How Did Roman Legionaries FIGHT? ⚔️
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- Roman legionary fighting technique presented in this video is based on the scarce information from the ancient sources and our abundant experience from reenactment and training. Enjoy! 🔥
INTRO - 0:00
FORMATIONS - 1:58
WEAPONS - 3:05
STANCE - 4:16
OFFENSE - 5:50
CONCLUSION - 14:28
🔔 Follow our channel and stay up to date. Let's make Rome great again together!!!💥
You have to see ‼️ ⚔️ PILUM throwing tutorial ⚔️ • Pilum (Javelin) Throwi...
🪔Music: Talos Odyssey by HaxoGameStudio - @HaxoGameStudiosOfficial
#legionary #ancienthistory #romanhistory #legion #fight
Shields used in the video are of legio V Alaudae and XXI Rapax - Розваги
Its kinda eye opening how similar modern riot police with shields and batons resemble Roman Soldiers.
Because.... they copied roman tactics for riot tactics...
😂
If it works, it works.
Also their tactical movemnts show similarities
Movements combinations are not infinite but limited by human morphology and anatomics.
PULLO FORMATION!!!
"Get back in formation you drunken fool."
may he rest in peace
@@amiralighobadian913 RIP Ray 🙏
Thirteen !!!
13:36
"FIGHT BACK. FIGHT BACK FOOL."
Oh yeah, the wise words of Augustus the Grey :D
WHO ARE YOU FIGHTING ???????????
FOOL
Who is the bigger fool?
The Fool? or the one that follows?
10:38 nice 2 circles and 1 long mushroom lol
I couldn't stop laughing at 13:41
Very interesting video overall, I don't see reenactors very often fighting as realistic as in this video.
Because it hurts like hell. Even wearing winter gloves doesn't get rid of all the force when you block and also at least I don't have the guts to actually believe that the person before me won't get too excited and don't start attacking me like a crazy maniac. This video shows what soldiers did when they wanted to KILL/severly injure someone while most of the time we just want a friendly spar or to get a feeling what it was like preferably without the pain.
That part cracked me up as well lol
I'm also pretty sure I saw a dong drawn on the interior of one of their shields?
You can tell they have some fun lol
Ever heard of "buhurt" though? It's not exactly reenactment, but if you wanna see people in full armor going at it with real weapons like they mean it, it's a thing
@@switch158 Yes, I've heard of that! It's quite fun to watch!😆 I also noticed the funny drawings in their shields
Very good summary. Aligns with all the well thought out fighting tactics I was already somewhat aware of. And completely contradicts the old fashioned Hollywood clanging of swords, and more recent streaming battle scenes of melee twirling and slashing.
Informative AND entertaining! Loved how you guys also implemented some basic boxing principles to the techniques shown and made it look smooth as hell. 💯
Thanks for the informative video, very well detailed. We need more of this.
this was such an enjoyable video to watch! thank you guys for making a fun and interesting video showing your actual experiences and insights.
Very well done and thought provoking!
Wonderful channel, thank you so much miles!
Great video, thank you!
@3:19 Is that a phallus on his shield xD
Yes xD any Roman knows it brings good luck!
Yes Romans just like Greeks sported the phallus both as a sign of virility as well as a lucky charm.
@@conhirti Your group are serious reenactors. Very well done video too.
9:08
"IT'S FUN TO STAY AT THE, Y, M, C, A...!"
Do you mean: "IT'S FUN TO STAY AT THE S, P, Q, R...!"
Excellent video!
Thank you great video
that was a really good video and I enjoyed that
Excellent!
9:32 this is a great formation, there are a few pieces of evidence it was actually used, possibly instead of (or along with) the close order formation shown before
what do you mean?
@@giftzwerg7345
The staggered formation. It lines up well with certain literary descriptions, and also period iconography.
@@giftzwerg7345 I can suggest this article for further explanation: legxiiii.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Visual_Evidence_for_Roman_Infantry_Tacti.pdf
Nice work, Boys.
Amazing video, amazing channel, amazing reactment! Great job guys, i'm subscribing wating for more videos! :D
Stary tomjest dobre ! 🎉
Greetings from Australia. I really liked the chap with the lance tactics. Looked realistic.
