoot you in the back and artillery might kill you if you get out of your trench, foxhole or cover.
Very interesting.
Thank you for the comment and for sharing your personal experience!
The Romans actually had a similar system of isolation into small squads. Each soldier was part of his own squad of only 8 men, who they ate, slept, and trained with. 10 of these squads made up the full century of 80 men which I present in combat throughout the video. So all of them would be standing next to close comrades and friends, so that they coordinate better. Cheers!
@@HistoriaMilitum yes you are referring to the contubernia. There are some great documentaries about that unit made by the Invicta and Imperium Romanum youtube channels. A very imporant logistical and social unit. Still aside from scouting or policing duties, they fought in the centurys/company equivalent.
Stable radio signal changed war forever
Watching this to improve my Total War Rome tactics
With the little bit of sword and shield fighting I've done and the little bit of tactics I've read about and battles I've learned: this is exactly how I've always imagined a battle would actually look. I'm so glad there's actual research supporting it now.
@@vanivanov9571 1m = 3'3".
@@vanivanov9571 what are you talking about. 1m is nearly 3ft. So saying there is 1m between Romans, or there is 3 ft between Romans is the same thing. I never said anything about 2.6m you're being dense and confrontational about something you know nothing about.
Its not research. Its opinion.
Also, if you do hema style fighting, take it with a grain of salt. It was developed by two dudes over tens years. A recent phenomenon like how mma was developed in the last decade or so.
Also hema IS about dueling or Gladiator fighting, there IS Difference between dueling and a full on Battle with several lines of men. Also the theory of spreading Out seems very fishy since they are way too many gaps a warrior can Cut through or an cavalry Charge can completely destroy the Units
Absolutely amazing! Please make a part 3, 4, 5 and 6+ and please talk about what happens when their commanders perish. More discussion on different types of units throughout history too. Thank you and please more
I had the rough idea already, but this series was really good at explaining the logic behind why battles were fought like that
@@vanivanov9571 1m is about 3 feet...not that exact measurements have anything to do with logic
your previous video got me back to Rome: Total War
Can't believe 3 weeks passed but remember the Part 1 as freshly as possible. These two videos answered everything I needed to know about how the Romans actually worked in battle . Thank you from 🇨🇴!
Nice videos.
- The game "A Legionary's Life" seems to nicely depict that "short frontline clash" nature of combat.
- One thing particularly dangerous when routing was Elephants. I like to say that deploying Elephants would result in one of two outcomes:
1. The enemy routed and you won
2. Your elephants routed, fled through your lines and you lost
Elephants seem like the most useless scare tactic of armies throughout history. They were probably mostly status symbols. I can't think of many times they were pivotal to battles between even sided armies. I mean you would think they would be strong, like amazing shock cavalry, but they are slow and more afraid of you than you are of them. Good commanders almost always found ways to negate or exploit them. They are also extremely expensive to maintain.
@@Harrier_DuBoisand they are very bad against monks as well
@@vanivanov9571 Riot police use the shieldwall, not the Roman manipular system.
@@vanivanov9571 When did I say never?
When in fact they used a shield wall as part of their Phalanx phase?
If you are done putting words into my mouth, can we start an actual discussion?
@@vanivanov9571 why you deleted all comments?
can you please do one for cavalry vs cavalry engagements ? i cannot believe cavalry did actually clash with eachother life in strategy games
Yes please!
He said he would in the next one!
I’m interested to see what his research shows for cavalry fighting in general, but especially when faced against infantry. In movies and games, horses either smash through people like cars, or instantly die when faced with pikes or spears, losing all momentum when doing so, neither of which make much physical sense.
There’s also the issue of sustained fighting between cavalry and infantry. Whenever I think about it logically, it always looks like infantry should be able to easily slaughter horses and their riders, so I’d be interested to see how that pans out.
@@Chewberto what i think is , due to their very high cost (horse and training on how to ride it), they will absolutely avoid being wasted, which means they will actually maneuver all the time to try to find gaps to exploit, and only attack when suck opportunity arises, like disorganized infantry.
they might throw javelines at them to keep them pinned down, and even if they charge, infantry will support them to maintain the gap. But NEVER will cavalry charge into a wall of spears, and continue fighting the infantry after contact if they stayed organized.
as for Cav vs Cav, i assume it almost never happens as a charge vs charge, more like a cavalry trying to outflank eachother and launching missiles at them, until one camp routs the other.
