WheresWallace4883 I know it is kind of boring but the problem is that it is really effective. There's a reason it became the standard tactic for several hundred years if not almost 2 millenia. Why go back to the older tactics that are less effective. I mean normal hoplite battles were mostly pushing contests that ended when one flank gave in.
@@Dirt_McGirt_Osirus Numidians>>> mongols in terms of horse riding skill. Mongols used saddles and stirrups. Numidians rode bareback and controlled the horse with a small rope
@@misterdream5558 the Huns used saddles and it was either them or the avars who brought stirrups to Western Europe. Both of those inventions came from the steppes the Huns inhabited anyways
Philip is so underrated. I feel his son took a lot of his fame from him because he was the one to use his reforms and new strength. don't get me wrong, Alexander is amazing, but he takes allot of due credit from his dad.
ULTRA MEHREEN well, besides some subtle historical evidences, think about it, Philip was killed when he was at the peak of his power, so it’s most unlikely that his death was the result of an outside force. Therefore, Alexander is considered a suspect.
Koala on a Whale True but he was also aged 46 at the time, back then that was beyond maximum life expectancy. Plus it’s not the first time for someone to die at the peak of their power. Hell it happened to Alexander himself
It's a full series. Prepare yourself for when the greeks are conquered, we would be marching across Asia minor, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Gedrosia, India and all the way to the edge of the known world!
yo yo by the council of Corinth*. Besides most Greeks didn't participate. Italiotes, Syracusians, Lakedaimonians, Epeirote, Pontics, none of them showed up or helped in the conquest. Chaironia was a show of force to intimidate some into joining the league
@@capatani1152 Alexander died at 32 and took the throne at 20. He then began campaigning for up to 10 years after according to historians. I think you're the one who should "look it up"
@@jhonnyjhonson2664 Fair enough but I just hate how everyone says he conquered the world at 20 years old. Like wtf he was only throned at 19 so by the time he was in India which is a massive feat yes, he was probably late 20's possibly 30 yano Also if was his father who was the true mastermind behind the campaigns. Although he was a master tactician (Even if those tactics were invented by Philip)
This video makes the understanding of Alexander's military success a lot easier. He was a great commander, but his success was mostly due to the superiority of his troops in relation to his enemies. Plus he had loyal people watching his back. Thanks for another great video, I honestly feel bad that I can't afford to help you on patreon.
@@bilib1891 leading from the front doesn't mean charging to your own death. The example here being Alexander, but anyway I was referring to the origin of the word.
@@davidjarkeld2333 It made sense back then for leaders to be somewhat involved, as they didn't have guns and radios. Nowadays it makes no sense for leaders to be on the frontlines as battles cover far more distance, your leader can be shot from 500 metres away, and if they are in base with equipment and infrastructure they can more effectively use communication technology to command their troops
This channel is outstanding. So many of the other history channels have such elaborate visuals but aren't nearly as interesting or educational. Seriously, well done mate. You've got this absolutely nailed.
This has quickly become one of my favorite channels. Only problem is that I️ have binge watched all your videos and now I️ have nothing. Please upload more, you’re absolutely brilliant!
Can't wait until we continue through Asia minor, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Gedrosia, India and all the way to the edge of the known world! Alexander is gonna wreck shit up!
Could you do some videos on how Rome came into possession of Iberia? I never understood very well how that happened and you are the best at explaining those things
parts of it were taken from carthage in the punic wars i believe, im sure he covered this in other videos This process started with the Roman acquisition of the former Carthaginian territories in southern Hispania and along the east coast as a result of defeating the Carthaginians (206 BC) during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), leading to them leaving the peninsula. This established Roman territorial presence in Hispania. Four years after the end of this war, in 197 BC, the Romans established two Roman provinces. They were Hispania Citerior (Nearer Spain) along most of the east coast (an area roughly corresponding to the modern Spanish autonomous communities of Valencia, Catalonia and part of Aragon) and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain) in the south, roughly corresponding to modern Andalusia.
cjonesabc That was mostly the eastern and southeastern portions of Iberia. There are other parts though, such as the northwest corner of the peninsula that I know nothing of how Rome came to occupy it. This applies to most of the western half of modern Spain and Portugal for me, and I'm to lazy to spend 15 minutes looking for a good source of the information and reading it
+Nobody Important Carthagae and Rome had a agreement to divide Iberia up to an certain river (Sadly i dont remember ne name. they had one province in Iberia already when they conquered the rest from Carthagae. And it wanst until Pompej that they completely conquered it. The Iberer fought a guerrilla war there.
