one interesting note on the centuries, the first swordsmen would fight like mad dogs for about 5 minutes, the centurions would have the bugler blow, and the first men would step left and run between columns to the rear, the century would take one pace forward and re-engage the enemy front with fresh swordsmen. a man would only have to fight for a total of 10 minutes out of every hour, and enemy forces were facing constantly fresh, rested, well disciplined soldiers. this is one tactic that kept foes in fear of the Legions for hundreds of years.
I could be wrong, but I kinda find that hard to believe especially when they are engaged with multiple enemies, I know that I definitely not want to turn my back on the enemy, unless they obviously fall back shield facing the enemy. But it does make sense to fight for an x amount of time especially if youre battling a huge army.
I think the TV series "Rome" did give a somewhat accurate picture of the changing of the lines. This took place in the very first episode, the first few minutes. Here the centurion of his century blew his whistle for the change. This sort of makes more sense as various horns were used for bigger maneuvers of all the legions, I think. Someone said that they did not have whistles, but yes they did. I enjoyed "Rome" although it was terribly inaccurate in some of the events and characters, But I think very accurate showing the life and times of that period. Any way it sure made me scramble to do more studying of that particular period.
Alf-Einer Sivertsen, that rarely happened. The Romans learnt that forcing your men to kill a comrade isn't such a great idea, especially if you have a 1 out of 10 chance for every 100 soldiers to kill a well experienced and respected soldier. That's my thesis on it. However Roman generals did avoid using it and there are very few cases of it ever happening in Romes nearly 2000 year history.
Its possible that they may have fought in that checkered formation. It could funnel enemy units and cut them off and squeeze them to be destroyed by the Triarii. So rather than having a static line, you have these jaws that eat weak enemy formations.
I agree, while opponents could press into the gaps and exploit them, the same is true of the Romans. If you move into the gaps you 1. break your own formation of shield wall or phalanx, 2. you have enemies on three sides attacking you. Its also possible the Hastati and Principes swapped spots several times in the battle without being broken. Withdrawing through the checkerboard as the next row charged could disrupt the enemy line who is not sure if you are fleeing or advancing. The troops that withdrew could get a chance to recover and reorganize. It was only when the triari came in that it was an all or nothing attack.
HaqqAttak btw the Triarii were rarely used unless they were the last unit standing and the also the reason they used that checkerboard formation was so they could be a lot more mobile and was designed while fighting the Italian mountain tribes, it was used to be able to manoeuvre and tighten up easily while going through and in between the mountains which is why the early Phalanx was discarded while fighting the mountain tribes as they could not react fast enough to ambushes and struggled to get through the mountains and ended up having to split the phalanx in two in order to get through
Fighting in split units allows you to be surrounded and outflanked. Instead of using those large shields to fend off an enemy in front of you you now need to defend in front and on both sides. Small pockets of men being surrounded is a common tactic used to utterly annihilate an enemy. You could certainly use gaps to lure people into disadvantageous positions but in general a formation with gaps in the lines is doomed to failure. It does help to keep in mind that the Romans were often outnumbered in battle and relied on their comparative professionalism and much better tactics and equipment to carry the day. It's rather unlikely that the STANDARD strategy was to allow the enemy to tear into you like that. Also, one of the roles of the triarii not addressed here was very likely to keep people from quitting the battlefield entirely. They would form a solid line behind the maniples and when the Hastati broke and the principes engaged the triarii would be there with their spears to "encourage" them to reform. There is a lot we don't know about these formations so this isn't confirmed but it's a pretty likely scenario.
I love UA-cam's auto generated subtitles: Principes equipment: Scooter, helmet, greaves, breastplate, sword and pillow Mental image of Principes riding around on scooters whacking people with pillows!
at the same time though, they didn't shame you if you fled the enemy, the velites were skirmishers and meant to flee if engaged. They knew if they withdrew their comrades behind them were there to cover them. It probably gave the new recruits the taste of battle and boost their morale while weeding out the ones that didn't have what it takes to be in the frontline.
quangtran527 not exactly, they had throwing spears, war slings and often a sword. They mostly had the role of make it harder for the enemies to keep formation and to bite groups of enemies to follow them when they retreated. The main objective was to disrupt the enemy formations. causing light casualties and causing them to charge into the hastatii was an extra.
Yeah, checked out the video and that was very well done. There is no conclusive description for the way romans engaged in combat due to lack of sufficient details so the best we can do is propose various methods. The one you demonstrated was certainly very appealing and plausible as well
arguing language here is kind of missing the point. this is a video about Roman strategic and tactical doctrine and it's rock solid. You can take a Latin language course in most high schools if you want to argue about pronunciation. Just saying.
The incorrect pronunciations take away from the credibility of the video. Not very hard to find out what the proper pronunciations of the different words are.
I like you pointed out the roman saying "Going to the Triarii" - in other words, fighting a battle to the last line of infantry still alive, or fighting to the last man. One thing though; the Triarii wouldn't have necessarily allowed the front lines to retreat past them. Part of the reason the romans had three lines of youngest-young-oldest (oldest at the back) was to make sure the young guys knew they were being watched and judged by their elders. The Triarii would cut down their own soldiers if they retreated before the General gave the order. Routs, after all, were the quickest way for an army to get itself destroyed. Ancient battles were as much about will as skill or strength. Basically it's a massive game of chicken. Whoever runs first gets slaughtered--to win, you just need to hang on long enough.
Nonsense. The Triarii were not Roman commissars. No one expected the Triarri to be a barrier that routing troops could not pass, requiring routing formations to stop and reform into tactical units with the enemy following right behind them; this takes time and doesn't happen when the enemy is right behind you...that's why it's a rout. First and second line units would pass between the formations of Triarii and reform behind them. I've never seen a single historical account of Triarii doing what you suggest. I would be most grateful if you provided your source (unless its head canon)
Well, not so much for those reasons (yes, maybe somehow they were there, but that is irrelevant) but mainly because they HAD to fall back the lines fast after having hit. Unless you want to lose all of them for no reason. It is the Commander that decides for practical calculus, not the single young soldier on the field for his emotions.
Ha! And there I thought I was mimicking this formation when playing Rome 2, shows how wrong I was. Though I've found my own formation - one that I'm able to replicate in all of my armies since I try and make all armies in the campaign identical - is sometimes effective. First Line: 2x Velites - scout and skirmish with the enemy but the moment the enemy move to engage in melee they fall back between my second and third lines. Second Line: 6x Hastati - sometimes deployed in two lines of 3 instead, engage the enemy frontline and hold them there. Third Line: 4x Principes - mainly my reserves, they just charge in behind the hastati when they begin to waver, if that doesn't happen then they're moved around the sides to attack the enemy in the flanks once the majority of the enemy force is committed. Fourth Line: 2x Triarii - reserves of last resort, if enemy cavalry threatens to outflank my other lines I rush them up to block their way. Fifth Line: 1x General - kept out of danger and use his abilities to buff my troops/de-buff the enemy as required, charge in when either: all hope is lost/the enemy begin to rout. Extreme Flanks: 1x Equites on each flank - once the enemy melee units are engaged with my infantry I sweep these guys around the back of the enemy and chase off skirmishers then charge the enemies rear. The Rest: Obviously that leaves me with only 17/20 units in the army. The remaining 3 spaces are filled by specialist units/mercenaries as required but if not needed these spaces are kept empty. If I happen to have some but don't need them for the current engagement I simply hold them behind my General in a sixth line to act as reserves or (as in the case of siege units like ballistae) to fire at the enemy at long range as they approach.
+kingkong381 lol me too i never thought that my formation is base on old roman military formation :D still im playing attila,AoC,kingdom of asturia and this formation is what im using now :D
+kingkong381 The one I used in Europa Barbarorum was like this: 1st line - hastati, roughly 6 units 2nd line - princepecs , roughly 6 units 3rd line - triarii, two units Then we have the allies. On the right flank it was three units of samnite spearmen (thureous spears basically) and two cavalry units (one eqvites and one medium jav cav). On the left flank there were two units of etruscan hoplites (very tough) and one unit of kretan archers. The allied/mercenary forces help a lot in keeping the flanks secure while the legion goes to work. Remember to have the first line as a proper line and the reserves in square blocks for better mobility.
kingkong381 I might try this out but the army I used were mostly Calvary. I usually just laid back near the beginning of the campaign, collecting taxes and unlocking the stables. The Calvary would take up 3/4 or 15 of the 20 spaces. I only really rely on units to storm into settlements
I do First Line -> 2 Auxiliary Syrian Archers which fall behind the second and third line when melee starts Second line -> 5 Hastati Third line -> 5 Principes Fourth line -> 1 Triarii, 2 Vigiles (mostly as a reserve / anti-cavalry force) Fifth line -> General Flanks -> 1 Socii Equites and 1 Praetorian Cavalry on each flank
This video deals with the triplex acies being used by Polybian Roman legions. I mention that cohorts were the basic tactical unit later on with 480 men (13:13) and that the tiple line was used before and after Marian... "now the triple line and successive lines of reinforcement would have been used further down in Rome's History after the Marian reforms"
The double "I" becomes tree-ah-ree-ee. This is the method to make a masculine noun plural, just as Julii, Helvetii, Scipii. Nouns ending in -ius -io (these are not the entirety of the masculine endings but these are the ones effected in this manner) are changed to -ii pronounced eee-ee. Latin is phonetic so every letter must be pronounced. To most English speakers this is awkward, but it is the proper pronunciation. See Wheelock's Latin.