You should read Ardant du Picq's work Battle Studies on this matter, the first thing to acknowledge is that the casualties of cavalry clashes were always low, because, in Ardant du Picq's words: "(in cavalry clashes) 49 of 50 one side hesitated, disordered and fled before contact was made. Approx. 75 % of the time this will happen at a distance, before they can see each other's eyes."
Cavalry clashes were always the game of morale, even more heavily than in infantry clashes.
Thanks to your video I have now less fear participating in an Antique battle.
This series is a game changer! I love learning these details about battle formations.
These two videos are one of the coolest and most interesting history videos I've seen.
Thoroughly enjoying this series! This is probably the thing I'd like to see the most in ancient times. How combat actually played out. It's such a mystery and do intriguing. Keep up the great work 👍🏽
Great work, finally explains perfectly how humanity survived through countless major battles. These were more often about surviving than about slaughtering.
Would be great to try and study how wounded soldiers were treated or evacuated.
It would be fascinating to explore what happens to the troops after the route. Thousands of men wandering the countryside randomly? Did they often know where to regroup? Did many just desert?
The only real answer is "it depends". Some would desert, some would try to get back to their camp where maybe a proper defence could be mounted if fortifications had been set up, some would be cut off and slaughtered, some would regroup along the road as they fled (since most probably wouldn't flee through more difficult off-road terrain if they could help it). Sometimes an army might be broken and its baggage captured, but most troops are able to regroup and reorganise even if they have to still retreat in order to resupply.
After the English rout at the Battle of Hastings, a mixture of things happened. The broken English mainly fled along the road to London, but some were scattered to the wilderness But one pursuing body of Norman cavalry ran into a prepared English trench and got trapped, prompting the fleeing English to regroup and kill a lot of knights.
Some of the broken English fled all the way back to London, well over a day's forced march away, and when a panicked rumour broke out that the Normans were right behind them there was a crowd crush to cross the bridge across the Thames, which resulted in the bridge breaking under the weight and many men drowning.
And Xenophon gave his amazing first-person account of the retreat of ten thousand Greeks back through hundreds of kilometres of enemy territory following a battlefield draw at Cunaxa. Their camp is taken but the Greeks maintain cohesion and are approached for peace negotiations. An enemy leader then provides the Greeks with provisions and offers to "escort" them peacefully out of Persian territory, but this is a trap and the Greek leadership are slaughtered during further peace talks. The remaining Greeks have to retreat under constant harassment but most make it back to their homelands.
As the previous commenter said, it depends. If the enemy mounted a chase, then many of them were cut down. Lot of them went back to their camp for their items/golds/to regroup, if it wasnt possible because of a coordinated attack on the camp, then they wandered along the roads, some went home, some deserted, foraged for water and food, some followed their leader and regrouped somewhere relatively safe place to resupply. At the battle of keresztes 1596 the christian forces were about to raid the ottoman camp and started doing so, because most of the enemy was routed, but their unorganized attack on the camp resulted in the ottomans regrouping and routed the christian army who previously won the battle on the battlefield.
Didnt expect part 2 so soon! Great work!!!
As one who has since very early youth had questions about these details re. ancient warfare battles, I greatly appreciate the research you've done to provide much greater insights about the military tactics of victories, at the level of the men who fought them. Kudos !
I really like what you're doing with this serie ! Keep it up : )
I would just want to say that the point you make at 1:56 that the front rank would be alone in the "tension zone" doesn't quite pass the smell test I think. At the very least, the 2nd ranker would have to be close enough to step over the falling body of his 1st ranker before the enemy combatant has a chance pounce 2vs1 against one of the adjacent 1st ranker. I think the 2nd ranker would even be probably close enough to provide some physical support if the 1st ranker was about to be knocked over (but not too the point of shoving the poor guy back toward the enemy). Further, the 2nd ranker would probably be expected to step in and exploit any small gap created by the men in the 1st rank.
Thanks for the comment! Your reasoning seems quite compelling and could definitely be the case. We only over exaggerated the gap between the first 2 ranks to emphasise that the 1st rank would be fighting largely alone. But shorter spacing and even supporting 2nd ranks running up to help could very well be possible. Thanks for the comment!
People often forget the human aspect of conflict and treat combatants like robots ("Why didn't they just...") This does a great job of not doing that. Thanks!
This is one of my favorite subject posted by this and many other history channels, i want to thank and congratulate you for such an amazing job.
That’s very nice to hear, we are glad our most ambitious video got such praise!