Phillip: "Oracle, will the Persian Empire be defeated?" Oracle at Delphi: "The bull is crowned." (Your bloodline reigns over Greece.) "All is done." (Military preparations are in place.) "The sacrificer is ready." (Alexander shall conquer.)
Actually, I think it's more "The bull is crowned" (Bulls were used regularly as sacrifices to the gods, and a crowned sacrifice sounds like Phillip, doesn't it.) "All is done." (Sounds like it does) "The sacrificer is ready." (Alexander is ready to carry out the strange assassination?)
"The bull is crowned." (There's that yearling bull with a funny fluff of har on his head.) "All is done." (Dinner's ready.) "The sacrificer is ready." (My appetite has build up - gtg.)
Well, in a world full of boxes, the better box won. And one day they made such a big box with such a long stick that they defeated themself with it... Actually the sarissa had a big disadvantage - much weaker ranged proptection due to teh samler shield. But that was negated by the Maccedonians already having good cavalry before that reform. And the shieldbearers took over the flanking/flanking protection duty.
Interestingly, in Rome total war multiplayer, there was a popular tactics called boxing which is just the getting a bunch of Phalanx in a square formation so it couldn’t be flank. It mocked as noob box. The most effective and popular way to defeat these boxes are baiting the enemy into pushing out of the formation, open up a gap and exploit the inflexibility of their formation.
@@lc9245 Urbans and Sacred band could defeat them if concentrated on one part of the line, basically a conga line of shock troops. Phalanx also didn't counter cavalry properly once the infantry forced them to switch to spears.
As Macedonian Kingdom unified the other Greek Tribes/States/Kingdoms (in Metropolitan Greece/Hellas) of that era this is the logical outcome. If it was Athenians, Thebans or Spartans (etc.) it would be *mainly* Athenian, Theban or Spartan (etc.) history.
@ziggyonthemoon, thank you for stating what should be obvious. In any case, we live in an era that everybody wants to form history according to his views. Greek History has A LOT of good and bad moments. I do not reject any of them and I do not want to be credited with something which has not happened (e.g. saying that Roman Empire is Greek :P). Alas!
We all have, the Macedonians invented the ancient European system of battle and basically everyone ripped them off to some extent for like 2 thousand years
The game was designed to reward Macedonian style tactics, that's how they promoted realism was making the real tactics of the Macedonian army, were real effective
6:18 wait what do you mean the spears they used in Greece? Macedonia was too a Greek state. Sarissa is longer than the spears they used in the REST of Greece or in southern Greece.
@@Johnny-xi4ti so you probably hate Macedonia. If so, why did you watch this video? You hate both Greece and Macedonia, so you don't have a side in this argument.
@@Johnny-xi4ti oh my god ask any historian, they categorise macedonian history along with the rest of greece. Its a shame you have no identity and you are so committed into trying to steal ours. Try as you might, you will never become Greeks. You will always be slavs.
amazing video! i'm sure i'm not alone in the giddiness and excitement when i experience this kind of military history goodness. i'm a huge fan of military 'metas' (to use a gaming term), and this video was a great overview of what made macedon's military so impressive. keep doing what you're doing!
Dude, your videos are getting more and more polished with each one. Keep it up! After having to take History 101 4 times before passing it, in college, I never thought I would look forward to these videos as much as I do!
Their sarissas increased in length to the sixth row, leaving the spear points aligned externally. They could form circles or squares and fight completely surrounded, moving to either side. The mistake of finding that all spears were the same size, like pikes, was spread by Machiavelli in "The Art of War."
Love these types of channels that focus on a specific topic and make incredibly high-quality content about it. Keep up the good work, I love battle tactics :D
4:56 Where does this idea of the phalanx scrum come from? It's an absolutely stupid *and* unnatural way to fight yet I've heard so many youtubers mention it that I'm not willing to dismiss it outright without knowing the source.