Cavalry did skirmishing and screening early on. They would have engaged outright with the enemy cav near the start of major engagements. When one side won the cavalry usually chased the enemy off the field. If they were disciplined enough they would return to the back of the enemy formation and strike at the rear of the enemy ranks or attack the enemy camp The general was usually just behind the lines and would mostly direct his troops although sometimes would actually partake in the fighting
Hmm, thats a long time period to judge but I guess I would say that I think the Punic Wars and the generals they spawned were perhaps the most impressive. Caesar's campaigns in the last days of the republic were equally astounding. Once Rome got rolling and entered the years of its Empire things tended to be snowballing in Rome's favor and her expansion was not as "out of the blue" as the republican rise
I'm 63 and I have been studying the Roman Army from my 20's. This vid needs to be a primer for anyone interested in the Republican Legion. Outstanding. The one thing that is never really covered is the replacement of the lines. After the Hastatii had shot their bolt, when the Principes moved up. The "mechanics" of how they did it. Your explanation was spot on. Love the massive playlist. Smashed the like button. Comment is a sacrifice to the Algorithm. Cheers.
+THFE Productions It's pronounced K in classical latin, Ch in church latin (in front of i, e). In the video "Acies" is pronounced something like "Axes". It should be more like Ak-yes or Ach-yes.
Jester I think it was pronounced Kaesar. The "e" being a sound that only exists in diphtongues in modern english (first element of A = [eɪ]). Kaisar would be either an archaic spelling or a foreign pronunciation.
Quite possibly, My native tongue isn't English, I know how you pronounce it since I took Latin for 6 years during Belgian Highschool, but it may be that the correct phonetic way to write it in english is Kaesar ^^
Excellent video! The narration was accurate and informative, and entertaining, and the cinematography/video capture had a cinematic element that made it pleasant to watch. Keep up the good job!
The books I have read say the century consisted of 60 combatants and a maniple of 120. These however would have been enlarged to 80 and 160 during times of intense fighting
This was incredibly educative, much better than documentaries in the sense that the massive formations could actually be formed with thousands of men compared to a small group of reenactors. I would love to see more of these videos, Total war is a fantastic way of demonstrating these tactics.
Wow this is crazy haha what even is this platform? Saw it's called "Rome/a 1 or 2" but anyway spectacular. I doubt anyone during the Roman Empire at the time would imagine the world watching their full techniques on some screen with the probably exact scale of troops. Great video.
Ave fellow citizen of Roma. Fantastic video, and you have filled in some gaps in my knowledge which I appreciate greatly. I also made a video about the manipular legion but I used Rome 1 and had a few gaps in my knowledge back then that I have filled in since. Just a couple of things I feel I ought to point out though. And please, do not take this as an affront rather myself sharing my knowledge in payment for you sharing with me. Pronunciations - The letter 'C' in Latin is always pronounced like a 'K' in modern English. So 'Principes' is pronounced 'Pnnk - eh - pez'. The 'C' said as a hard 'C' as a 'K' and the 'pes' in the word 'Principes' pronounced with a strong 'E' like 'pez'. The same applies with all Latin words and also 'Velites'. 'Vel - li - tez' Second is the armour. The Principes wore lorica hamata rather than a breast plate. Lorica is like chain mail. I'd love to talk some more with you, I feel we could learn so much from each other, and it would be nice to have a buddy with the same interest. I've put your video on my channel and I'll put it on my Google+ too, and I've subbed. Strength and Honour!
Thanks for helping to point out some of the errors in my pronunciation, I have adopted some of my style of speaking since this battle. However there is no hard and fast rule about roman naming convention since we actually dont know how they pronounced things. It seems the latin you are referring to is that used by the church but this is not the same latin that the romans would have used so it gives me a little breathing room for errors lol. As for the principes using the lorica hamata that would probably be common but again not uniform given that troops at this time equipped themselves. Again I think I have corrected myself in newer videos
THFE Productions firstly great video thanks man. Secondly I don't believe that the roman military system was based on wealth. After Marius changed the way the Roman Army was set up, you were placed in different units based on your skill unless you were VERY wealthy so unless during the republic you were related to a senator or during the empire royalty. After Marius changed the military he made every soldier have standard equipment and training this would mean that as you became more experienced you were promoted and not based on how much money you have, however in the very early years of Rome when it was still a monarchy you had to buy all of your own gear and and weapons. Thirdly at about 12:14 you called the roman tactic a phalanx. I don' believe the romans ever used Hopolons (greek shields) nor did they ever use a phalanx, a phalanx is a very specific fighting formation where all men put there laced their shields on top of each other (sort of like scales) and thrust their spears under the shields or over the man in fronts shoulders, the Romans never used this formation because they valued mobility and the ability to change strategy almost instantly over putting a phalanx in place and not being able to change, because once you put a phalanx in action it was almost impossible to take it out of action. but I might be wrong and again great video
Richard Stacpoole The Roman military system was very much based on wealth. The population was divided into different categories based on wealth and the top ones were the knights or equites who served as cavalry. This created the distinctions in ranks. Upon the introduction of the marian reforms and the subsequent switch to professional armies THEN you would not have be assigned a rank based on wealth, besides senatorial or equestrian appointments. Referring to something as a phalanx basically just means close order infantry with a dense shield formation. It can be used broadly to describe a shield wall. In fact the historian polybius often refers to Roman troops as forming a phalanx but this is more owing to his greek origins. Also the Romans did in fact fight in the true phalanx formation that you are thinking of early in their history. We are not sure when they abandoned this formation but it was probably during the samnite wars
Well thanks, much of what you just told me about romans and phalanxes I actually didn't know. The time period the game takes place in is after Marius, you can tell by the troops, before Marius the army was a bunch of men who had to supply their own armor and weapons, who were called last minute when the Romans needed to fight, a good story to demonstrate what I mean is the story of Cincinatus, Cincinatus was a farmer who used to be a general and only when to Senate needed him did he lead the troops into battle, it was the same thing with the infantry, but they fought only when Rome needed them to. So because this is after Marius it is inaccurate to talk about wealth and social positions But again great video, an area which I don't know much about is the Roman navy, if you could do a video like this but about the navy I would appreciate it.
THFE Productions and one more question, Im pretty new to Rome 2 I have Emperors Edition, and my question is, do you think its a good idea to charge against spear or melee infantry with shock cav immediately followed by melee cav, or is this strategy a waste of troops?
Fantastic use of Rome 2, dude. Loved the video. Compared to static maps and slide shows, your video presentation was most informative indeed :) Looking forward to more of your work! Keep 'em coming~!!
Very nicely done dude, your presentation beats many of History channel half assed documentaries. Short, to the point, aided by visual cues from a damn game. Keep it up.
Century is a multiple of ten meaning 10 x contubernium for a total of 60... In later years the size of Roman forces would change but the numbers I cited were accurate for the standard manipular legion
Those would have been seen earlier in the history of the Republic. I was perhaps not clear enough in stating that these were for the manipular legions described by Polybius
THFE Productions Great video! Very informative. I'll have to watch it again to Soak it all in. I just LOVE anything that's about ancient Rome ever since I saw Spartacus on STARZ. :-) Thanks.
Haha, funny you say that cause my roommate has been watching Spartacus on netflix and now asks me more about Roman history. If you are interested then definitely check out my Total War History playlist which has a ton more documentary videos
Just subscribed!, you guys did a wonderful job taking us or me the viewer(s) deep into the trenches and/or the ancient apparatuses of all these battles that I'm sure channels like the 'History, PBS, or even the somewhat new TIMELINE series' {I now watch via UA-cam} try to do in their 1-2 hr segments,. But I never been able to understand & view these epic ancient wars & battle apparatuses with this much detail & depth before!. 🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝 ~You also have a well sounding narrative sound of voice w/ great delivery also,..~ *☝🏽↔️👈🏽👌🏽👉🏽👍🏽|💻 or 📺 👀, I'll be watching around the 🕛🕞🕧🕤🕘's*
A couple tips on Latin pronunciation. The second i in some latin words, like Triarii, is pronounced as a hard i. Tree-arr-ee-i. Almost all 'c's in Latin are pronounced as 'k's. Prin-kip-ays or prin-ki-pays, the second being more accurate but also being almost indistinguishable. Also, Acies falls under the same c rule and should be pronounced akies(Or if you're using Ecclesiastic Latin or Church Latin you would say Achies). The keys thing to keep in mind when working with Latin is that there are a few problem letters but otherwise English will carry the day. The letter c is always hard, basically a k.The letter g is always hard, as in gum. The letter j is always soft, sounding like a y. The letter v is pronounced as a w, since Latin does not have the letter w and for some reason does not need a v. To sum it up, Yulius Kaiser(Julius Caesar) sent a letter to Rome pronouncing his victory as "Wenee, Weedee, Weekee."(Veni, Vidi, Vici) I couldn't think of a way to include a g. Pronouncing Latin really is hard without experience. I had spent two years learning Latin and I pronounced velites and equites as vel-its and ek-wits for the longest time, but I learned a year ago the correct pronunciation which you use in the video. Honestly I'm still learning so I wouldn't stand on pain of death about what I've said above but it is definitely serviceable.
Salve. was thinking the same with the c. Also with triarii. The romans didnt have silent words and every letter was spoken so yeh again right with triarii. Vale
Whatever highly specialized linguists might say, I don't believe all C's were pronounced as K's. Why? In 95% of all Latin-derrived languages (of which I speak a few) the C's can be both soft and hard, depending on the position or of the sounds coming before/after it. It makes no sense that countries that are geographically very far apart, to have similar ways of saying similar words (that were derived from latin). Furthermore as I have spoken Spanish and Portugese fluently I can tell you that it's just really uncomfortable to say "prinkipays" compared to a soft sound. In Spain particularly, areas that have been onder longer or more intens Roman influence have a tendency to develop strong accents that soften sounds, not harden them. Hard sounds are a typical "barbarian" influence in Romance languages, and hence I see no reason why hard C's would have been common place. It's just not in the nature of the people here.