A digging Joke in/to the Start of a Video with Roman Legionaries... funny. I like it! A free Bottle of Garrum for you Guys!
Good job!
You mentioned that historical scutum's weight could be less than 8kg, I suppose that's because modern reenactors tend to use tougher (thus heavier) shields to better withstand hits of blunt weapons all day long? But in this case wouldn't heavier shields also be beneficial for soldiers of the past, relying on them with their lives? I guess they had some good reasons to not use overly heavy shields, especially if we consider them marching with those for several hours on some occassions.
It would be interesting to see a video about scuta and their use, weight, size, maintenance, transport while on the march, what was historically painted on them, etc, like some sort of scutum all you need to know compendium. On the other hand, probably not too many viewers are into that.
Anyway, now the most important part,
ROMA INVICTA
ROMA AETERNA
ROMA CAPVT MVNDI ;)
What you wrote about modern shield is right. Some of them are just made with different technology and with more material to last longer. A historically correct shield is made from slats making it lighter. We think the light shields were desirable so they would carry less weight on the march.
I think of it as similar to modern sports equipment. A tennis player is obviously strong enough to lift a racket twice as heavy, but a lighter one allows for quicker reaction to their opponent and longer stamina.
it might interesting to see how zula warriors used their shields also that were large and the weapon was often a very short stabbing sword. They often fought enemies that used smaller shields and longer throwing spears as the primary weapon.
The African “legionaries” :D
Great job guys. Overall a very nice video. My only suggestion: try the reverse grip with your pilum. It would be much more convenient to fight with it in tight formation
Thanks! We did try the reverse grip, it is indeed better formation wise, but the thrusts are less powerful and less precise. We think that pilum was used for melee sporadically, only to fight cavalry and such. Although the reverse grip could work in Greek Phalanx
Very well done! What you have show greatly supports my thoughts on how Romans fought. I've often wondered about how exactly they fought and how tight of ranks they had. My experience is lacking in shield/formations but my experience with longswords tells me your video has very practical and realistic depictions.
It would be great to get involved with a group like yours. Do you have any useful links on finding modern Roman Legions? Does your group have a website or way to contact for lessons?
This channel is awesome. I've been long reading about the greatest battles of Rome and it was ward to visualize how it would look like, but this video makes it super clear. Now we just have to imagine what you 4 guys did but with 40.000 in each side, swinging blades against an enemy that has fellows less than a meter to his both sides.
This is just a suggestion: if you could do something similar with the macedonian phalanx vs the roman legion it would be awesome. I'm unable to figurate how the romans could walk past those walls of sarissas.
Stay tuned! Macedonian phalanx is on the radar
@@conhirti That is good news for both phalanx fans and wood workers in your area (not for tall trees). Looking forward for it
They couldnt, read polybius he goes into detail, but short version, on flat terrain, nothing beats the pike phalanx, but another pike phalanx, the problem is that war is full of uncertanties and that the phalanx can find itselve easyly in a bad spot / terrain, or the enemy can just refuse to fight on flat tarrain and pluder the cuntry side.
@@giftzwerg7345 They may not be able to push against it, but somehow legions stood their ground against the spear walls, like in Cinoscefalos, and I don't figure out how. Hiding behind the shield surely provided some protectoon, but the centurion and companions behind would surely push the front soldier, making impossible to just stay behind the shield. Also, even if the front soldier could get close to the greek one, thay would compromise the two or three guys behind him, due to the lenght of the sarissa, stopping the line shift.
Anyways, it's gonna be cool to see it in action.
Great Video, very interesting. When 2 Roman legions fight each other, I imagine they push shield against shield. With people pushing from behind and from the enemy. With a very low degree of mobility.
im surprised u did not mentioned anything about the handle of the scutum but good video!
Great video!!
I was wondering about combo attacks, eg fake a head thrust to make them lift their shield and switch to cutting at the side of the body or leg.
(The other one I thought of was to counter their shield, which you then did at the end :D)
Another one I've learned from training is to attack their hand as they attack -- no hand guard on the gladius as medieval swords had. Maybe that would be possible somehow?
Thanks! The first combo sounds quite video-game like, might not work in real combat. Aiming at hands seems more plausible, but a tactic only working for sword wielder. Is such precision even possible with a spear?