You're on the right path to not accept information from youtubers without doubt.... then you go ahead and ask youtuber commenters as your best source. So close.
From the Athenians, perfected by the Spartans (by having the only professional military). Phalanxes were the dominant military formation and the supporting troops would often negate each other (cavalry would chase each other's peltasts away then chase each other around as they weren't able to do much against an unengaged phalanx even with a flank attack). It's strategic inbreeding, but it happened. "My Life and Times" by Xenophon (Athenian general circa 300BC) has a good description of how the Greeks saw it was the perfectly manly way to wage a war - the strongest at shoving the others off their feet won. There were other tactics to break up the "phalanx scrum", such as widening the phalanx upon engagement (trying to wrap around the enemy) once the initial charge had been absorbed, or deploying the same number of men into more phalanxes to outflank the enemy, however since the phalanx with more momentum (from deeper ranks providing more pushing power by pushing your shield against the guy in front of you) usually wiped out the phalanx with less momentum on the initial charge (i.e. pushing them off their feet) these strategies were considered questionable at best. It was usually determined by the strength of your soldiers (generally depending on how well trained they were) and the number of hoplites in the phalanx that carried the day. Then Leuctra happened and 200 years of inbred military theory got turned on its head... about 20 years before Philip of Macedon.
@@jarrodbright5231 But why do it in the first place? I can't believe that two spear-wielding units would walk within spear range and not use the spears. As I've said before, I can believe phalanxes got pressed together sometimes but not that they _intended_ to, given they're armed with spears.
@@Robert399 If they weren't fighting other phalanxes they wouldn't; they would use the natural advantage of the phalanx of having 3 people fighting each individual enemy due to being in closer formation. However if you have a phalanx and the other side has one, the most decisive way to win is to break their phalanx formation up. Momentum from the charge pushes enough people in the phalanx that doesn't charge out of formation that they are no longer locked shield-to-shield. Worse, the enemy phalanx is now inside your phalanx, in formation, and can form a fighting square, arrow-wedge or similar formation (there is documentation of a few of these though few first-hand accounts of it happening as people would just run if their phalanx was broken). Some of the people in the phalanx getting pushed out of formation will get trampled or stabbed by the spears of the charging phalanx and the rest will be at a severe disadvantage. There is also a significant morale factor of being physically pushed out of your formation if you're planning to fight a battle a certain way and it just isn't working out, and you no longer have the advantage of knowing where your friends and enemies are on the battlefield whereas your opponents know very well that everyone outside of their formation is an enemy. Since each side using a phalanx know the other side will do this even if they don't, both sides inevitably charge to avoid giving the other side such an overwhelming advantage. It's worth mentioning that the front rank would try to aim their spears at the other side as they charged, but remember that spears tend to break when they hit bronze shields so this would inflict minimal casualties. Spear and short sword thrusts would definitely happen once the phalanxes are shield to shield, however with large hoplon shields, helmets, greaves and armored kilts, these would do a lot less damage than you might think. The strategy at this point would be to win the battle as decisively as possible to minimize casualties on your own side (i.e. people like to survive the battle). If you kill the guy in front of you with a spear or sword thrust you have someone else replace him as soon as his body is out of the way. If you break the enemy formation and force your phalanx into their phalanx you win the battle because now only one side is fighting in formation. Most enemies will flee at that point and that's the battle won and hooray you live to fight another day. Also, with spear and sword thrusts, only the front 2 ranks of the 8-20 ranks of the phalanx can get involved in the fighting (as opposed to the front 6 ranks with a Macedonian phalanx). With shields to the backs of the guys in front of you, all of the ranks can get involved. Now those thrusts did happen because they would disrupt the enemy's momentum / pushing power, but they wouldn't be the main way to win the battle.
@Historia Civilis @5:00 Again with the shallow"othismos" myth with physical shoving with shields which was proven false by historians and reenactors over and over again. You seem to forget that word "othismos" was also used to describe fearsome verbal debate, therefore, you should not use it in literal translation.