Michael DK - as someone whose studies Latin historical linguistics, I can tell you for a fact that Latin was pronounced /k/. You cite modern Romance languages as evidence for a soft , but this is irrelevant, as Romance languages did not diverge from Classical Latin which is taught in schools, but from the later, vulgate latin from the mid 1st millenium A.D. It is true that Late Latin had a soft , as like you say, all Romance languages have such a sound, but this is a later development, whereas the Latin of Cicero and Caesar, from over 500 years before the Romance languages split from Late Latin, still had a /k/ sound. As evidence, compare Ancient Greek κεφαλη (pronounced kephale) and Latin caput. Both derive from a common Proto-Indo-European root, and so are related ('cognates'), and in Modern Greek κεφαλι the hard /k/ is retained. As for your comment that hard 's are uncomfortable for you to say, this is also irrelevant, as you are not a native Latin speaker, and are used to modern Romance languages. You say that hard sounds are a "barbarian" influence - 1) this doesn't mean anything (who are these 'barbarians' - Greeks? Assyrians? Germans? 'barbarian' just means 'non-Latin speaker', and given the thousands of diverse languages which are not Latin, to claim that they all prefer hard sounds is dismissive, to say the least. 2) I have never come across any evidence for Germanic languages influencing Latin's phonemic inventory, and any such influences are almost certainly a post-Latin change. In short, it is not enough to use Romance languages to determine Latin phonetics, all that can tell you is what the language sounded like at its latest stage before the Romance languages diverged, whereas Classical Latin dates back to over 500 years earlier. Try reading literature from 500 years ago to see how much a language can change in that time.
Recently downloaded Europa Barbarorum 2 and got confused by the depth of the mod so I am playing Rome as I am figuring things out. The triple acies is very very good in that mod since the battle lasts longer so stamina and reserves matters a lot. I managed to fight off the epirotian invasion and the three gallic armies that shows up almost instantly, what little losses I took I replaced with some simple mercenaries. The samnites were good flank protectors with their javelins and spears, they protected the cavalry until I had a cavalry advantage. On the other flank I had etruscan hoplites and some cretan archers, the hoplites were very tough and held their own against far superior numbers. Then it all is a matter for the legions to chop their way through the enemy infantry. Just yesterday I realised that hellenistic factions can easily replicate the triplex acies with thureophoroi in the first line, thorakitai in the second and some quality hoplites in the third.
Goddamn this is good content. I wouldn't be surprised to see some experimenting teachers/professors using this sort of video in the classroom. The only thing I felt like it was missing was a references list. Great work, and keep 'em coming!
+XTheLostChampionX The battle of Cannae is very relevant to study, it is a mixed force tricking a rush army into destroying itself. Hannibal and Alexandros are arguably the two most relevant subjects to study in terms of combined arms during the classical era. The battle of Guagamela is just as interesting.
Well for the legion try and get even numbers of hastati, principes, and triarii. Then have a skirmishing component and cav wings. However the composition depends on whether you are trying to make an early republican legion or a polybian legion (both are premarian)
A mniple has 120 men for the hastati and princepes while the triarii were at half strength and would have had 60 per maniple. Then there were 10 maniples of each type for 1200,1200, 600
Tom Della Valle Just curious, is this opinion based on the current state of Rome II? If so, what is it you think is trash about the hastati right now? Because I find them to be about as effective as they’re intended to be as of a week ago. Great armor and morale for a ground-level medium infantry unit. Good melee attack and damage with swords lets them carve up cheap spears and go toe-to-toe with other early sword units... They’re not elite infantry by any standard, and they won’t be dealing the decisive blow, but they’re a very cost effective anvil to a hammer and are more than comparable to everyone else’s starting infantry. If you need heavy shock infantry that can last for a good while while killing a fair few things, that’s what you’ve got the Principes for.
@@hazed_23 hastati were trashy.... ceaser always placed them on the less important spots and let them do the easy work if he needed them. if he didnt need them they were only watching
he mentioned it partly. It allows for withdrawal of tired soldiers and advancement of fresh reinforcements. Also when maneuvering it is more flexible around terrain and turning, while a phalanx is very rigid the maniple can move around trees, rocks and hills
Thanks for the great history lesson! Very interesting. I have a question. Were there any provisions for aiding the wounded or dying during the battle? If so, how, who, and what would that entail? If not, can you describe the when, who, and how of aiding the injured and dying after the battle? How long might they have to wait, where would they be taken and by who, after a battle for medical treatment? What were the typical wounds and how did they treat them? Would they put a fellow legionary "out of his misery" at some point or let death take it's natural course? Maybe a whole video clip could be made on this subject.
KINGatLIFE sorry if this respond won’t matter anymore, but that phrase means a moment of decision has arrived, basically life or death decisions are made by the time the Triarii are sent ( Hastati and Principes have failed to crush the enemy ).
@@erlcabie9959 atleast I didn't show off my english like you . english is not my first language . You doing great job brother .keep on pointing . Good job . Thanks because of you I know what crime I had commited . Using 'are' ...
+Mike Fluffgren Yes. 1: Falanxs (Adopted from Greece, and considered unbeatable). 2: Triplex Acies (Invented to give more adaptability, and able to move unhindered in tough terrain). 3: Cohort system (Invented to fight battle against the now big and organized enemies of theirs). Hope this helps. :)
i think this was a play-game-movie, but this is great! Very nice documented and organised. I think you can go in a whole series of military antique tactics, starting with romans. Keep up good job. Congratz.
Try the bull formation. Used by The zulu empire during their fight with the bristh and opposing tribes Agnaist the great Shaka Zulu.I use the formation and it works but i want to see how you decode it.
A question, why send in archers first ? All you are doing is trading your archers for their archers. Are you not better keeping your archers behind your front line to maximize their effectiveness ? Same goes for skirmishers,why send them in first ? You are just wasting ammo throwing javelins etc into a wall of shields, are you not better off keeping them out of sight and using them from a flanking position. The only way i can justify putting your ranged units in front of your army is if you have the wind on your side and you have greater range than your opponent, that way they cant hit you back, you would be forcing them to either advance on your position, be lured into a certain position, or forced to move back. But even then, a shield wall/roof will deflect most of the arrows, you are better using your archers when the battle has actually begun to get full use of your arrows. I would much rather save several volleys of arrows to scare off a cavalry charge or when my missile units were as i said earlier, in a flanking position where the enemy could not defend as easily. (I am speaking in terms of before plate mail was invented, i.e. when your only defense against arrows were shields).
+Cloud Strife I'm by no means an expert but light infantry are very mobile because they have minimal armor. Because they are mobile they are more flexible to move through terrain but are more chaotic and less organized. They are able to chase down and harass an enemy force if they are moving and force them to fight, effectively slowing them down for the heavy infantry to catch up. They can also be used to make the enemy disorganized as they try and defend themselves from the skirmish, also light infantry want to target heavy infantry because the heavy infantry cannot retaliate because they are slow. One thing to remember most battles take place over days as the two armies try to position themselves in a more advantageous position and determine what troops are coming and where they are.
+Cloud Strife by sending your archers upfront, you can get extra range as well as the abillity to move them freely, if you win the ranged war your opponents will be forced to attack you and you'll get the terrain advantage. or if they decide to tank the shots and charge at you, it just means a couple valleys of arrows on them for free.
+Cloud Strife You deny the opponent free shots at *your* troops. By letting skirmishers (archers, slingers, javelins) move first you threaten the enemy's troops with an attack that is dangerous to in particular light infantry and to cavalry. The only way to prevent one side from sending projectiles your way until they are out of them, effectively is to send in your own skirmishers or your cavalry, and most cavalry in that time really wasn't very amazing melee troops. Ergo it was a way to take the initiative on the battlefield, and to force your enemy into action that might not be the best.
Inkompetent I disagree, if they sent their skirmishers forward i would shoot back with my archers placed behind my infantry. My cavalry would be out of their range and my infantry would be protected via shields (the odd arrow might squeeze though a gap ok sure) from missile fire, the only thing the enemy would be able to shoot are my archers, so i might as well shoot back. Which brings me back to my original point, all you are doing is exchanging archer fire with each other, is it not better to use your archers more effectively, which would be from a flanking position or against their cavalry.
Cloud Strife If your playing total war then yes, you either fight their skirmishers if you can overpower them or try to keep them alive and evade enemy missiles. This is a video about tactics used in history not so much in total war.
I am waiting for my desktop to arrive an more patches to take effect. But soon I will be getting started. Probably interested in an eastern faction and I might do two campaigns
your video is quite nice and I don't expect anybody to pronounce the names of the roman units properly but this might help you to improve your quality even more Hastati is pronounced "Astate" Principes should be pronounced "Prinkipes", with a hard "e" in the end Triarii is "Treare-e", double "ii" is spoken and not to be missed out Equites is "Ekwites" nevertheless good video, nice amount of info and not to long thanks
Well done! It took a lot of research on my part a good while ago to make sense of the "checkerboard" formation of the Triplex Acies. It wasn't always readily apparent from the sources I came across that indeed prior to the actual engagement of the legion's Hastati against their opponent that line was eventually solidified when the "interior" century (60) of the Manipal (120) would execute a quick "right-forward" redeployment to form a continuous line, each manipal fronting 20 men or ranks across, 3 ranks deep.