@@conhirti haha yes it does sound like a video game idea. But I was watching some HEMA videos before this showed up via the algorithm.
The idea for the first came from watching all of the thrusts at their head that meant they had to raise shield and duck, it seemed to me like there's a timing window after they lift their shield to try and get a cut round the right while they can't see or move as easily. I also read somewhere of Hannibal teaching his soldiers an attack that targetted hamstrings
And yes targetting hand I meant with sword! It's something I learned in Arnis. Though with the big shield it will be less applicable than just with a sword (without a handguard on it)
There's nothing more Roman than Roman-on-Roman violence.
Indeed
I saw a theory somewhere - backed up by some Roman-era art, frescos, etc. - that left-handed legionaries were prized and purposely recruited. The reason being that the lefties could be put in the far-right file of troops at the end of the formation with their shields pointing outwards to protect the otherwise exposed right flank. I don't remember where I saw it exactly, but there was a ton of evidence of lefties handling the gladius in a line with their shields in their right hands shown in the contemporary image, and some further images of the Greek Phalanx also showing lefty hoplites possibly in line as well.
It was hardly sure evidence, but it certainly makes sense from a military/professional perspective. Imagine how much better your formation would feel if they knew there was a specialized flank protection of lefties fighting southpaw against the enemy's preferred style and at the Century's most vulnerable point.
Hmmm that’s definitely something we can’t rule out. Sound more useful when we are dealing with Greek Phalanx. After all a legion was designed to be able to react quickly to danger coming from all sides. For this reason it is also sometimes called a phalanx with joints.
@@conhirti there isnt really a reason why a legionary cant be left handed, you dont overlab shields, but fight as an individual, so where would the problem be?
Woooow.... This guy 9:48 is the same guy that i saw in Barbarians season 2 in finał battle!
How did you guys bring him to your productions!?
#17:50
Yeees! I also recognized this guy! Where did you find them guys!? He is amazing
Yes, History repeats itself.
❤❤❤
The thrust and then slash tactic makes sense from a boxing perspective. The thrust (stab) is a jab which is used to guage distance for a cross or slash. However, with weaker opponents a jab (stab) can take out an enemy quickly for very minimal effort.
Hmmm, that makes sense when you think about it. I guess with a shiled as big as a scutum you strike at every opening in a guard and build as much power as possible at a given moment.
You @conhirti You got me thinking some more, I was originally referring to the gladius. You can jab with the sword or you can cross with it. But come to think of it, you are right. The scutum acts as a big cross and the gladius as the jab. Very interesting, it is the opposite to what a traditional orthodox stance is. In that, the jab is with the left and the cross with the right. However with Romans, the cross is the left and the jab is the gladius in the right.
I think you are spot on with the left foot placement as well. Orthodox boxers have their left foot in front and pointing inwards at about a 65 degree angle. This helps with the transfer of weight when moving and also as you mention prevents the shield dropping on the toes.
perhaps they might have bent their front knees slightly to push/lock the shields along with hunched shoulders which might prevent self inflicted foot injuries as shown in clip (side stepping is great until.. might end up difficult for sword hand to bring front for hacking). Btw which also lowering center of gravity probably help better footing on different terrains.
Just.. what I might have chose to do as stance.
Hmmm, I guess we need to go fight in the hills and find out!
Im sure that aside from the general training they received, each soldier had their own personal preferences with things like this. Like some solider today prefer to use optics, others not, some like different slings, etc.
I truely believe, in my heart of hearts,
The Romans painted or Japaned their armor and helmets. It's just too much rust not to.
The gear was often zinc-plated so it wouldn’t rust too fast
You look like from a gladiator 2.0 🔥
Awesome job, thank you! I wonder what conclusions you could draw from having a chance to experiment with larger groups in tight formations rather than 1 on 1 duels. Great job at trying to practice with 2-3 people in line, I’m sure it added to the experience. Another thought that’s been on my mind for years now: romans decided to switch to large shields and short swords when the whole world fought with spears. I know of about the Samnites and the hilly terrain etc. but I always believed there’s more to that as they never switched back to spears after. Not for centuries anyway. I personally believe romans were fighting by pushing in deep past the spears into extremely close (it might’ve even been so close puggio was a better option, than gladius) proximity disrupting enemy lines, then letting second line to mop up and by second line I mean second century in the maniple or even sometimes second line of maniples, which also explains how the maniple swap worked. But that’s just my theory. The truth is we’ll never know.