@@shweatypalms4423 I believe the purpose of it was to basically create such density so that nothing could penetrate it. You kill one guy with a sarissa, right away another one comes up with his, just makes it impossible to get through it
WOW. I didn't know so much of this. And I really geek out on this topic on an armchair level. Videos like that are tough to find. This channel is consistently fantastic.
Not mentioned here are the light-armed specialists like the corps of Creto-Macedonian archers and the Agrianian javelineers, who were often employed to form a flying column with the Hypaspists and the Hetairoi; and the Thracian and Illyrian peltasts in general, who screened the army on the march, provided flankers, and who supported the Companions during a charge.
I really enjoy military history but I can happily say I learned quite a bit from your video and how you break down tactics. Great job, definitely subbing
Ok, I have to dispute the shoving match thing. I've looked a few times and failed to find a first hand reference to this happening. As far as I can tell, it is simply an archeological assumption. While I'm sure it happened occasionally, it just seems like a worst case scenario. Most battles ended with ~10% casualties(from what I've read). This would happen almost immediately if it was a shoving match. Take a small, hypothetical formation 10 men deep and 20 men wide. Just that would be enough to probably kill the front line of BOTH formations. The weight of 9 rows of dudes behind you plus 10 in front of you simply does not seem survivable. I know the front lines often got double pay but this seems like utter suicide. Also, this would make the sarissa less effective. You simply equip a bigger shield so your side has more weight and better protection. A sarissa seems far *more* effective if you're approaching with tight, enclosed formations and trying to poke at people without getting into a shoving match. Otherwise all you need to close the reach advantage is the discipline to make it past the initial barbs. But that honestly sounds crazy for both sides *especially* because the companion infantry has smaller shields. That would be such a massive gamble that could go awry very easily. You could lose men just because the opponent's weren't *able* to break fast enough. Have you ever been in a super dense crowd? One that panicked? I dunno, can someone point me to a *first hand* account that describes two formations actually making _shield contact_ and then _pushing_ against each other as a whole formation? Do they really describe their buddies shoving them from behind with their own shields? It seems like you wouldn't actually be able to fight that way. How do you even bring your arm back to thrust if there's a wall of shield against your back? It doesn't sound very mechanically plausible to me.
"Alexander, Parmenion, Philip, Aristotle'' In Greek language those names mean words and characteristics actually. Very curious if those names mean anything in slavic language or it's just letters in a random queue...
I reacted to that too. It seam highly unlikely that that would ever happen because you have 2 enemies that are looking to kill each other and also not die them self. So marching well within the range of your opponents weapons just to get so close so that the enemy could punch/stab you in the face seams like a very bad strategy to win any fight.
stony990 Plus your shield is just an obstacle to fight around if it's bound to your opponent's shield. Sure they are in the same situation, but if another enemy strikes at you you're dead.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this discussion / critisism: Hoplites also carried a sword, mostly a short sword called a xiphos, but later also longer and heavier types. This very short xiphos would be very advantageous in the press that occurred when two lines of hoplites met, capable of being thrust through gaps in the shieldwall into an enemy's unprotected groin or throat, while there was no room to swing a longer sword. (Note that this is not the full text of the paragraph; only what's useful for this topic. You can visit the Wikipedia page about hoplites to read the whole thing.)
Casper Kersten That certainly sounds more realistic than the sports day version, although it is wikipedia so pinch of salt. Edit: also aren't hoplites and phalanx slightly different? P.p.s while I'm at it if you got this far I should also note that tbf it is still an interesting and well made video on the whole.
Fantastic video... a lot is made of Alexander's brilliance as a general, but one thing rarely examined is the fact that he inherited one of the most hi-tech armies the world has ever seen
I think you need to correct something. No one knows if the Greek, pre-Macedonian, phalanx did do shoving matches. It makes little sense anyway as why shove when you have spears and knives? Not to mention if the people on the back shove those at the front won't they end up breaking the bones of their own men with enough pressure?
I really don't know. But looking at pottery depicting phalanx fights it seems there is no real sign of shoving. Instead, they look like they're fighting like most other spear-wielding warriors. They stand about a meter or so apart and try and stab each other while not being stabbed in return.
Yes, I agree! It makes more sense since the shield the men used were essentially bucklers. A short sword would be the end of them. I think Lindybeige rants about the same sort of thing in one of his videos. But I don't know squat about the history though.