In reference to what you said at 7:00. I read somewhere that when the Hastati were engaged or charged towards the enemy, they halved the depth of the maniple so it covered twice the ground at the front. When on the move, they would have at least a 6 deep maniple (6 x 20) and when engaged, they would halve the depth and send the other half of the maniple to the flanks ( 3 x 40 ). The gaps that the Hastati left between each other would be filled by those troops who filled the blanks so when the enemy would engage, they would face a wall of shields and sword.
There are many competing theories as to how the Roman forces may have deployed. It's extremely speculative as we have no definitive description from history. I strongly recommend checking out this site which goes into huge depth on this topic: garyb.0catch.com/site_map.html
i have read all about roman tatics including this one but i never been able to visualize it, i still got questions like how did the Romans in the heat of battle manage to withdraw there first line behind there 2nd and not take heavy losses from them turning their backs to their enemies and how did they, during the retreat, prevent the enemy from running into the gaps in the ranks WHILE the line was falling back?
Can you do an episode on when either Alexander or Caesar chased their enemy into a trap in the only way they could get out of it was by doing battle drills and scaring the enemy away once they started running then they attacked
THFE thanks very much. This has contributed to my understanding and enjoyment of Rome 2. Is it possible to provide a thumbnail overview of Roman infantry tactics from Silanus to Constantine? Would love to watch that and get a broader understanding both tactically and from a historical perspective. Will look around your channel for more, oh yes much more!!!
What confuses me about this series of formations is what part of this design prevented a mass of the enemy's army from simply marching around the triplex acies and attacking from the flanks, disrupting the tactical design? Especially since this setup divides the manpower of the army into 3, you would think an army of equal or higher size would be able to extend a considerable degree further across the field than the triplex. What methods were executed to counter this?
Typically the Roman battle lines would be set to roughly match the opponent's front. Keep in mind that even though the Romans were in three lines the enemy was probably formed up in a single thicker line that was deeper. If there was a risk of the opposing force vastly outnumbering the Romans then the army would place itself with terrain on the sides to protect the flanks. If there was no such terrain then an army might actually dig ditches and set stakes to ward off an attack. The flanks would have also been the scene of cavalry action so it would be tough for the enemy to simply march through there without first winning the cavalry fight
One more question with that in mind. What was cavalry's effectiveness on the field like in the ancient world? Heavy armor would let medieval cavalry be a powerful fighting force, but were ancient cavalry still be effective going toe to toe with infantry? Or were they mainly better suited for scouting/flanking/chasing the opponent? I'm just asking because Rome: Total War paints a picture of powerful cavalry dominating the field, but I'm a little skeptical. Thanks for the replies, by the way :)
Michael Weir no cavalry could go toe to toe against well organized infantry formations (medieval or ancient). At least not in a way that you seem to imagine or that TW games portray. Because of specific societal and economical circumstances for a very long time there was no trained infantry formations in Medieval Europe, that's why it might seem that medieval cavalry was a lot more effective than the ancient one.
Michael Weir Ancient cavalry was mostly used for scouting, flanking and chasing down routing enemies. Though there were kingdoms that used heavy shock cavalry (macedonians, parthians, mostly middle eastern factions) they were not as powerful as medieval knights because of technology (no stirrups, no steel plate armor) and economy (owning a warhorse is like owning a luxury car). The cataphracts were the ones that resembled medieval knights the closest.
also. There is some debate to be had when and why phalanxes broke up over heavy ground because actually quite a few didn't care at all and attacked across rivers, uphill and broken terrain. Greek hoplites are also mentioned by Xenophon to use essentially spaced assault columns when advancing uphill. In direct reference one battle description in the Macedon wars ascribes victory to terrain disrupting phalanxes but phalanxes were used all across the middle east and balkans. hardly a good place to be able to pick only flat, unbroken ground and where do you find it in ancient times with tons of uncultivated landscape anyway? I think the answer is just too easy, there must have been more going on.
I suspect that they were in colulmn when in that formation and switched to line when engaging. Likely a maneauver to disengage the front line with use of missiles and then the front line retreats behind the next line before the new front line forms line instead of column.
Well done. Im so glad you stated that the front line forms a solid line after moving forward in chequerboard pattern. They used the spacing to move across broken ground without disordering the formations. When approaching the enemy the first line would form a solid line while the second and third line retain their chequerboard pattern to allow the front line an unobstructed passage of lines should they be broken or exhausted and permit them to reform behind the battleline. So many books, films and documentaries dont apply common sense and realise this simple fact. They insist that the front line attacked while still in a chequerboard formation which is ridiculous! Such a formation would have left huge gaps for the enemy to exploit. The flanks of such units would have been extremely vulnerable. The enemy, especially enemy cavalry could also easily pass between all the units through to the rear of the roman legion and then attack them in the rear.
We have no detailed descriptions of how they would have fought on such a precise basis. That scene was awesome although mostly produced from the minds of the writers
An additional note. The maniples themselves were a somewhat tight formation. Every man would have a three foot space in which they could retrieve their swords and then build their shield wall, but the scutum width (app. 3' wide with 6" elliptical convex form) would still provide flexibility for sticking. The checkerboard formation of the inner parts of the maniple allows soldiers to push through the opposing line diagonally, and thus, penetrating and covering before being penetrated.
Very nice! - very well done!I could argue about "this" or "that" particular, but there's no point in it whatsoever - You did an EXCELLENT video! Thank You VERY much!Thumb up&subbed! Have a nice day everybody! :)
one interesting note on the centuries, the first swordsmen would fight like mad dogs for about 5 minutes, the centurions would have the bugler blow, and the first men would step left and run between columns to the rear, the century would take one pace forward and re-engage the enemy front with fresh swordsmen. a man would only have to fight for a total of 10 minutes out of every hour, and enemy forces were facing constantly fresh, rested, well disciplined soldiers. this is one tactic that kept foes in fear of the Legions for hundreds of years.
Terrifying to face
I could be wrong, but I kinda find that hard to believe especially when they are engaged with multiple enemies, I know that I definitely not want to turn my back on the enemy, unless they obviously fall back shield facing the enemy. But it does make sense to fight for an x amount of time especially if youre battling a huge army.
I think the TV series "Rome" did give a somewhat accurate picture of the changing of the lines. This took place in the very first episode, the first few minutes. Here the centurion of his century blew his whistle for the change. This sort of makes more sense as various horns were used for bigger maneuvers of all the legions, I think. Someone said that they did not have whistles, but yes they did. I enjoyed "Rome" although it was terribly inaccurate in some of the events and characters, But I think very accurate showing the life and times of that period. Any way it sure made me scramble to do more studying of that particular period.
Alf-Einer Sivertsen, that rarely happened. The Romans learnt that forcing your men to kill a comrade isn't such a great idea, especially if you have a 1 out of 10 chance for every 100 soldiers to kill a well experienced and respected soldier. That's my thesis on it.
However Roman generals did avoid using it and there are very few cases of it ever happening in Romes nearly 2000 year history.
*em1o smurf*
this was useless against arminius ....
UA-cam is so much better than TV
Choose what you wanna watch > watching programming someone else wants to watch
I watch it on Tv tho. :D
I couldn't agree more
On TV, I watched the nice Ancient Warrior series which is similar to Invicta's excellent videos.
Purple Six Beats I’m watching this on my 70” 4K tv right now and it is glorious.
In Italy, still this days, in moments of hardship and when you are forced to use your last resources, some people still say 'WE ARE AT THE TRIARII'
that's so cool!
They are definitely the descendants of the langobards and ostgoths)
@@joharSen NO
@@joharSen why did you say that? Would you like it if he said that about you?
Its possible that they may have fought in that checkered formation. It could funnel enemy units and cut them off and squeeze them to be destroyed by the Triarii. So rather than having a static line, you have these jaws that eat weak enemy formations.
I agree, while opponents could press into the gaps and exploit them, the same is true of the Romans. If you move into the gaps you 1. break your own formation of shield wall or phalanx, 2. you have enemies on three sides attacking you. Its also possible the Hastati and Principes swapped spots several times in the battle without being broken. Withdrawing through the checkerboard as the next row charged could disrupt the enemy line who is not sure if you are fleeing or advancing. The troops that withdrew could get a chance to recover and reorganize. It was only when the triari came in that it was an all or nothing attack.
HaqqAttak They should make a video with this in action, it sounds totally badass
HaqqAttak btw the Triarii were rarely used unless they were the last unit standing and the also the reason they used that checkerboard formation was so they could be a lot more mobile and was designed while fighting the Italian mountain tribes, it was used to be able to manoeuvre and tighten up easily while going through and in between the mountains which is why the early Phalanx was discarded while fighting the mountain tribes as they could not react fast enough to ambushes and struggled to get through the mountains and ended up having to split the phalanx in two in order to get through
HaqqAttak history supports your perspective. That and I have used just such a method against enemy's on line.
Fighting in split units allows you to be surrounded and outflanked. Instead of using those large shields to fend off an enemy in front of you you now need to defend in front and on both sides. Small pockets of men being surrounded is a common tactic used to utterly annihilate an enemy. You could certainly use gaps to lure people into disadvantageous positions but in general a formation with gaps in the lines is doomed to failure. It does help to keep in mind that the Romans were often outnumbered in battle and relied on their comparative professionalism and much better tactics and equipment to carry the day. It's rather unlikely that the STANDARD strategy was to allow the enemy to tear into you like that.
Also, one of the roles of the triarii not addressed here was very likely to keep people from quitting the battlefield entirely. They would form a solid line behind the maniples and when the Hastati broke and the principes engaged the triarii would be there with their spears to "encourage" them to reform. There is a lot we don't know about these formations so this isn't confirmed but it's a pretty likely scenario.
this was brilliant. i want to learn more about the tactics of the greatest military ever. please do more.
No it.