1:43 I don't know about that conclusion, I mean in the modern day marksmanship is often highly valued but modern combat is almost entirely about a unit's ability to work together and their access to supporting assets. It's just that no matter how a weapon is actually used people tend to value individual skill with that weapon, if nothing else for the sake of competition and the ability to show off back at camp. We can find countless examples of competition and almost ritualized forms of combat that had little to do with how battles were actually fought, like medieval tourneys and samurai swordsmanship.
Bingo!
Individual combat is useless in a battle. It doesn’t matter what era that’s in, fighting alone = death.
As you said, modern militaries train in marksmanship. They test it. They drill it endlessly. They give awards for it. They hold competitions in it. They teach you to fire in groups and lay suppression more than anything in an actual fire fight.
You have someone shoot in the general direction of the enemy while others move close. You repeat this until you’re literally on top of them and either and you bayonet or shoot from a couple of feet. Marksmanship is irrelevant at that point.
I couldn't stop thinking about your first part, now you give us part 2! Nice! more to think about.
Love your videos. You're great at it. Video Suggestion: What happens post-battle Win or Loss in an area. POWs, all the gear laying around, villages revolt, plunder, raze, etc. I've always been curious.
Outstanding effort with none of the ridiculous stuff that used to be peddled by Classics academics firmly lodged in an ivory tower about units leaning on each other and going "heave" in a sort of huge rugby scrum.
I honestly never thought about it before but riot police fighting with rioter is probably the closest thing we'll ever see to roman battles with barbarians
Yep. And if they were 3 feet apart their formation would be broken in the first charge.
That’s the only thing you needed to hear from this video to know the rest is just opinion with no basis.
Seriously! A full metre between shoulders would have the Romans lose every battle against the superior numbers they fought in most conflicts. The first charge would completely break their lines.
But how? The infantry formation is deep, enemies entering inside would be stabbed by those in the back, right? Cops don't have 5-8 lines deep formations @@markarmstrong5234
He literally used a video of the riot police standing shoulder to shoulder as a visual reference of how ancient soldiers fought standing 3 ft apart.. 😂
@@markarmstrong5234they're crazy 🤣 They literally saw the video of riot police standing shoulder to shoulder and thought it a grand representation of how ancient soldiers stood 3ft apart 🤪
@@AustinMiller-dp9xythat really got me. Spend 12 minutes talking absolute shite and show a clip of a video that instantly disproves everything they said.
It’s like they saw Kratos swinging his chain swords and thought “that must be how battles happened”.
Can’t believe no other channel covered a topic like this. I’ve always wondered what ancient battles looked like
Look up Lindybeige. He spoke about this years ago.
@@Tom-sd9jb True, love Lindybeige, but the rioting video provided here was such a nice and clear example.
No other channel covered a topic like this because the video is wrong.
We’ve known for thousands of years that they stood shoulder to shoulder, because they did.
If they didn’t, the army would be broken and routed at the first charge every time.
@@markarmstrong5234 🤡
this series is sick, glad ive found this channel
Hey great video I would ask you to reconsider your comment about not pushing with the shield and how it's not designed for it. I absolutely agree back ranks were not pushing front ranks forward that would just make it harder to fight. Though the center grip shield like used by the Roman's and the Norse are absolutely wonderful weapons as well as shields. You can definitely push quite well with a shield like that. I was in the SCA for several years. A good shield can be just as much a weapon as a tool for defense. I seen a 6 and half ft tall 300 plus pound guy run and jump as hard as he could into a shield wall. Lol he thought he could break through our line. He bounced off like a rubber ball went flying backwards and dam near knocked himself out even wearing his helm and armor. He was messed up enough he didn't fight anymore that day. That was not even professionals like the Roman's just some part time guys playing soldier lol. So if we could make a wall like that I could only imagine how good a veteran unit of Roman soldiers were. I just thought I would tell you about this as you can do so many things with a center boss grip shield you can't do with one strapped to your arm. Thanks again for the video
This totally makes sense. I often wondered how men could fight for hours. ❤
You made it easy to understand
Tight formations. 1 meter between them, front ranks more 1v1 and more shelds
2:34 moral tension zone and stand off
3:58 aproching with range
4:40 deep ranks, flank charges
5:14 space between units
5:40 barbirans
9:46 replacing units, more on gaps
10:40 unique times
11:17 pursing
I Knew the Standard bearer was there to Show the Unit, and Direction to push. I didnt piece it together though as a Rallying Point(how you described it as a cell)but more of a Unit Marker to identify different units on the Field. Now I see Why The EAGLE was So important because of the NUCLEUS model You described. THANKS
The best analogy I use to describe what hand to hand battle was like, especially for the guys on the front line; if you’ve ever been to a hardcore music concert where there’s a mosh pit, and you’ll see people work up courage to get into the pit, then pop back out to catch their breath.