WisePictWarrior The great thing about using the spear over arm is that you could use it far away or up close. Also, if your shield is bound by someone else's shield, you can no longer use that shield to defend yourself, so shoving doesn't make much sense if you want to survive.
ultraboy222 It's not a buckler, a buckler is about 12 inches, primary sources and archeological finds show shields that are about 2 feet. Bucklers are also held by a center grip and are basically an extended center boss. A Macedonian pelta is smaller and less domed than a hoplon and has a thin arm strap and a cord to hold it by the rim.
10:40 Complete baloney. Hannibal placed his weakest troops in the edges of his line and told the veterans in the middle to feign-retreat, thus baiting the enemy into an encirclement. It has nothing to do with "hammer and anvil" or Alexander's tactics. Had they held the line like in your previous "anvil" explanations they would've been meat-grinded by the romans handily.
Could you start using the metric system in your videos? It's hard for me and the rest if the world to understand distances, lenghts and so on without pausing and checking. Thanks! :P
HacaPotato 3 fucking countries in the World use this mile and foot shit. One of them is america and you expect the Rest of the World to learn this unlogical shit? Hell no
you are one of three channel on youtube which i literally love to watch and i cannot wait to get my first salary after this mouth to support you in patrion :)
It is a great video but there are certain inaccuracies and speculations. The right explanation of the phalanx is a tightly packed rectangular formation of infantry. I never see people getting the phalanx terminology right. Also, a thing which is already noted in the comments - these shoving matches cannot be proven with sources. This is just a speculation.
Shoving matches is extremely bizarre and din't happen regularly if at all. Why arm men with spears then just get into a shoving match? Why not just give them all knives or swords and do the shoving?
I disagree with your explanation of how cavalry was used despite mentioning the lack of stirrups and saddles you are still under the assumption that the wedge formation was designed to smash into the enemy. No. And i am extremely sceptical of the pushing match theory. I like many believe that where as a shoving match could occur it was not the intention of phalanxes going into battle. Evidence for this is found in the equipment of the soldiers and areas of extra protection in the armour. Long spears and slashing and thrusting swords coupled with limited neck protection and strong chest protection suggests a preference for combat at the limits of reach to mid range exchange. it seems that the Greek soldiers where not concerned about protecting areas such as the arm pits, collar and groin. areas that would be very vulnerable at grappling range. This suggests that the shoving match is a myth. As for Cavalry i should point out that it is now widely agreed that the wedge formation was designed to ride past the exposed ranks and scythe through the enemy much like cavalry columns of the Napoleonic era or indeed the function of any light cavalry.
"As for Cavalry i should point out that it is now widely agreed that the wedge formation was designed to ride past the exposed ranks and scythe through the enemy much like cavalry columns of the Napoleonic era or indeed the function of any light cavalry." -- Interesting. Do you have any sources to support this argument?
Since I have watched this battle I have won way more Rome 2 total war matches online as Carthage and Hellenistic factions with the pikemen in the centre hoplites on the flanks to move behind the enemy. Surrounding the enemy is an obvious idea, but this combo is op! Thank Historia Civilis!
It's funny how you keep mentioning Greece and Macedonia as two different entities when it was Alexander himself who first united the various city states as Greece. By your logic you should not call Athens, Sparta, and the other city states Greece, but by their city names, as you do with Macedon. Be consistent in your naming, especially since this is a very contested topic at the moment. If you call Athens and the other city states 'Greece', then do the same with Macedon.
The Greeks used a foot that was slightly longer than a customary foot (.308m). Metric is useful but he isn't saying feet to be American, that is literally how primary sources described the length of a sarissa or xyston.
One correction. Phalanxes couldn't do the shield lock like you suggest. The pressure from both ends would crush the lungs of most of the interior of both units, killing the entirety of both front lines. More likely, they used those spears and poked at each other.