That would be the current US army. With how much they spend on it it better be.
ichigo449 I think he’s referring to the coolest
@@AaAa-bj5su ⁸
@@ichigo449
Well I think he meant the greatest military of the Ancient world, not the current ones of the 21st century.
I love UA-cam's auto generated subtitles:
Principes equipment: Scooter, helmet, greaves, breastplate, sword and pillow
Mental image of Principes riding around on scooters whacking people with pillows!
Sounds sophisticated. Maybe if we sent them to Afghanistan they could finally win the war
Spanish inquisition still used pillows to good effect long after the Roman empire had shuffled off this mortal coil.
PILLOW FIGHT WITH SCCOTERS!
Brilliant! :D
I am in an online class rn, started LOLing
I think that may be the case for a consular army where the alae forces supplied much larger cavalry components drawn from non-romans
So if you were a noob in the army, you would've got a stick and a couple of rocks. lolol
atombrain111 you're exactly right. the early Roman armies were militia just like the Greeks ( except Sparta, of course).
and they had to share the rocks
at the same time though, they didn't shame you if you fled the enemy, the velites were skirmishers and meant to flee if engaged. They knew if they withdrew their comrades behind them were there to cover them. It probably gave the new recruits the taste of battle and boost their morale while weeding out the ones that didn't have what it takes to be in the frontline.
additionally to be a senator I believe you had to serve in the military for a certain amount of time. Usually as an equite.
quangtran527 not exactly, they had throwing spears, war slings and often a sword. They mostly had the role of make it harder for the enemies to keep formation and to bite groups of enemies to follow them when they retreated. The main objective was to disrupt the enemy formations. causing light casualties and causing them to charge into the hastatii was an extra.
Yeah, checked out the video and that was very well done. There is no conclusive description for the way romans engaged in combat due to lack of sufficient details so the best we can do is propose various methods. The one you demonstrated was certainly very appealing and plausible as well
I'll try covering a variety of videos although I am more familiar with Roman history
arguing language here is kind of missing the point. this is a video about Roman strategic and tactical doctrine and it's rock solid. You can take a Latin language course in most high schools if you want to argue about pronunciation. Just saying.
Only mature person I found in the comment section
Well, I'm certainly old enough to qualify :) thank you, sir.
The incorrect pronunciations take away from the credibility of the video. Not very hard to find out what the proper pronunciations of the different words are.
Must be a private school teaching Latin because most teach mandarin, Spanish, and French.
David JR
sermo urbanus et sermo vulgaris
I like you pointed out the roman saying "Going to the Triarii" - in other words, fighting a battle to the last line of infantry still alive, or fighting to the last man. One thing though; the Triarii wouldn't have necessarily allowed the front lines to retreat past them. Part of the reason the romans had three lines of youngest-young-oldest (oldest at the back) was to make sure the young guys knew they were being watched and judged by their elders. The Triarii would cut down their own soldiers if they retreated before the General gave the order. Routs, after all, were the quickest way for an army to get itself destroyed.
Ancient battles were as much about will as skill or strength. Basically it's a massive game of chicken. Whoever runs first gets slaughtered--to win, you just need to hang on long enough.
Nonsense. The Triarii were not Roman commissars. No one expected the Triarri to be a barrier that routing troops could not pass, requiring routing formations to stop and reform into tactical units with the enemy following right behind them; this takes time and doesn't happen when the enemy is right behind you...that's why it's a rout. First and second line units would pass between the formations of Triarii and reform behind them. I've never seen a single historical account of Triarii doing what you suggest. I would be most grateful if you provided your source (unless its head canon)
Tree-Ar-E-Eye
come on if you’re gonna use the game footage, they shout their name when you click on them..
So that's why they used spears...
Well, not so much for those reasons (yes, maybe somehow they were there, but that is irrelevant) but mainly because they HAD to fall back the lines fast after having hit. Unless you want to lose all of them for no reason. It is the Commander that decides for practical calculus, not the single young soldier on the field for his emotions.
@@Dadecorban ....Thank you for your input and it's duelly noted.✌🤓
Ha! And there I thought I was mimicking this formation when playing Rome 2, shows how wrong I was. Though I've found my own formation - one that I'm able to replicate in all of my armies since I try and make all armies in the campaign identical - is sometimes effective.
First Line: 2x Velites - scout and skirmish with the enemy but the moment the enemy move to engage in melee they fall back between my second and third lines.
Second Line: 6x Hastati - sometimes deployed in two lines of 3 instead, engage the enemy frontline and hold them there.
Third Line: 4x Principes - mainly my reserves, they just charge in behind the hastati when they begin to waver, if that doesn't happen then they're moved around the sides to attack the enemy in the flanks once the majority of the enemy force is committed.
Fourth Line: 2x Triarii - reserves of last resort, if enemy cavalry threatens to outflank my other lines I rush them up to block their way.
Fifth Line: 1x General - kept out of danger and use his abilities to buff my troops/de-buff the enemy as required, charge in when either: all hope is lost/the enemy begin to rout.
Extreme Flanks: 1x Equites on each flank - once the enemy melee units are engaged with my infantry I sweep these guys around the back of the enemy and chase off skirmishers then charge the enemies rear.
The Rest: Obviously that leaves me with only 17/20 units in the army. The remaining 3 spaces are filled by specialist units/mercenaries as required but if not needed these spaces are kept empty. If I happen to have some but don't need them for the current engagement I simply hold them behind my General in a sixth line to act as reserves or (as in the case of siege units like ballistae) to fire at the enemy at long range as they approach.
+kingkong381 lol me too i never thought that my formation is base on old roman military formation :D still im playing attila,AoC,kingdom of asturia and this formation is what im using now :D
+kingkong381 The one I used in Europa Barbarorum was like this:
1st line - hastati, roughly 6 units
2nd line - princepecs , roughly 6 units
3rd line - triarii, two units
Then we have the allies. On the right flank it was three units of samnite spearmen (thureous spears basically) and two cavalry units (one eqvites and one medium jav cav). On the left flank there were two units of etruscan hoplites (very tough) and one unit of kretan archers.
The allied/mercenary forces help a lot in keeping the flanks secure while the legion goes to work. Remember to have the first line as a proper line and the reserves in square blocks for better mobility.
+angelowl89 I did 5/5/3, 3 Velites, 1 General's Bodyguard, 3 Equites. :)
kingkong381
I might try this out but the army I used were mostly Calvary. I usually just laid back near the beginning of the campaign, collecting taxes and unlocking the stables. The Calvary would take up 3/4 or 15 of the 20 spaces.
I only really rely on units to storm into settlements
I do
First Line -> 2 Auxiliary Syrian Archers which fall behind the second and third line when melee starts
Second line -> 5 Hastati
Third line -> 5 Principes
Fourth line -> 1 Triarii, 2 Vigiles (mostly as a reserve / anti-cavalry force)
Fifth line -> General
Flanks -> 1 Socii Equites and 1 Praetorian Cavalry on each flank
This video deals with the triplex acies being used by Polybian Roman legions. I mention that cohorts were the basic tactical unit later on with 480 men (13:13) and that the tiple line was used before and after Marian...
"now the triple line and successive lines of reinforcement would have been used further down in Rome's History after the Marian reforms"
if anyone is wondering why there are 60 men in a century, watch historia civilis' video about roman tactics
Also, triarii is pronounced "tree-ar-ee-eye"
I was taught it was 80 !
+Andras Beke no. it's
tree-aree. he says well
The double "I" becomes tree-ah-ree-ee. This is the method to make a masculine noun plural, just as Julii, Helvetii, Scipii. Nouns ending in -ius -io (these are not the entirety of the masculine endings but these are the ones effected in this manner) are changed to -ii pronounced eee-ee. Latin is phonetic so every letter must be pronounced. To most English speakers this is awkward, but it is the proper pronunciation. See Wheelock's Latin.
60 in republican army, 80-100 in emperial
Cavalry did skirmishing and screening early on. They would have engaged outright with the enemy cav near the start of major engagements. When one side won the cavalry usually chased the enemy off the field. If they were disciplined enough they would return to the back of the enemy formation and strike at the rear of the enemy ranks or attack the enemy camp
The general was usually just behind the lines and would mostly direct his troops although sometimes would actually partake in the fighting
Hmm, thats a long time period to judge but I guess I would say that I think the Punic Wars and the generals they spawned were perhaps the most impressive. Caesar's campaigns in the last days of the republic were equally astounding. Once Rome got rolling and entered the years of its Empire things tended to be snowballing in Rome's favor and her expansion was not as "out of the blue" as the republican rise
I'm 63 and I have been studying the Roman Army from my 20's. This vid needs to be a primer for anyone interested in the Republican Legion. Outstanding. The one thing that is never really covered is the replacement of the lines. After the Hastatii had shot their bolt, when the Principes moved up. The "mechanics" of how they did it. Your explanation was spot on. Love the massive playlist. Smashed the like button. Comment is a sacrifice to the Algorithm. Cheers.
the latin c is pronounced more of a hard k sound, not an s sound.
+timlamiam to be fair though, that is only in the later latin which was used by the church
+THFE Productions It's pronounced K in classical latin, Ch in church latin (in front of i, e). In the video "Acies" is pronounced something like "Axes". It should be more like Ak-yes or Ach-yes.
+THFE Productions What Hosseldon said below, Caeser is pronounced Kaisar in ancient, classical Latin for instance :)
Jester I think it was pronounced Kaesar. The "e" being a sound that only exists in diphtongues in modern english (first element of A = [eɪ]). Kaisar would be either an archaic spelling or a foreign pronunciation.