Great video and insights.
Makes it more understandable now why the Romans routed at the battle of Cannae.
Huge numbers of infantry compressed together while they are being attacked from front, side and back.
awesome series about how roman battles actually worked! I've always found the ways battles are depicted in movies and games a bit akward, especially because it almost always seems as if the soldiers (and horses) don't really have any self preservation. this series really filled in a lot of gaps in my own knowledge of how these battles work out. thanks for the great video :D
PLEASE DO CAVALRY!!
Cavalry vs cavalry
Cavalry vs infantry
Heavy cavalry, etc.
There’s so much to get into there
Part 3 please. Great job with the first 2
One thing to add, when you were squeezed in a flank or otherwise, it had to have been hard to breath pushed together with all that armor on.
Makes sense. Always wondered why flanking is so devastating in hand to hand combat. I mean, you just turn part of your unit to face the other way. Your explanation makes sense.
This is amazing! Really helps visualize the past. There’s a game we used to play as kids in Lebanon that recreates these kinds of mechanics!
What is the game? Running across your comment has made me curious.
Amazing video, I've always wanted to know how battles were ACTUALLY fought compared to movies and video games.
This series has been awesome so far. Looking forward to the next one
Could you possibly cover PTSD or battle trauma in the ancient army? Surely it had to exist, but I've not seen much in the way of research in the subject aside from occasional references or little notes here and there.
Thank you :) You have on article on the description by Melchior who delves a bit into the psycological aspect of ancient warfare. There is also another one by Koreen Van Lommel covering the "mental breakdowns" of roman soldiers and how at some point might have been legally recognized as a discharge cause.
On the grand scheme of things the topic is still in it's infancy. The romans psychological "wiring" was different from ours, things that might have broken a modern man would have been fairly normal by roman standards and vice versa. Then there is the PTSD itself which is still not 100% understood and what exactly triggers it. That's why researchers are still a bit cautious when approaching the topic and why we would advice caution and big grains of salt because we are not on solid ground
@@JonEtxebeberriaRodriguez I can't find where I read this since its years ago, but the reason why soldiers in modern wars are more prone to PTSD is because of the ranged nature of combat. I mean, instead of portions of armies flinging projectiles its nearly everyone. And oh, there is the artillery that can pummel you safely from a distance. Like, over a dozen kilometers away. For medium ones. Which lead to second thing. Battles may have lasted hours and often not have some deadly exchanges and its just back to stand offs. And skirmishers might need some break too and oh, gather some ammo from the battlefield. Today, the industrial nature means there is...alot of ammo to get and with the logistics of industrial nations and their motorized logistics, well, a lot of actions is afforded.
Which is why soldiers in modern warfare are more prone to such pyschological conditions. Well, that was the speculation.
Though, I can imagine the soldiers at Carrhae, not Cannae, Carrhae, where Crassus lead doomed Roman legions at Parthia and as well as Teutoberg forest to be suffering under this. Well, those who survived of course.
This is singularly the best video on how exactly ancient battles worked in real life! Can't praise it enough! (mental note: Dynamic standoff theory)
Thanks for the comment, very glad you found it useful!
A lot of issues with your assumptions. For instance, in the early republic the most experienced and best fighters were in the last line. The most inexperienced and youngest would be in the front. The lines would be the Hastati (youngest) Princepes (middle) and lastly the Triarii (the most experienced veterans) this was likely because you don’t want to risk your best fighters dying on the front lines to javelins and missiles. Or, enemy traps like caltrops and other ancient surprises. Also if the rookies in the front line tire or lose heart and your front line breaks the veterans in the back are less likely to panic and run with the rookies start running from the front. Also the young soldier psychology was such that a soldier did not want to be embarrassed in the eyes of the veterans he likely looked up to and respected that were right behind him. A coward would have to run past the veterans that he respected and aspired to be as they looked on shaming the young soldier. As opposed to the veterans being in the front, if they broke temporarily and the young inexperienced soldier saw the best fighters falling back it’s likely to induce mass panic and retreat.