That is a cool theory. Best we can to is find some barbarian or Greek reenactors. Get some safe weapons and have a go at each other, but this will still lack the element of emotions felt when being surrounded by death
I was thinking of doing that, but in order to simulate being squashed in between 5000 soldiers in each side, get in between two walls. No matter what are the objectives if one has an opportunity to move to one side or another they’ll do it in a fight, but if you’re in tight formation there’s only two directions forward or backwards and we all know what happens if you move backwards.
With regards to emotional side of it, I hear it often discussed by experts these days and it makes sense, but those very same experts, although very knowledgeable and read up on the subject have never been in the real fight. Those who have, known that you only fear before the fight or when your buddies are already on the floor and it’s time to decide whether fight harder or get going in the opposite direction. In between those two there’s no fear only violence. Historians and experts who haven’t experienced this first hand speak of common sense and soldiers charging towards enemy, then stopping in front of a shield wall to find in organised manner.
@@conhirtido you have contact to greek reenactors? Im absolutly burning to know how a fight between the denser phalanx/ shieldwall and the romans looked, like how would they come out on top against fighting tree rows of spearmen while also facing 1.5 -2 enemys
@@raimondsudovenko8611 i dont think that they would do that, in a pushing match the side with spears would win, bc they could just stab into the enemy mass till they are dead, while the romans would only be batle to kill the first and at max second rank, its not like the babarians didnt have daggers or knives, every one has one
@@giftzwerg7345 that’s the thing, one can’t use a spear and a dagger against the same time, so by closing the distance a legionnaire eliminates the advantage of the spear.
How else do you think they fought the spears? From a distance with a gladius?
Why would Roman legions put themselves at a disadvantage? The only logical answer is they didn’t. They figured out the way to disrupt the falanx. Create gaps with pila and push in deep so the spears are useless. Divide and conquer.
You need more legionaires in your cohort
you look great, where did you get the armor?
Cheers! The armor is from Fabrica Cacti.
10:56
Wouldn't it make sense to raise your shield above you as you strike in that scenario?
Awesome!
@ 2:40
The main issue with this interpretation is that period authors often make it explicit that the rear ranks cannot support the frank ranks (Polybius comes to mind). That necessarily includes rotation of ranks. So while there are plenty of descriptions of rotation of lines (something that was done in 18th and 19th-century warfare as well), there aren't any clear descriptions of ranks rotating--at least, none that I know of.
Unfortunately the sources are very scarce. The rotation just feels so natural
a finally sombody who read polybius, who do you say to his description that each leionary needs 6 feet of space, 3 for him selve and 3 for his sword? that would be double that shown in the video
@@giftzwerg7345
Well, he also states that the Roman file is still 3 feet, as the Macedonian one, but of course also remarked that one man needs such space as to cause him to face two files Macedonian (10 pikes). A few interpret that to mean the Romans were in a checkerboard formation: that would still technically make a file 3' across, but you give each man the needed 6' of clearing space.
I find that reasonable, as it's the only way I can think of to account for why Polybius insists on a 3' file. And he isn't the only one: most period sources give 3' per file--this is the case from Polybius right on through to Vegetius. EDIT: There was also a guy who used iconographic evidence to independently come up with the idea of a staggered formation. Regardless, @ 9:29 is pretty close to what is suggested, save that of course, each man in that scene would be considered part of the first rank, rather than two ranks.
And what they show generally is also pretty reasonable, but for close order rather than normal order. You could go from one to the other simply by having every other file step forward or back.
It all makes sense, but...
I did my reading about Roman legions.
So, individual trening was very short, wast majority of the training was group fighting, something like contubernium vs contubernium.
Training was focused on cooperation of legionaries, so team play, team play, team play, team play...
So, synchronized attacks, like one legionary is attacking face on the enemy warrior, and 2nd legionary at the same time is attacking feet of the same enemy warrior.
I don't know details , because training of the recruits was done by experienced veterans who knew what was working and what was not working in the real battle.
And we don't have access to the experienced legionary veterans.
So, You experiments should explore what team plays are viable.