Quite possibly, My native tongue isn't English, I know how you pronounce it since I took Latin for 6 years during Belgian Highschool, but it may be that the correct phonetic way to write it in english is Kaesar ^^
Excellent video! The narration was accurate and informative, and entertaining, and the cinematography/video capture had a cinematic element that made it pleasant to watch. Keep up the good job!
The books I have read say the century consisted of 60 combatants and a maniple of 120. These however would have been enlarged to 80 and 160 during times of intense fighting
This was incredibly educative, much better than documentaries in the sense that the massive formations could actually be formed with thousands of men compared to a small group of reenactors. I would love to see more of these videos, Total war is a fantastic way of demonstrating these tactics.
Wow this is crazy haha what even is this platform? Saw it's called "Rome/a 1 or 2" but anyway spectacular. I doubt anyone during the Roman Empire at the time would imagine the world watching their full techniques on some screen with the probably exact scale of troops. Great video.
Rome 2 total war
Isn't it! This should be used in schools with a professor talking about it, good way to learn.
D Hall Fun Game
Total War: Rome II. It's a strategy video game
Its not a platfor it is a game
This was very intresting both from historical viewpoint and from the game, good work
Ave fellow citizen of Roma.
Fantastic video, and you have filled in some gaps in my knowledge which I appreciate greatly. I also made a video about the manipular legion but I used Rome 1 and had a few gaps in my knowledge back then that I have filled in since.
Just a couple of things I feel I ought to point out though. And please, do not take this as an affront rather myself sharing my knowledge in payment for you sharing with me.
Pronunciations - The letter 'C' in Latin is always pronounced like a 'K' in modern English. So 'Principes' is pronounced 'Pnnk - eh - pez'. The 'C' said as a hard 'C' as a 'K' and the 'pes' in the word 'Principes' pronounced with a strong 'E' like 'pez'. The same applies with all Latin words and also 'Velites'. 'Vel - li - tez'
Second is the armour. The Principes wore lorica hamata rather than a breast plate. Lorica is like chain mail.
I'd love to talk some more with you, I feel we could learn so much from each other, and it would be nice to have a buddy with the same interest.
I've put your video on my channel and I'll put it on my Google+ too, and I've subbed.
Strength and Honour!
Thanks for helping to point out some of the errors in my pronunciation, I have adopted some of my style of speaking since this battle. However there is no hard and fast rule about roman naming convention since we actually dont know how they pronounced things. It seems the latin you are referring to is that used by the church but this is not the same latin that the romans would have used so it gives me a little breathing room for errors lol.
As for the principes using the lorica hamata that would probably be common but again not uniform given that troops at this time equipped themselves. Again I think I have corrected myself in newer videos
THFE Productions firstly great video thanks man.
Secondly I don't believe that the roman military system was based on wealth. After Marius changed the way the Roman Army was set up, you were placed in different units based on your skill unless you were VERY wealthy so unless during the republic you were related to a senator or during the empire royalty. After Marius changed the military he made every soldier have standard equipment and training this would mean that as you became more experienced you were promoted and not based on how much money you have, however in the very early years of Rome when it was still a monarchy you had to buy all of your own gear and and weapons.
Thirdly at about 12:14 you called the roman tactic a phalanx. I don' believe the romans ever used Hopolons (greek shields) nor did they ever use a phalanx, a phalanx is a very specific fighting formation where all men put there laced their shields on top of each other (sort of like scales) and thrust their spears under the shields or over the man in fronts shoulders, the Romans never used this formation because they valued mobility and the ability to change strategy almost instantly over putting a phalanx in place and not being able to change, because once you put a phalanx in action it was almost impossible to take it out of action. but I might be wrong and again great video
Richard Stacpoole The Roman military system was very much based on wealth. The population was divided into different categories based on wealth and the top ones were the knights or equites who served as cavalry. This created the distinctions in ranks. Upon the introduction of the marian reforms and the subsequent switch to professional armies THEN you would not have be assigned a rank based on wealth, besides senatorial or equestrian appointments.
Referring to something as a phalanx basically just means close order infantry with a dense shield formation. It can be used broadly to describe a shield wall. In fact the historian polybius often refers to Roman troops as forming a phalanx but this is more owing to his greek origins. Also the Romans did in fact fight in the true phalanx formation that you are thinking of early in their history. We are not sure when they abandoned this formation but it was probably during the samnite wars
Well thanks, much of what you just told me about romans and phalanxes I actually didn't know.
The time period the game takes place in is after Marius, you can tell by the troops, before Marius the army was a bunch of men who had to supply their own armor and weapons, who were called last minute when the Romans needed to fight, a good story to demonstrate what I mean is the story of Cincinatus, Cincinatus was a farmer who used to be a general and only when to Senate needed him did he lead the troops into battle, it was the same thing with the infantry, but they fought only when Rome needed them to. So because this is after Marius it is inaccurate to talk about wealth and social positions
But again great video, an area which I don't know much about is the Roman navy, if you could do a video like this but about the navy I would appreciate it.
THFE Productions and one more question, Im pretty new to Rome 2 I have Emperors Edition, and my question is, do you think its a good idea to charge against spear or melee infantry with shock cav immediately followed by melee cav, or is this strategy a waste of troops?
Fantastic use of Rome 2, dude. Loved the video. Compared to static maps and slide shows, your video presentation was most informative indeed :) Looking forward to more of your work! Keep 'em coming~!!
Brilliant video! x Love these historical ones especially with the visual aid!
Very nicely done dude, your presentation beats many of History channel half assed documentaries. Short, to the point, aided by visual cues from a damn game. Keep it up.
Post-Marian tactics? :D
Century is a multiple of ten meaning 10 x contubernium for a total of 60... In later years the size of Roman forces would change but the numbers I cited were accurate for the standard manipular legion
Those would have been seen earlier in the history of the Republic. I was perhaps not clear enough in stating that these were for the manipular legions described by Polybius
Brilliant study on Roman military formations and how they actually were used in battle. Thanks for all your work - very informative
THFE Productions Great video! Very
informative. I'll have to watch it again to
Soak it all in.
I just LOVE anything that's about ancient
Rome ever since I saw Spartacus on
STARZ. :-) Thanks.
Haha, funny you say that cause my roommate has been watching Spartacus on netflix and now asks me more about Roman history. If you are interested then definitely check out my Total War History playlist which has a ton more documentary videos
THFE Productions Sir, do you have a video for beginners to understand the basics first? I always been interested in Ancient Rome & Sparta military.
Such a detailed video, perfect for someone who is interested in the Roman techniques and formations. Falling on the Triarii!
First video I saw from you. So freaking cool
Awesome! Glad you enjoyed
Just subscribed!, you guys did a wonderful job taking us or me the viewer(s) deep into the trenches and/or the ancient apparatuses of all these battles that I'm sure channels like the 'History, PBS, or even the somewhat new TIMELINE series' {I now watch via UA-cam} try to do in their 1-2 hr segments,.
But I never been able to understand & view these epic ancient wars & battle apparatuses with this much detail & depth before!.
🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝
~You also have a well sounding narrative sound of voice w/ great delivery also,..~
*☝🏽↔️👈🏽👌🏽👉🏽👍🏽|💻 or 📺 👀, I'll be watching around the 🕛🕞🕧🕤🕘's*
Columbia University links this video in Roman history classes. Beautifully done.
Quite a bit of dedication went into this production, good job and thank you.
A couple tips on Latin pronunciation.
The second i in some latin words, like Triarii, is pronounced as a hard i. Tree-arr-ee-i. Almost all 'c's in Latin are pronounced as 'k's. Prin-kip-ays or prin-ki-pays, the second being more accurate but also being almost indistinguishable. Also, Acies falls under the same c rule and should be pronounced akies(Or if you're using Ecclesiastic Latin or Church Latin you would say Achies).
The keys thing to keep in mind when working with Latin is that there are a few problem letters but otherwise English will carry the day. The letter c is always hard, basically a k.The letter g is always hard, as in gum. The letter j is always soft, sounding like a y. The letter v is pronounced as a w, since Latin does not have the letter w and for some reason does not need a v. To sum it up, Yulius Kaiser(Julius Caesar) sent a letter to Rome pronouncing his victory as "Wenee, Weedee, Weekee."(Veni, Vidi, Vici) I couldn't think of a way to include a g.
Pronouncing Latin really is hard without experience. I had spent two years learning Latin and I pronounced velites and equites as vel-its and ek-wits for the longest time, but I learned a year ago the correct pronunciation which you use in the video. Honestly I'm still learning so I wouldn't stand on pain of death about what I've said above but it is definitely serviceable.
Thanks for the info man!
wenee weedee weekee lol
thanks for that though, it helps a lot
Salve. was thinking the same with the c. Also with triarii. The romans didnt have silent words and every letter was spoken so yeh again right with triarii. Vale
Whatever highly specialized linguists might say, I don't believe all C's were pronounced as K's. Why? In 95% of all Latin-derrived languages (of which I speak a few) the C's can be both soft and hard, depending on the position or of the sounds coming before/after it. It makes no sense that countries that are geographically very far apart, to have similar ways of saying similar words (that were derived from latin). Furthermore as I have spoken Spanish and Portugese fluently I can tell you that it's just really uncomfortable to say "prinkipays" compared to a soft sound. In Spain particularly, areas that have been onder longer or more intens Roman influence have a tendency to develop strong accents that soften sounds, not harden them. Hard sounds are a typical "barbarian" influence in Romance languages, and hence I see no reason why hard C's would have been common place. It's just not in the nature of the people here.