My second issue is the fact the loose spacing cohort fighting evolved much later than the original manipular style Roman army tactics when they started fighting the barbarians like the Gauls in earnest after Greece and Etruscans had fallen. The original Republican army was basically a copy from the Etruscan and Greek army. And in their style of warfare, hoplites and phalangites in phalanxes the name of the game was staying in formation and working as a solid unit to break the enemy formation. This is how the Sacred Band of Thebes broke the Spartans, the allied army stacked its flank double depth in ranks and simply over powered the Spartan line by sheer weight. Once you “shoved” through the enemy line and it broke, the slaughter would start as the enemy broke formation and ran.
The Spartan hoplites and Thebans and later, Macedonian Phalanxes, were so effective because the men were professionals and experts at operating as part of a unit. Individual skill was celebrated but the greatest emphasis was on the camaraderie and discipline of the unit as a whole.
Ancient battles WERE NOT a bunch of individual soldiers running up and having a sword fight with other individuals and then breaking off and returning to their lines. This is absurd. For any actual soldier who’s been to real war, you know your courage and training is completely dependent upon the unit as a whole maneuvering and executing tactics cohesively in general. Individuals or small groups who charge into the enemy will die and die really quick.
The Spartan, Theban, Macedonian, Roman armies were so effective because they were mercilessly drilled and trained to operate within a unit, an individual as part of team. Like a cog in a machine. The unit tactics changed but the goal remained the same. For individual soldiers to work in step with his unit.
No, I’m sorry, Roman era battles were not single lines or small groups of soldiers engaging the enemy and then falling back it was generally speaking maniple and cohort maneuvering, pressing the enemy, maintaining formation and as one breaking the enemy unit so that when it shattered and ran the enemy could be cut down individually. It was very much a shoving match of sorts in Ancient Greek phalanx warfare and this didn’t change until late Republican Marian reforms and it simply evolved to be smaller more maneuverable units that would operate as one entity to close with, engage, wear down or break outright an enemy section/unit/area so a new weakness could be exploited by those units behind, hence the checkerboard pattern.
Hastati would engage the enemy in semi disordered units as they were the least experienced, then the Principes would move in to either relieve exhausted front line Hastati, or exploit advantages created by the Hastati. If the Principes moved up and relieved the Hastati and they themselves began to tire and still no decisive breach or advantage was created the Triarii would move up as the best and most experienced units and press the attack on the enemy, you don’t get anywhere by having small engagements and letting the enemy withdraw and rest while your men rest that’s stupid. The Triarii would then as a cohesive well disciplined unit seek to break the enemy front outright or create an advantage for the reformed and rested Hastati and Principes units to reengage and achieve a break through.
The one thing that was obvious is that the real slaughters didn’t happen until one side broke and ran generally speaking as mentioned. But the biggest fable of all is this notion of the Hollywood/Video Game idea of combat, individuals engaging individuals with feet of space between them and other combatants. No No No, ancient soldiers operated in cohesive units and sought to engage the enemy as a unit always.
You don’t win a sword fight by being the greatest swordsman, you win a sword fight by blocking the enemies sword while your fellow soldiers stab him in the side or rear. Hence you worked as a unit always. Soldiers get their strength and courage from their comrades and very rarely would you see small pockets of individuals running up and engaging the enemy and then falling back. In fact, it is well documented that Ancient Greek battles always placed the veterans on the right of a line, because the tendency was for the hoplites to drift to the right, behind the shield of the man to your right. So you’d out your best men on the right to maintain formation and prevent a line drifting into the shadow of the mans Joplin next to you for protection. This is more evidence that ancient battles were fought by cohesive units working as one to break the enemy line.
This is really really interesting - Outstanding job guys.
Most interesting video ive seen this week
Hands-down the best explanation of the checkerboard formation, the Roman unit cohesion, & most importantly the adaptability of Roman armies on the unit level. There are just a few points I'd like to criticize. One is that, yes, the cohesion of the unit was the key that had them conquer everyone. Two: there are no evidence or mentions that armies other than Romans used to replace already combated men throughout the bettle. Three: I think it's mentioned that the Roman soldier was protected by his fellow soldier to his right. The hand that carried no protection, & that side of the body relied on the other man over to that side. So we can guess that while the Romans did keep space for one-on-one, their space used to be less than their enemies used to have, especially barbarians, & especially their non-elite units, the bulk of gheir armies, who were ordinary men who just learnt individual combat, but not unit tactics & organization. Four: it is famously mentioned that the barbarians all charged & used up their energy in MAX 2 hours into battles, but the Romans could fight all day. Because, & this is in the records, they stood behind their shield & mostly stabbed, despite the barbarians who went out of their way & fought over-vigorously. The Romans kept the line at all costs. When fighting constantly, they had their line in order, & the safety of the man to the right allowed them to focus on the front & keep the order, instead of turning in any directions to fight threats oncoming through uncovered small individual gaps. So, keeping a cool head, they conserved their energy by exploiting exposures in their rival's posture & gurad & easily stabbing them through those, which takes far less enrgy that slashing. Slashing is why Gallic swords were longer than the typical Roman gladius. Gladius' length is proper for defending stabs most of all
Yep. It’s like the creator heard about a sword competition once and decided he had come to a revelation that contradicted 2,000 years worth of historians, military tactics and even logic.