Na no syncronised attacks, that doesnt work, its to predictble and unflexibe.
I watched a lecture years ago from a guy who taught at West Point discussing how warriors in ancient warfare may not have suffered as badly as modern soldiers have from PTSD due to the trauma of combat. I have been looking for it for weeks to no avail, as I can't remember his name. Essentially the theory boiled down to purification rituals. In Ancient Greek warfare for example, before hoplites would be allowed back into a city, they had to undergo a purification performed by a priest of a god, Apollo for example, in order to cleanse the symbolic blood from them. 'Blood Guilt', it was called. This could be incurred from murder or from coming into contact with impure things. Spartans avoided this blood guilt for example by leaving unwanted babies to death exposure, rather than killing them personally. Anyway, in the case of soldiers, they could then return to society with the knowledge that they had done good, and the act of killing was effectively removed from them. He argued that this may have alleviated some of the deep seated feeling of remorse or trauma on the soldier's mind after bloodshed.
Conversely, he said that this is absent in modern soldiers, where for example in the Vietnam war, soldiers returned home and were vilified for their actions. There was no purification, so the feelings of remorse remained. Rather than being absolved in some way, they were instead left with the act on their hands. Modern soldiers also do not fight for gods, or higher powers. They fight for political ideals and borders.
It was a lot more in-depth in the lecture but I've paraphrased it. I would argue that Romans perhaps had similar ideals to the Greeks, as well as the diverse system of beliefs throughout the empire.
Very interesting! Give us a shout if you happen to eventually find this lecture.
The Romans had the Lustratio which was a purification ritual that they performed for various reasons but specifically in relation to the Legions it was done at the beginning of the campaign season, @ March 19th, and the end, @ October 19th. It ritually purified their equipment so that not only was their no 'blood' on it but also so that there would be no spiritual contamination either (don't want the ghosts of any slain enemies haunting you).
An aspect that gets overlooked when considering historical people and warfare affecting their psychology is the fact that death was much more a part of life throughout most of history. You could expect half of your children to die during childbirth and then half of those that were born to die before they reached 5 years old. Also the vast majority of people had to kill and butcher their own food on a regular basis and the Romans preferred to recruit their Legionnaires from farmers as they were generally seen to be more physically fit. I would think that being exposed to that much death from one's earliest years, coupled with their religious rights (which also relied heavily on killing an animal for sacrifice, so more exposure to that), had a lot to do with their being able to better cope with it than modern people.
I'm more interested how this will be used practically in a battle. 2:33 Must be very sophisticated to pull it off
www.youtube.com/@kirilllvm/videos
Here you can watch many battles with steel weapons. Romans and barbarians. There are also dangerous moments.
10:32 Yo, why you gotta do the man's shield dirty like that?
I don't get it. A phallus is a lucky charm for us Romans!
@@conhirti Damn, guess they were right when they said ancient Romans were hella gay!🤣
Thumbnail I see: Lepidus trooos vs Octavian troops
Czym kierujecie się przy wykonywaniu broni? W sensie wykonujecie je na podstawie znalezisk? Chodzi mi o rozmiar?
Tak, rzymskie reko ma to szczęście, że w brut mamy znalezisk archeologicznych
@@conhirti Bo tak mnie tknęło, że np. robicie tarczy jeden do jednego ze znalezisk to czy uwzględniacie swój obecny wzrost i czy nie trzeba by było np. na próbę stworzyć coś większego i jak wtedy by mogło wyglądać parowanie ciosów i zasłanianie się nią no chyba, że jesteście wzrostowo zbliżeni do rzymian z tamtego okresu to nie było tematu :)
@@Gniew_PGRu raczej jesteśmy ciut wyżsi, ale to nie robi dużej różnicy. Nasz sprzęt staramy się nabywać możliwe zbliżony do antycznych oryginałów
honestly, I don't think you can get a good idea of how to use Roman equipment until you get two teams of twenty crashing against each other in formation. I'd arrange them in two lines of ten, with the back row tasked with protecting the top of the front row. In the end, I think it would look a lot like American football, with the battle becoming more of a shoving match with occasional stabs trying to find exposed targets between shields. Swinging a sword in this would likely be rare.
13:24 I spy the oldest image in the history of Graphiti.