Michael DK - as someone whose studies Latin historical linguistics, I can tell you for a fact that Latin was pronounced /k/. You cite modern Romance languages as evidence for a soft , but this is irrelevant, as Romance languages did not diverge from Classical Latin which is taught in schools, but from the later, vulgate latin from the mid 1st millenium A.D. It is true that Late Latin had a soft , as like you say, all Romance languages have such a sound, but this is a later development, whereas the Latin of Cicero and Caesar, from over 500 years before the Romance languages split from Late Latin, still had a /k/ sound.
As evidence, compare Ancient Greek κεφαλη (pronounced kephale) and Latin caput. Both derive from a common Proto-Indo-European root, and so are related ('cognates'), and in Modern Greek κεφαλι the hard /k/ is retained.
As for your comment that hard 's are uncomfortable for you to say, this is also irrelevant, as you are not a native Latin speaker, and are used to modern Romance languages.
You say that hard sounds are a "barbarian" influence - 1) this doesn't mean anything (who are these 'barbarians' - Greeks? Assyrians? Germans? 'barbarian' just means 'non-Latin speaker', and given the thousands of diverse languages which are not Latin, to claim that they all prefer hard sounds is dismissive, to say the least. 2) I have never come across any evidence for Germanic languages influencing Latin's phonemic inventory, and any such influences are almost certainly a post-Latin change.
In short, it is not enough to use Romance languages to determine Latin phonetics, all that can tell you is what the language sounded like at its latest stage before the Romance languages diverged, whereas Classical Latin dates back to over 500 years earlier. Try reading literature from 500 years ago to see how much a language can change in that time.
You've gotten much more confident since you started your channel. Good shit bruh
Recently downloaded Europa Barbarorum 2 and got confused by the depth of the mod so I am playing Rome as I am figuring things out. The triple acies is very very good in that mod since the battle lasts longer so stamina and reserves matters a lot.
I managed to fight off the epirotian invasion and the three gallic armies that shows up almost instantly, what little losses I took I replaced with some simple mercenaries. The samnites were good flank protectors with their javelins and spears, they protected the cavalry until I had a cavalry advantage. On the other flank I had etruscan hoplites and some cretan archers, the hoplites were very tough and held their own against far superior numbers. Then it all is a matter for the legions to chop their way through the enemy infantry.
Just yesterday I realised that hellenistic factions can easily replicate the triplex acies with thureophoroi in the first line, thorakitai in the second and some quality hoplites in the third.
angelowl89 does is work for m2tw ?
Great work once again Oakley, these historical/tactical videos are my favorite.
I like to imagine the Romans seeing modern military in action. They would love it.
Goddamn this is good content. I wouldn't be surprised to see some experimenting teachers/professors using this sort of video in the classroom. The only thing I felt like it was missing was a references list. Great work, and keep 'em coming!
We are currently learning about Rome in history class. We just finished talking about Hannibal and we are currently still in the punic wars
+XTheLostChampionX awesome! I've got documentaries on both the first punic war and the battle of cannae which should be relevant
THFE Productions Nice! I will have to look it to that kind of stuff.
+THFE Productions What about more documentaries, it's my favorite content in the channel.
+XTheLostChampionX What grade are you in? D:
+XTheLostChampionX The battle of Cannae is very relevant to study, it is a mixed force tricking a rush army into destroying itself. Hannibal and Alexandros are arguably the two most relevant subjects to study in terms of combined arms during the classical era. The battle of Guagamela is just as interesting.
Well for the legion try and get even numbers of hastati, principes, and triarii. Then have a skirmishing component and cav wings. However the composition depends on whether you are trying to make an early republican legion or a polybian legion (both are premarian)
well at the end of the battle it was lagging real bad and I couldnt get you the awesome combat towards the end of the engagement
A mniple has 120 men for the hastati and princepes while the triarii were at half strength and would have had 60 per maniple. Then there were 10 maniples of each type for 1200,1200, 600
"That's how the Roman triplex acies basically worked." [army gets absolutely smashed by naked barbarians with bone spears]
hastati in the game are absolutely trash, actually they were pretty effective back in the days.
@@hazed_23 That is why I don't play Rome 2 without DEI.
The Triplex Acies works wonderfully there.
Tom Della Valle Just curious, is this opinion based on the current state of Rome II? If so, what is it you think is trash about the hastati right now? Because I find them to be about as effective as they’re intended to be as of a week ago.
Great armor and morale for a ground-level medium infantry unit. Good melee attack and damage with swords lets them carve up cheap spears and go toe-to-toe with other early sword units... They’re not elite infantry by any standard, and they won’t be dealing the decisive blow, but they’re a very cost effective anvil to a hammer and are more than comparable to everyone else’s starting infantry.
If you need heavy shock infantry that can last for a good while while killing a fair few things, that’s what you’ve got the Principes for.
@@hazed_23 hastati were trashy....
ceaser always placed them on the less important spots and let them do the easy work if he needed them.
if he didnt need them they were only watching
@@RustingPeace at Cesar times there weren't hastati because it was after Gaius Marius' reform.
Great job Oakley, entertaining AND educational :D well done mate, hope to see more of these.
That was really cool man!
Thanks a lot dude. This is great. So much easier to understand than a description in a book.
I think you skipped over the strategic benefit of this formation. A bit more detail might be nice.
he mentioned it partly. It allows for withdrawal of tired soldiers and advancement of fresh reinforcements. Also when maneuvering it is more flexible around terrain and turning, while a phalanx is very rigid the maniple can move around trees, rocks and hills
Thanks for the great history lesson! Very interesting. I have a question. Were there any provisions for aiding the wounded or dying during the battle? If so, how, who, and what would that entail? If not, can you describe the when, who, and how of aiding the injured and dying after the battle? How long might they have to wait, where would they be taken and by who, after a battle for medical treatment? What were the typical wounds and how did they treat them? Would they put a fellow legionary "out of his misery" at some point or let death take it's natural course? Maybe a whole video clip could be made on this subject.
" It came down to the Triari" was a common saying. Does this mean battles regularly came down to the Trari
KINGatLIFE sorry if this respond won’t matter anymore, but that phrase means a moment of decision has arrived, basically life or death decisions are made by the time the Triarii are sent ( Hastati and Principes have failed to crush the enemy ).
@@paulsrealm7850 That's not what he meant.
First time viewer/ancient history fanboy says: nice video man! Keep them coming!
Romans tactics were really ahead of there time ..
And your grammar is definitely behind of our time
@@erlcabie9959 atleast I didn't show off my english like you . english is not my first language . You doing great job brother .keep on pointing . Good job . Thanks because of you I know what crime I had commited . Using 'are' ...
Awsome video, really interesting, must have taken a lot of work and we appreciate it!
So this was before the Cohort system, correct?
+Mike Fluffgren
Yes.
1: Falanxs (Adopted from Greece, and considered unbeatable).
2: Triplex Acies (Invented to give more adaptability, and able to move unhindered in tough terrain).
3: Cohort system (Invented to fight battle against the now big and organized enemies of theirs).
Hope this helps. :)
Luckyshot It did, but U always though it was spelled Phalanx, not Falanx. Maybe it is a more modern word for it
Mike Fluffgren
Sry that's how it's spelled in my native language, must have been reflex more than anything I'm guessing (Phalanx is the correct way)?
I have a friend who is pretty much an historican Encyclopedia, and he say it with PH
Mike Fluffgren
It is "Ph". In my native language it's "F" though. My guess to why I spelled it that way, it was my mistake. :)
i think this was a play-game-movie, but this is great! Very nice documented and organised. I think you can go in a whole series of military antique tactics, starting with romans. Keep up good job. Congratz.
does this tactic actually work in rome 2? :) and great video!
No the AI is too stupid
one day... when the machanics of games mimics real life, this will be amazing.
DRIFTSOFT I use mods to have better AI. It makes the game at least an 8/10.
SportsPhanatic17 cool! which mods? :)
Cry For Freedom right now, but when Roma Invicta RE gets updated I'm gonna use that.
I love this animation with total war, superb job my friend.
Try the bull formation. Used by The zulu empire during their fight with the bristh and opposing tribes Agnaist the great Shaka Zulu.I use the formation and it works but i want to see how you decode it.
That was amazing, I really like your historical videos using Rome 2!
Keep 'em coming ;)
Historical, cinematic, I watched it 2 or 3 times...
Great work here THFE, we appreciate what you have done. Very informative and entertaining.
A question, why send in archers first ? All you are doing is trading your archers for their archers. Are you not better keeping your archers behind your front line to maximize their effectiveness ?
Same goes for skirmishers,why send them in first ? You are just wasting ammo throwing javelins etc into a wall of shields, are you not better off keeping them out of sight and using them from a flanking position.
The only way i can justify putting your ranged units in front of your army is if you have the wind on your side and you have greater range than your opponent, that way they cant hit you back, you would be forcing them to either advance on your position, be lured into a certain position, or forced to move back. But even then, a shield wall/roof will deflect most of the arrows, you are better using your archers when the battle has actually begun to get full use of your arrows.
I would much rather save several volleys of arrows to scare off a cavalry charge or when my missile units were as i said earlier, in a flanking position where the enemy could not defend as easily.
(I am speaking in terms of before plate mail was invented, i.e. when your only defense against arrows were shields).
+Cloud Strife I'm by no means an expert but light infantry are very mobile because they have minimal armor. Because they are mobile they are more flexible to move through terrain but are more chaotic and less organized. They are able to chase down and harass an enemy force if they are moving and force them to fight, effectively slowing them down for the heavy infantry to catch up. They can also be used to make the enemy disorganized as they try and defend themselves from the skirmish, also light infantry want to target heavy infantry because the heavy infantry cannot retaliate because they are slow. One thing to remember most battles take place over days as the two armies try to position themselves in a more advantageous position and determine what troops are coming and where they are.