I can convert the imperial system to metric in my head. And I was educated in America. Anyway, you have a Iphone app for converting? Or to busy with your "pint"
Once and for all, the proper pronunciation is MaKeTHonian, where K is pronounced as in "Kite" and (TH) is pronounced as in "THis". And it is important to clearly and assertively explain to your audience that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe (originally from the city of Argos) and that they have nothing to do with today's FYROM (former yugoslavian republic of macedonia) who for petty political reasons have stolen the macedonian name and also attempt to usurp the Macedonian Hellenic(=Greek) heritage for selfish nationalistic reasons (e.g. lack of ethnic belonging and tradition; somehow they deny they are descendants of Slavs who came to the region almost 1,000 years after the ancient Macedonians had already established their kingdom). Thank you! (and please I expect a courtesy reply here or in my email)
He never mentions the modern states at all, so why is it important to mention thusly? When he speaks of Boudicca, he doesn't go on at length how modern Scots are from Ireland and not the Pictish people of the time. So, why make the distinction here? It's unnecessary, and irrelevant to the topic of the video: the Battle tactics of the Macedonians, not their history and modern counterparts.
to be fair, the hole Argos thing isn't really accurate. But the macedonian language was without doubt Greek, Macedonians' names were greek, their gods were the same as the rest of greeks, the legacy they left was greek. "Hellenistic" stands for something
Go to "The ancient Macedonians were not Greek" channel on youtube, one of the best channels that clearly seperates the Macedonians as a different nation.
Daniel M please stop with your nonesensical propaganda based on overexaggurated (probably butchered it) and ethnicistic ''facts''. Alexander was a proud Macedonian. Macedon was an ancient hellenic kingdom which was considered like many other kingdoms by the arrogant as ever Athenians as '' barbaric''. Its people spoke the greek dialect, had greek names (Philippos= friend of horses, Alexandros= the one who reppels men, which shows how brave he was), Philippos united the factions of Hellas under his rule, Alexandros spread the hellenic culture to Asia, which led places like Egypt to be hellenised after his death and made Hellas a superpower in the Hellenistic Era, hence the name, with many hellenic kingdoms such as Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids. So basically even if Alexander was a Slav like you, why would he do all those things for Hellas? I want to hear what bs mixed with brainwashing propaganda you will say next. How will you re-write history, a greek word?
"In Greece" -> "In rest of Greece", "that their greek counterparts" -> "than their counterparts". Macedonians were and are Greeks. Just some people of slavic origin who came after 5th century claim the name, shall not rewrite history.
No he didn't, but even if this happened, it doesn't mean these slavic people automatically change their ancestry, or that Macedonians magically disappear.
Which seems to result to the destruction of the eyes of thousands of people. Violence brings violence, it isn't something to be proud of, to the contrary it is to be ashamed of.
Right of attack? There is no such a thing. Well it is Bulgarians, Slavic and Avars the foreigners that came (do you even remember your fisrt comments?). They were fierce warlords that enslaved their people. Today's Bulgarians aren't the same with the Bulgarians then. Today's Bulgarians are most probably of Byzantine or Slavic origin. People in Byzantine Empire were able to develop i.e. arts, literature, economy etc. Byzantium was the first to invent freedom of religion (Order of Mediolanum). The "other believes" you refer to were in fact covers to political reasons. Also, if Sassanids conquered the Byzantines successor states would reclaim the Empire, so a ressurection would come. You wished Byzantine Empire dead? Well, it actually is, and that's why the lives of both Greeks and Bulgarians have hardships now. Byzantine Empire fell from within, when Byzantine aristocracy immitated in a sence the outsider warlord system.