I think the closest representation of the ancient Roman legion that we can see today is the modern-day riot police. I think in the heat of battle and in the chaos, you just don't have so much time to protect and guard yourself. Most of the defense would have come from shield and helmet. I think the video makes a good depiction of the use of the helmet, as I imagine trying to kill an enemy with a big frontal shield will require trying to reach him from above.
biomechanics are biomechanics / physics are physics. This is probably exactly how they fought.
4:53 Putting the left foot bent inwards is wrong, because it leads to injuries. And if your opponent goes to the lower target (and I doubt he would, with the sword!), you don't lower the shield, because it would expose your face, but simply remove the target, pulling back the foot behind the shield
We believe the opposite to be true, but of course you are entitled to think otherwise
@@conhirti both claims are evident, but do you have a reasoning why the "opposite is true"?
It gives a legionary more traction and a turned leg gives a good platform for a shield to lean on. Leg turned forward exposes a shin to be hit with your onw shield. We changed our feet placement after collecting a few bruises on our shins 😅
@@conhirti okya, but what about risking injury if you get hit while having the foot rotated?
@@romatardoimperiale I don’t really see what kind of injury you have in mind 🤔
A pilum is not designed for the rigid structure needed for effective slashing or hacking in melee combat like a sword. Using it as such would likely cause the shank to bend, break or become detached from the shaft fairly quickly, rendering it ineffective as a melee weapon.
Yet there are records of pila being used as a spear, perhaps an improvised spear and only in certain situations, but use them as spears thy did.
Bend yes, detached no, they where secured very well.
@@giftzwerg7345 So a pilum is stuck in an enemy's shield and cannot be removed now.
Actually, hobnails reduced wear on the soles of the shoes. This made your shoes last longer.
If the equipment is historically accurate the guys are far more tal than the average roman legionary.
To more accurately transcribe the combat techniques of the Romans it would be necessary to enlarge the shields by at least 10 inches. Because with a shield on the correct scal, no need to choose between protecting your feet or your face
I heard Roman’s were trained to aim for the throat during combat, Oversimplified made it a running joke in his Roman Videos 😂😂😂
My theory is that all the film nerds who became directors only ever got in middle school scraps as far as hand to hand goes. Strictly coordinated movement and hours long shoving matches and skirmishes seem to be too hard to convey on screen
How romans did fight:
Not like on the picture in title😂
Absolutly love it, pretty mutch how id imagine it, one caviat tho. Polibyous disagrees, as far as i know hes the only source that goes into detail on the formation of the romas: (30)
"Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of •three feet in breadth, 7 but as in their mode of fighting each man must move separately, as he has to cover his person with his long shield, turning to meet each expected blow, and as he uses his sword both for cutting and thrusting it is obvious that a looser order is required, 8 and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank and those in front of and behind him, p153 if they are to be of proper use. 9 The consequence will be that one Roman must stand opposite two men in the first rank of the phalanx, so that he has to face and encounter ten pikes, ..."
going by him you need to remove every second man in your formation to be of "proper use". Have you tried this? What is your opinion on this? Your formation does seem quite usible to me, but polibious is quite clear and a military man, so one shouldnt dismiss him. I Really wonder how your formation would hold up against the one polibious describes.
No we have not tried this. But thank you for the comment it made us reflect on it. Once the group grows we can perhaps a looser formation.
@@conhirti yes maby yould could maby try giving one side spears, / pila used as spear, i really wonder how that canges the fight, what the advantages are
2:33 What is the evidence for "synchronised" exchange of ranks? There is none I am aware of at combat distance, and it is meaningless outside of combat distance...
No evidence, we explained in the intro that it is a theory based on our reenactment. Changing soldiers in front ranks simply seems resonable. Anyone who did some cold steel combat knows how tiering it is. Why would you keep someone tierd in the front if it only takes 2 steps to switch?
@@conhirti if you read again what I wrote, I am inquiring about the "synchronized" version of the change in soldiers: why do you need to change all of them at the same time with a given command?
Oh yeah I see. You are right, no need for synchronised exchange. We do it in a video like this because it looks cool like that. Check the fighting at 14:32. There we initiate exchange by hiting a shield of a soldier behind, allowing for individual exchange whenever someone needs it. Does it make sense to you?