+Cloud Strife by sending your archers upfront, you can get extra range as well as the abillity to move them freely, if you win the ranged war your opponents will be forced to attack you and you'll get the terrain advantage. or if they decide to tank the shots and charge at you, it just means a couple valleys of arrows on them for free.
+Cloud Strife You deny the opponent free shots at *your* troops. By letting skirmishers (archers, slingers, javelins) move first you threaten the enemy's troops with an attack that is dangerous to in particular light infantry and to cavalry. The only way to prevent one side from sending projectiles your way until they are out of them, effectively is to send in your own skirmishers or your cavalry, and most cavalry in that time really wasn't very amazing melee troops. Ergo it was a way to take the initiative on the battlefield, and to force your enemy into action that might not be the best.
Inkompetent I disagree, if they sent their skirmishers forward i would shoot back with my archers placed behind my infantry. My cavalry would be out of their range and my infantry would be protected via shields (the odd arrow might squeeze though a gap ok sure) from missile fire, the only thing the enemy would be able to shoot are my archers, so i might as well shoot back.
Which brings me back to my original point, all you are doing is exchanging archer fire with each other, is it not better to use your archers more effectively, which would be from a flanking position or against their cavalry.
Cloud Strife
If your playing total war then yes, you either fight their skirmishers if you can overpower them or try to keep them alive and evade enemy missiles. This is a video about tactics used in history not so much in total war.
I am waiting for my desktop to arrive an more patches to take effect. But soon I will be getting started. Probably interested in an eastern faction and I might do two campaigns
Pronunciation failure.
+Fuhq Ewe "preycepi"
Isnt it pronounced "asees?"
+FAULTYCLONE001 'a-kies"
Triary
Wouldn't it be pronounced "Achies"? Because of the letters "ci" which makes a sounds like "chi"
I'm so glad this had neither Vin Diesel or Ice Cube as a Roman super agent. Good video!
your video is quite nice and I don't expect anybody to pronounce the names of the roman units properly but this might help you to improve your quality even more
Hastati is pronounced "Astate"
Principes should be pronounced "Prinkipes", with a hard "e" in the end
Triarii is "Treare-e", double "ii" is spoken and not to be missed out
Equites is "Ekwites"
nevertheless good video, nice amount of info and not to long
thanks
Well done! It took a lot of research on my part a good while ago to make sense of the "checkerboard" formation of the Triplex Acies. It wasn't always readily apparent from the sources I came across that indeed prior to the actual engagement of the legion's Hastati against their opponent that line was eventually solidified when the "interior" century (60) of the Manipal (120) would execute a quick "right-forward" redeployment to form a continuous line, each manipal fronting 20 men or ranks across, 3 ranks deep.
Hasta - spear.....where the saying " Hasta la vista baby" comes from..... translated to " Spear ya later mate"......true story.....
In reference to what you said at 7:00. I read somewhere that when the Hastati were engaged or charged towards the enemy, they halved the depth of the maniple so it covered twice the ground at the front. When on the move, they would have at least a 6 deep maniple (6 x 20) and when engaged, they would halve the depth and send the other half of the maniple to the flanks ( 3 x 40 ). The gaps that the Hastati left between each other would be filled by those troops who filled the blanks so when the enemy would engage, they would face a wall of shields and sword.
There are many competing theories as to how the Roman forces may have deployed. It's extremely speculative as we have no definitive description from history. I strongly recommend checking out this site which goes into huge depth on this topic: garyb.0catch.com/site_map.html
cut out all the "Ugh" and "Ums" and you'd have a pretty well done audio narrative. Otherwise, fuggeddaboudit!
i have read all about roman tatics including this one but i never been able to visualize it, i still got questions like how did the Romans in the heat of battle manage to withdraw there first line behind there 2nd and not take heavy losses from them turning their backs to their enemies and how did they, during the retreat, prevent the enemy from running into the gaps in the ranks WHILE the line was falling back?
Very good content, poorly presented. Try to rehearsing and delivering more slowly.
This is a great Video I am using it for my research project on the Roman Military! Also huge total war fan. Two best things come together!
The way you pronounce the words makes me want to die.
We have a way in English of pronouncing Latin. He's speaking English.
Can you do an episode on when either Alexander or Caesar chased their enemy into a trap in the only way they could get out of it was by doing battle drills and scaring the enemy away once they started running then they attacked
I just found your channel today. I'm like a kid in a giant toy store, I don't know where to start but I know it's gonna be a lot of fun.
I knew most of it but fact checked to make sure I could recall everything in one go
Thank you for taking time to do this!
Congrats, bro! Nice, smooth and deep tactics coverage!
thanks, hope to come out with some more documentaries real soon
Top notch stuff man I've been following this channel since before release and your content is awesome.
Thanks for taking the time to reply :D That answers all my questions ^^
THFE thanks very much. This has contributed to my understanding and enjoyment of Rome 2.
Is it possible to provide a thumbnail overview of Roman infantry tactics from Silanus to Constantine? Would love to watch that and get a broader understanding both tactically and from a historical perspective. Will look around your channel for more, oh yes much more!!!
What confuses me about this series of formations is what part of this design prevented a mass of the enemy's army from simply marching around the triplex acies and attacking from the flanks, disrupting the tactical design? Especially since this setup divides the manpower of the army into 3, you would think an army of equal or higher size would be able to extend a considerable degree further across the field than the triplex. What methods were executed to counter this?
Typically the Roman battle lines would be set to roughly match the opponent's front. Keep in mind that even though the Romans were in three lines the enemy was probably formed up in a single thicker line that was deeper. If there was a risk of the opposing force vastly outnumbering the Romans then the army would place itself with terrain on the sides to protect the flanks. If there was no such terrain then an army might actually dig ditches and set stakes to ward off an attack. The flanks would have also been the scene of cavalry action so it would be tough for the enemy to simply march through there without first winning the cavalry fight
One more question with that in mind. What was cavalry's effectiveness on the field like in the ancient world? Heavy armor would let medieval cavalry be a powerful fighting force, but were ancient cavalry still be effective going toe to toe with infantry? Or were they mainly better suited for scouting/flanking/chasing the opponent? I'm just asking because Rome: Total War paints a picture of powerful cavalry dominating the field, but I'm a little skeptical. Thanks for the replies, by the way :)
Michael Weir no cavalry could go toe to toe against well organized infantry formations (medieval or ancient). At least not in a way that you seem to imagine or that TW games portray. Because of specific societal and economical circumstances for a very long time there was no trained infantry formations in Medieval Europe, that's why it might seem that medieval cavalry was a lot more effective than the ancient one.
Michael Weir Ancient cavalry was mostly used for scouting, flanking and chasing down routing enemies. Though there were kingdoms that used heavy shock cavalry (macedonians, parthians, mostly middle eastern factions) they were not as powerful as medieval knights because of technology (no stirrups, no steel plate armor) and economy (owning a warhorse is like owning a luxury car). The cataphracts were the ones that resembled medieval knights the closest.
Enemy was busy forming up as well and due to roman discipline, they would probably form up way before the barbarians could finish their lines.
Well put together: concise & to the point info, exactly what I was looking for, & I didn't hear any 'ums' or 'uhs'. Good work.
Your doing a great job mate! Enjoying and learning.
also. There is some debate to be had when and why phalanxes broke up over heavy ground because actually quite a few didn't care at all and attacked across rivers, uphill and broken terrain. Greek hoplites are also mentioned by Xenophon to use essentially spaced assault columns when advancing uphill. In direct reference one battle description in the Macedon wars ascribes victory to terrain disrupting phalanxes but phalanxes were used all across the middle east and balkans. hardly a good place to be able to pick only flat, unbroken ground and where do you find it in ancient times with tons of uncultivated landscape anyway? I think the answer is just too easy, there must have been more going on.
This is a very well put together video dude! I really love the overhead views you got of their formations, that was what I was really looking for. 👍🏼
I suspect that they were in colulmn when in that formation and switched to line when engaging. Likely a maneauver to disengage the front line with use of missiles and then the front line retreats behind the next line before the new front line forms line instead of column.
Well done. Im so glad you stated that the front line forms a solid line after moving forward in chequerboard pattern. They used the spacing to move across broken ground without disordering the formations. When approaching the enemy the first line would form a solid line while the second and third line retain their chequerboard pattern to allow the front line an unobstructed passage of lines should they be broken or exhausted and permit them to reform behind the battleline. So many books, films and documentaries dont apply common sense and realise this simple fact. They insist that the front line attacked while still in a chequerboard formation which is ridiculous! Such a formation would have left huge gaps for the enemy to exploit. The flanks of such units would have been extremely vulnerable. The enemy, especially enemy cavalry could also easily pass between all the units through to the rear of the roman legion and then attack them in the rear.
New viewer and I must say that you have done an amazing job! Very informative and great demonstration. Excellent job!
We have no detailed descriptions of how they would have fought on such a precise basis. That scene was awesome although mostly produced from the minds of the writers
That was great. Really interesting. Been trying this in multiplayer and it works surprisingly well!
I believe they used that against the barbarians in Gaul or Brittania. It's called the boar's snout
An additional note. The maniples themselves were a somewhat tight formation. Every man would have a three foot space in which they could retrieve their swords and then build their shield wall, but the scutum width (app. 3' wide with 6" elliptical convex form) would still provide flexibility for sticking. The checkerboard formation of the inner parts of the maniple allows soldiers to push through the opposing line diagonally, and thus, penetrating and covering before being penetrated.
Very nice! - very well done!I could argue about "this" or "that" particular, but there's no point in it whatsoever - You did an EXCELLENT video! Thank You VERY much!Thumb up&subbed! Have a nice day everybody! :)