For all the Greek commenting that the only Macedonian language is Greek or that Macedonian is just Bulgarian with a couple words changed, well... 1. Greek is Greek, there is no such thing as a "Greek Macedonian Language", there isn't even a Greek dialect that exists any more that is distinct enough to be considered "Greek Macedonian". 2. Yes Macedonian and Bulgarian are SIMILAR, but so are Serbian and Croatian, Russian and Ukrainian, Slovak and Czech, Spanish and Italian. Would you go up to a Russian and tell them that they're really Ukrainian and speaking a dialect of Ukrainian because their languages are so close? Would you go to a Spanish person and try to tell them Spanish doesn't exist, it's just a dialect of Italian? I can say with 1000% certainty you would not, so stop being a hypocrite, it just makes you look really foolish and ignorant. 3. The argument over Macedonia and Macedonian is not actually a linguistic or cultural one, it's all about politics and ethnic cleansing the Greeks have been performing in Northern Greece of indigenous Macedonians for over 100 years now. Greece is well known for being xenophobic and not tolerant of non-Greeks. 4. Greece and Greeks are known liars, the country has lied to the EU about its finances for over 30 years and stole all kinds of money from other EU nations to save itself from a national bankruptcy it caused from all its dishonesty. How can we trust a people who can't even be honest to one of the biggest and most powerful unions in the world? We can't. Germany should have thrown Greece out of the EU and cut off all financial support, would've taught you xenophobic, racist, ignorant Greeks a good lesson. 5. It's really upsetting that Greeks forget that Macedonians fought alongside the Greeks to liberate Greece, Macedonia, and other Balkan countries from the Ottoman Empire. Hundreds of thousands of Macedonians died trying to help liberate Greece from the Turkish, and they succeeded and now the Greeks have their nerve to deny Macedonian existence? Does not make sense, you deny a people that helped save your country by spilling their own blood. That just makes you an evil backward culture with no respect for history or what Macedonians have done for Greece and the rest of the Balkans. 6. Greek society is very easily brainwashed by their governments propaganda and it's sad. That's all. To all the Greeks reading this, please get a real education, from a real country, like maybe Canada, England, USA, Australia, Germany, Spain, Denmark, etc. Greek education is obviously filled with lies they don't teach anywhere else in the world. Show less REPLY
Great video, but a little tip from an Officer Cadet at the Royal Military College of Canada: don't say "battle tactics"; it's redundant. Tactics is the art and science of winning battles, or any type of specific military engagement. Therefore, in war, the only type of tactics is that which takes place in a battle. People often confuse tactics with strategy, or the other way around. There are four levels to war: tactical, operational, strategic and grand strategic. Tactical = Battles, Operations = Campaigns, Strategic = Wars, Grand Strategic = Foreign Policy.
TBF The Winged Hussars arent really special, theyre memorable because their moment of Glory is about as good as any military doctrine can ever hope for. The Companion Cavalry is better because of specifically the unified strategic and tactical order the armies were able to employ.
@@damianignolfi2444 the athenians said that anyone that isnt athenian is a barbarian. Is sparta barbarians or greeks? So pls find a fine reason why macedonia isnt greek
@@damianignolfi2444 Wrong. They shared Greek culture and blood. They had the same blood, the same language, the same traditions, the same religion. That was self-evident, you cannot miss that. According to Herodotus these were the 4 elements of being Hellenic. In the pursue of glory and power, every city-state wanted to prove of being "better". Athenians thought that they were born in the lands of Athens. During the fight over the civil wars, they only said that to disregard the enemy Macedonians (such as Demosthenes). Greek civil wars were common. So simple people were Greeks. What about Alexander parents? The same thing applies. Greek dynasties and Greek heritage. They invited "the best of the Greeks" to marry members of the dynasties. So Greek lineage, Greek culture and heritage (traditions, religion, language). What more do you need? Oh yes! Alexander the Great did not miss the chance to say he was proud to be Greek. He spread the Greek culture. What more do you need? Oh, yes! He ordered to make an offering in Parthenon which read "Alexander...and all Greeks, except for Lacedaemonians".
These reforms are actually credited to Iphicrates of thebes where Phillip was a prisoner at the time and took those reforms back to Macedonia while still new.
10:00 ok one more video and then I go to bed
3 AM: M A C E D O N I A N B A T T L E T A C T I C S
:D
It's 3 AM here as I'm reading this comment. What is up with youtube recommending these at such hour?
2:36 am but pretty close
3:21 and i see this, are you a wizard my guy.
I am literally watching this at 3 am
The Hammer and Anvil, or: How to Win Every Battle in Total War.
WheresWallace4883 I know it is kind of boring but the problem is that it is really effective. There's a reason it became the standard tactic for several hundred years if not almost 2 millenia. Why go back to the older tactics that are less effective. I mean normal hoplite battles were mostly pushing contests that ended when one flank gave in.
Was thinking that exact same thing.
Starring Alexander the Great and Hannibal.
There's a reason it's one of the most popular battle tactics in antiquity (and perhaps modern time).