@@conhirti much better, even if I would expect this to happen when the distance between the fighters is much more: an enemy in the third / fourth rank could throw a pilum in that very moment, don't you think?
@@romatardoimperiale Yes, that makes sense. Remember we are limited by the angle of the camera ;)
10:46 he has a sizeable meat sword on the inside of his scutum
It is there for good luck obviousely 😁
Easiest way to find out is give a modern soldier a gladius. They will naturally show what a trained soldier would do
no bc modern sodliers arnt trained in swordsman ship, there is also the thing that soldiers semm to prefer to cut in the heat of battle, bc the romans wherent the only ones to tell thier soliders to thust instead.
@@giftzwerg7345 a sword is a very intuitive weapon, not hard to use but difficult to master. I have done martial arts and served in the army. I have faith even the most basic soldier would adequately use a sword based on my experience
also I think Romans were shorter than modern Italians So the Shield probably covered them better
That's a fact, they were only 171 cm's tall (5'7) in average.
the roman leigons also fought largely other nations forces, meaning their equipment and weaspons often varried strongly from the romans.. it seems thats when they often shined the best.. then the whole world started copying the roman millitary and gear/weps etc
To be fair, the Romans copied a fair amount of equipment from others too: Galea and chainmail from Celts, Scutum from Samnites, Gladius from Hispania, just to name a few
Copied and better after by romans...as gladio name :
Pompei gladio etc etc...
Remeber this.🇮🇹👍✋️
...and the dagger?
If you mean pugio then yes it will appear in our future productions
Thirteen !!! Thirteen !!!
lol!!! i've be the worst legionar ever i'm left handed and i'm sure that i could never be able, not even imagine myself to throw a pilum or fight with the sword with my clumsy right hand..🙈🙈😝
Nice video. They often fought enemies armed with Spears, which Is almost imposible to close on to be able to score any hit on them. Thus i personaly think they fought very defensively And used slings And javelins From second line of formation to kill or waiting until they were able to overpower the oponents by numbers. Gladius were JUST there to prevent enemies to close on them since Its simply too short to reach someone with Spear And you can't go forward until enemy line Is Broken, otherwise you Will be stabed by someone From side.
Actually a spear is not so hard to pass. How otherwise would the Romans manage to kick Pyrrhus of Epirus out of Italy and casually proceed to beat Cartage, Greece and Gaul (spear loving peoples) to a pulp?
Nonsense. On the contrary, most primary sources show that it was the contrary: legionnaries were extremely agressive and offensive, using their huge shields to close in after damaging the enemy formation with showers of pilum. Similar to infighters in boxing: makes no sense for the short guy to try to fight in his backfootm He has to close in.
Slings need a lot of room to be safely used and pilum throwers need space for long throws that don't end up harming their own lines. Makes no sense for the backlines to use such approach.
@@conhirti Spear Is really hard to pass in 1v1 situation, but in the first place, passing the Spear means ONLY to be impaled by another when atacking working formation.
How did they beat them? Well in the first place by economy end logistics. But on the Battlefield, As i said, they JUST relied on the misile weapons much more than anythink else.
@@MrAlepedroza your statement Is JUST untrue. Primary sources (which Are not even reliable in this case) tells us exactly that pillum Is the weapon which needs to win the fight, otherwise you Are in big problem. You Can be agresive ONLY if you Will erode the formation. If they for some Reason Have to fight at contact distance without the advantage From misiles or manpower, we do know From primary sources they used pilla As Spear.
@@krystofmrazStill nonsense and its funny how you still don't realize you contradict yourself: Gladius would have sucked for deffense as described by yourself, since by staying stationary the legionaries would have still been badly outranged by spears and just conceded the initiative to the enemy. Why even using swords in such a case? Why not even just carrying a conventional spear and one pila or two smaller pilum instead of two pilum Why giving the enemy the advantage by wielding a sword if the spear is nearly impossible to pass as you said?
Numerical advantage was not always possible, Romans often fought outnumbered. To comoensate for that, they used far more mobile and flexible formations that could outmaneuver and outlast the enemy...but those are not deffensive tactics, they're offense, lol.
Pila was not the best weapon for offense either. It was more of a situational improvisation, since it was far more fragile and light than a conventional dedicated spear...that's what short swords are better for, mate.