The formations aspect of this video is quite good. The 3 foot spacing is laughably stupid. A legionary with an unwieldy, full body sized shield and tiny sword would almost never defeat someone with a smaller shield and much longer sword or spear. Reach wins. Unless that reach is neutralised by say… standing in a line with shields that create some sort of wall.
This makes so much sense! I'm really enjoying this series. Well done and thanks a bunch!
This is the only site I clicked the bell for. I've been on youtube since the beginning.
Always wondered what ancient battles looked like to front line soldiers. This video answered that question perfectly.
I learned a lot, thank you for making this video, I really enjoyed it and I think a lot of others did too
Thank you! Im glad you enjoyed, it was very fun doing the research :)
UA-cam and the internet in general really needed this video
Two of the best history related videos I've watched in a long time. Original, thought provoking, well researched, and logical. I regret I can only subscribe once. Would love to see your take on cavalry combat, and especially a comparison between hoplite combat and shieldwalls in late antiquity and the early medieval period, and how much the latter may have carried over or differed from the former.
This series was incredible! ❤
Great video, nothing more to say. Love it
An excellent continuation of battle breakdowns, you guys are providing rare and insightful information. I'm glad to see someone finally discussing the rotation of men in the front, as modern media makes it seem its a fight to the death scenario in the front. Also the spacing is a huge thing I have wondered about and as a modern swordsman I fully agree with this image of only the front row fighting and with plenty of room, melee combat requires space and fighting with many close together would greatly reduce effectiveness of skill. Thinking in this way does make flanking seem all the more devastating and helps me realize why battles were ended so quickly after successful flanking. This video also makes a good point about officers and makes me have an even greater respect for centurions, as it certainly would require a brave person to lead from the front to inspire. The idea of chasing after routing enemies that can then turn to fight reminds me of how they say the Normans defeated many Anglo-Saxons during the battle of Hastings, it makes sense.
Keep up the good work, I'm really looking forward to the cavalry breakdown, especially if there is something about how they effect units of infantry.
Question for you. As a modern swordsmen have you ever fought in the middle of a formation of 40 to 100 people?
@@lloydeaker3757 Unfortunately I have not had that experience. I've mostly trained with others in Medieval dueling techniques, with longswords. If I could manage to round up enough like minded people, I would definitely start my own Legion or Phalanx. I have done small skirmishes of about 5 vs 5 but it wasn't anything close to a formation. If you're interested in starting swordsmanship, I can point you to some good resources or possibly some groups.
@@vaskil99 The reason I wrote is I have participated in "melee" with hundreds of people on a side. Using sword and shield in the Society for Creative Anachronism. Not really a reenacting group. But much closer than most think. Having done that for almost 3 decades I can tell you that moving around is not really that easy. Especially if there are people with spears around. You pretty much stay close to the people around you to protect yourself. Because you WILL be blindsided.
@@lloydeaker3757 Were the armies highly organized or was it just a bunch of people meeting up for a once a year occasion? If such a large group was to regularly train in formation, like 3 hours a day, I believe there would be a huge difference. Also, the correct use of officers and planned strategy would need to be mastered, otherwise even a melee with less than a thousand would tend to become a chaotic mass of bodies. I mean no disrespect, but I believe it is hard to say for certain how such battles are carried out without having dedicated strategy and military discipline training while in formations. It's for this reason why I want to start a legion, so I can test all of these ideas and strategies. The difficulty is finding people with the passion and determination to train like this more than a couple hours a week.
@@vaskil99 As I said, I did this for almost 3 decades. We normally train to fight individually but participate in large melees usually monthly. Like most modern people, playing at our hobbies, we spend more time doing this than most individuals in the medieval period would have. Granted I am mostly speaking about the medieval but Roman legionaries, like most armies, actually do other things than practice combat on a training field I do not accept there being much difference. Much of the practice they did was also individually. This is why veteran units are so much superior they have actually done the fighting and have learned. Training as close to reality as possible is very difficult.
As an larp and fencing practioner liked the focus/inclusion of psychology in battle very mutch, good description. Thanks
Cohesion would be held as long as possible for skilled armies. Heavy infantry would not necessarily be the 'hammer', but rather the solid 'anvil' for which the more mobile 'hammer' force would attack the enemy heavy infantry pinned by the shield wall. Holding a tight and disciplined shield wall wears down the enemy at a faster pace than the enemy's aggressive swordsman while allowing the battle to develop and openings for cavalry and light infantry to capitalize on. The tight ranks attempt to hold while the more aggressive side wears themselves out and exposes weaknesses. Frontal charges were rarely made against armies supposed to have strong ranks.
No, it is the elite part of your army that usually tries to break thru. Tjis can be cav, but it can also be infantrie. Im hoplite warfare it was usually the right flank.
@@giftzwerg7345 Theoretically you have a point, but reality intervenes. Most battles were fought just hoping to hold the army together long enough. Dramatic insertion of a quick reaction of elite forces was something Alexander or Scipio Africanus or Hannibal may have accomplished, but usual battles would have been more basic. Your birds-eye wargame aspect of control in the mayhem of large battles is difficult to replicate in the real world. Potent cavalry was also rather rare in ancient warfare. As the general, you prepare everything and set in in motion, but then you are generally at the mercy of the fates. Not much chance for a micro-manager.
Such a great detailed video. I wish hollywood would see this and give use some real looking battles for once.
Excellent video with excellent information - the rioting video at 3:09 is really persuasive in showing how ancient battles worked in reality! It makes sense and I can finally imagine! Thank you!
Except the riot video showed why this video is completely illogical.
In the riot video they were shoulder to shoulder. There was no gap in their wall. Because a gap = death.
There’s no way the Romans fought 3 feet apart. That’s instant death.
They fought in a shield wall. Not in a staggered shield fence.
The formations are logical. Not the spacing.
I don't comment on any video, but your work in those last two is fantastic. It is a doubt I always had, kept the difficult of trying to imagine how to combats went. Some things I had the right concept, some werer completly wrong. In most history books they talk abou the Grand Strategy behind, not talking abou the actual combat. Anyway, thank you very much.
Thank you for your comment and for expressing your thoughts! We are very happy to have helped better visualise combat, and will continue doing so!
Amazing, keep this work up! Really good content.
Thank you!
A fascinating and thought-provoking video, and I look forward to the continuation of the series...
☝️😎
This is very good stuff. I was just researching this myself a few months ago
They probably used tight and loose formations too. Tight formations, gives the unit "weight" and not just becasue they would push with their shields, but stab over or next to their shield, even 2 person against 1 at a time, unless the enemy pulls themselves into a tighter formation they need to slowly back up because the roman formation becomes a grinding machine. Very effective downhill, and very hard to counter for an enemy with less cohesion, especially after many of them lost their shields to pila throws, but probably the basic formation was one like explained in the video, where they would stand a bit loose, to have space.
The romans were really good to adapt, so they probably had lots of formations grinded into their legionaries, to choose the best suited for the actual situation. Just imagine that you are a gallic warrior from a random tribe, you lived your life in your village, and then you meet the romans, you hear the sound of horns, they throw their pila at you, people fall left and right next to you, but you are lucky, you only lost your shield, you hear another trumpet, and their entire army reacts to it as a unit, pulling their largely loose formation into a packed tight one, and they start to slowly move forward, from their uphill position. That must be scary for most of the tribesman.
brilliant work. would love follow-up of this, set during the technological hight of cold steel warfare and then on into the 17th (maybe early 18th) century. The human XP of pike and shot formations into the last days of the era of cold steel.
can't wait for the video (mentioned at end) on different types of forces, like: cav, archers, inf and auxiliaries.
wow 3 era's with 4 unit types per era, thats like a 12 video series.
ur on to a good idea here.
thks for making! Always wondered at this stuff. Feels like the world makes more sense now :)
You’re welcome! I’m glad to hear that :)
I waited for the second episode. Looking forward for the third!!!
OMG.
NOW I understand why flanking is so important. thanks you !
Also I enjoy that modeling approach. Did you use a modeling framework to evaluate the accuracy of proposed models ?
This series is amazing. Can't wait for more!
Great videos! Hope to see more of your excellent work!
Cavalry combat would be awesome, especially two cavalry units charging at each other. Especially at a time when stirrups didn't exist.
This was beautiful. A lot of things are starting to make sense!