Haha.... an "authentic" Roman phallus @10:38.
I think almost all of the adversaries of the Romans, except for horse archers and other Romans, used spears.
The big scuta shields would allow the Roman front rank to get too close to the enemy for their spears to work well. In a duel, you can back up and maintain a good spear distance, but in battle you can’t because of the folks right behind you
@@lanequick7451 If you say so. I would say the Romans had gladiators to teach them special techniques to deal with spears. We don't know what those were.
@@GaryChurch-hi8kb true but there’s only so many ways you can stab someone with a spear or stop yourself from being stabbed. There’s plenty of UA-cam videos of people trying out the weapon systems. Also we can learn a lot from HEMA techniques with spears. Yes they’re from over 1000 years later, but again, it’s a pointy stick and a big shield.
Also it should be remembered that war was mainly about fear and which side flinches first. The idea that Romans were not going to stop advancing until gladius range isn’t just a factor, it was probably decisive a lot of the time.
@@lanequick7451 Gladiators might have disagreed it was that simple. You might think boxing is simple but I can assure it is anything but just so many ways to punch someone.
@@lanequick7451 well the problem is, if the enemy fights in close order that the second and third row can now stab you, the best explonation is probably that most forced whent diciplined and cohicive to keep kohisive avter the pilla volley.
Any other romance lenguage speaker out there still use the Word contubernio???
2:49 "Who were physically and psychologically were not so different from you and me." Must disagree here. They were _much_ more used to physical labor, experienced death, blood, injury, etc on a _regular_ basis from childhood, etc. Definitely no vegans in the Legions.
The demonstration use a Roman soldier's equipment against another Roman soldier's.
lt's a bad idea, unless in a civil war. This does not show the advantage of a Roman soldier's equipment while against enemies. Ex : Should demonstrate the long Roman shield and round Gremanic shield while fighting which one take advantage on the rivals.
they could take the equipment of an auxiliary if they have, that is basicly every soldier ever, spear, oval shield and sword, and armour.
a shield is not a defensive tool. a shield is a weapon.
Good! You’ve earned your spot in the front rank!
It can be both a weapon and deffensive gear, but its primarily the second.
@@conhirti lucky me, it's my time for fame now.
I can help noticing how exposed you arms and hands are. That must have been addressed somehow in historical times.
1:15 - Manica might be the answer you are looking for
Sorry but they would fight as a team.
So if it was three against one. They would hold the line while all available would assist his battle buddy.
13:38 he is very dead.
did romans "teabag" their opponents when they won a battle?
There are no sources saying they didn't do it, so we can't rule it out.
"Psychologicalli and physically same as you and me" - Well, I'm gonna stop you there, boy. Do you walk 10-20 km every day? Do you train several hours every day? Do you eat absolutely pure food, without chemicals? Do you cut wood to get yourself and your family warm? Do you, in times of peace, work in field MANUALLY?
Did you ever kill? Do you have guys to actually kill a person, STABBING him and seeing how he dies slowly, while your enemies and your own soldiers walk over the wounded? Are you ready to die for your country? Is the honour more valuable than life to you? Would you rather die than run for your life?
The answer to ALL questions above is no.
We sit in cars, in offices, at home. We train for 6 hours per week at best. We drive, not walk. We push a button to turn on heat. We don't kill people. We don't even kill animals. We value ourselves way more and in case of war pack our shit and get out of the war zone at the lightspeed.
No, we're not the same as professional Roman soldier who served for 23 (!!!) years.
You've made your point. Deffinitely thought provoking. Perhaps that's something we can analyse deeper in the future. One thing: imperial era legionaries served for 25 years, so even more than you wrote!
Romanii ite domus
Domum* Now go write it a hundred times!
@@conhirti 😄
Yikes!
First of all, they are called Legionaries. NOT legionaires. Those guys are French.
Next. There are many surviving Roman descriptions of training and combat. Follow the instructions.
Yeah, romes riot police...
They fought like girls.
This video is crap. Legionairs never ever used their swords to dig. The rest you hand in info simply is not informing at all, let stand fully correct either. The formation examples and fighting...simply did not go like that. This is...needing updates on nearly every sentence you speak.
Great video!
Great video!