Impressive to see an historian that even knows the name of personal retinue guards and how the battles was actually fought that is concluded from both history and logic. This is exactly how medieval and ancient conflict would look like because its precisely how we do melee even today and its by instinct.
Thanks for the comment 😊. It was time to show that history is something more than memes and generals. Specialized history can also be entertaining if it's correctly explained and properly researched
These videos are awesome. Keep up the good work.
She’s going to love hearing all these cool facts on our first date ty for the talking points
She’s going to love it. Go get her!
Love it! Super interesting topic and definitely not covered enough. I have subscribed based on the strength of this series!
thank you, very nice and informative!
I really don't think the thin strip exists. It's too easy to get ganged up on when other soldiers start dying. It's much easier to replace wounded and dead comrades if they're almost right behind you than if you have a short distance to cover, because even a second can be the difference between life and death.
Again, like I said on Part 1, I think our best comparison for ancient warfare is linear warfare with muskets, pike and shot warfare as well. Longer engagement distances, but we also have charges and brutal hand-to-hand combat. No shields or armor for infantry is a big difference, but most other things should be similar. Modern riot police versus a mob isn't similar because most of the time, the mob isn't armed.
Completely agree except for with the riot police.
They’re the perfect example to use. The creator even used them in this video in a way that disproved their point.
The riot police were stood shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. When the mob rushes them they can’t get through.
Now do the exact same thing but have the police 3 metres apart. The line is broke in the first charge.
I don’t see how the person who made this video could use that video and come to the conclusion that it did anything but disprove their theory.
Really happy to serve for this video! I was expecting a lot of things , and i'm all but disapointed !
Thanks for your video video
0:40 what othismos was really like is also somewhat contested due to scarcity of descriptions and the fact that it wasn't even second but third (or more) hand explanation. It's also important to remember it was the type of warfare characteristic for late hellenistic era, not what peloponesian or persian wars would have been fought like
What othismos was is pretty clear, though - a bullshit misinterpretation of source material used as the main pillar of an outdated traditionalist model that got its start with ideologically-fuelled 19th century historians.
Amazing would love to see a small battle using this animation style and fighting style
So the Roman command structure actually accounted for human psychology. They took steps to counteract the terror and trauma that pretty much anyone would experience going into battle and made that a part of their battle strategy.
Fascinating.
i hope you keep up with this series
Appreciate this info. The checkerboard strategy is genius, seems both efficient and hard to deal with. Hollywood's depictions are generally a disservice to the intellect and strategy of ancient warfare as well as it's difficult realities. They really thought about war, just as much if not more than we do today. I'd love to know if we have details about any specific formations used against the Romans, successful or not.
I'm watching You since legiones series and I am very happy with Your content. Especially after this serie. Please, keep up the good work :)
a question i have is about the part where you say that the soldiers at the back only served as replacments to thoes in front. i wounder then why in some cases high concetration of men caused a breakthrough through enemy lines. im not sure which roman battle it was but there was a part where the romans pushed many men at a certain point and broke through the enemy line. so how does the increase in numbers really help a front line? since it seems that it would only serve as a great pile of replacements according to the video. and that would only help with long term battels.
another question is about the roman sword. if you say that soldiers had space to fight the enemy, and that they werent side by side packeged together. then how would the short roman sword become advantageous? if the romans werent shoving thier lines against the enemy line while sliding thier short swords every once in a whille, wouldnt a longer sowrd be more useful in this case? since if they have space, and as the figures in the videos showed only the front line was fighting, then it seems like they were having mini duels at the front? what im trying to ask is was it posible that the front line was in reality side by side with no space to create a wall and use the short sword to stab between the shild wall?
That’s exactly why they had a short sword. It’s existence shows the logical mess of the creators theory.
The gladius is useless in hand to hand combat. Reach always wins. ALWAYS.
Skill pretty much never defeats reach. That’s why knights who were trained from childhood in warfare died to peasants who served a few months a year if even if they held a pike.
Being good with a sword is irrelevant if you can’t get close to your enemy. And in the case of a shield wall, reach is neutralised because there’s no room to swing. So short stabbing swords won.
That’s why Rome conquered basically everything.
@@markarmstrong5234The romans did not beat the Greek or Gallic phalanxes with a shield wall
Very good one and I like the comparison to modern riots 👌🏼
These videos are great. I do think we may be underestimating how numb veteran soldiers can get to the adrenaline and fear. Of course they would still get tired and still get a rush but we know from modern times soldiers begin to get a bit numb to the potential death.
The amount of goosebumps i had while watching this
excellent, thanks
jus a sliding breechblock?