WheresWallace4883 The fun is when your opponent tries the same all while trying to protect his own flank, and trying to win the infantry engagement
"Sighs"......... Starts ROME: Total war
I'm pretty sure this is what Brought most of us here
Well no man can play total war and dont like history :P
Dr. Love I love it for the soundtrack
Dr. Love also Britain forever
The best total war game is Shogun 2
The fact that the companion cavalry fought so well despite their lack of saddles and stirrups says something about how good riders they were.
Exactly my thoughts. The conditioning to get to that point. great stuff
If there is an afterlife I bet the Macedonians hang out with the Mongolians, they’ve got a lot in common
@@Dirt_McGirt_Osirus Numidians>>> mongols in terms of horse riding skill. Mongols used saddles and stirrups. Numidians rode bareback and controlled the horse with a small rope
@@MuhammadUsman-mi4jk Huns >>> Everybody else. No saddles, no stirrups and yet extreme precision with a bow and arrow on horseback
@@misterdream5558 the Huns used saddles and it was either them or the avars who brought stirrups to Western Europe. Both of those inventions came from the steppes the Huns inhabited anyways
Philip is so underrated. I feel his son took a lot of his fame from him because he was the one to use his reforms and new strength. don't get me wrong, Alexander is amazing, but he takes allot of due credit from his dad.
Preußischer Jäger I’m sure Philip would be proud of Alexander anyway.
@@SpookyMarine Nah, he was most probably killed by Alexander himself ...
Siddarth Reddy Really? What makes you say that?
ULTRA MEHREEN well, besides some subtle historical evidences, think about it, Philip was killed when he was at the peak of his power, so it’s most unlikely that his death was the result of an outside force. Therefore, Alexander is considered a suspect.
Koala on a Whale True but he was also aged 46 at the time, back then that was beyond maximum life expectancy. Plus it’s not the first time for someone to die at the peak of their power. Hell it happened to Alexander himself
this whole video can be summed up in just two battle cries:
-"HEAVY INFANTRY!!"
_click!_
-"FORWARD!!"
“CAVALRY!”
“CHARRGE!!!”
SWIFT HORSES AT YOUR COMMAND!!
“Hoplites READYYY!”
These are not soldiers, only frightened rabbits running from our men !
@@Soronacabricot i heard that in his voice 🤣
First Phillip's story, and now Alexander's tactics? Hell yeah.
FUCKING PATRONS ALWAYS FIRST
It's a full series. Prepare yourself for when the greeks are conquered, we would be marching across Asia minor, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Gedrosia, India and all the way to the edge of the known world!
yo yo Greeks were united*
MrPanos2000 United by conquest*
yo yo by the council of Corinth*. Besides most Greeks didn't participate. Italiotes, Syracusians, Lakedaimonians, Epeirote, Pontics, none of them showed up or helped in the conquest. Chaironia was a show of force to intimidate some into joining the league
So basically Caesar shouldn't have felt bad about not conquering the world in his 20's because he didn't have someone build a whole army for him.
The ancient equivalent of a small loan of a million dollars.
Alexander didn't conquer the world in his 20s more like early 30s look it up
@@capatani1152 he campaigned for 11 years
Died at early 30s
So he was literally conquering longer as a 20 year old
@@capatani1152 Alexander died at 32 and took the throne at 20. He then began campaigning for up to 10 years after according to historians. I think you're the one who should "look it up"
@@jhonnyjhonson2664 Fair enough but I just hate how everyone says he conquered the world at 20 years old. Like wtf he was only throned at 19 so by the time he was in India which is a massive feat yes, he was probably late 20's possibly 30 yano
Also if was his father who was the true mastermind behind the campaigns. Although he was a master tactician (Even if those tactics were invented by Philip)
Historia Civilis for Consul 2018
A Quite Old, yet still Quite underrated Comment
this helped me get better at total war. thank you so much
Bruh
Get better? You mean win every battle besides siege battles
@@VioletMilks meh siege battles are pretty simple, just flood or use engines lol
This video makes the understanding of Alexander's military success a lot easier. He was a great commander, but his success was mostly due to the superiority of his troops in relation to his enemies. Plus he had loyal people watching his back.
Thanks for another great video, I honestly feel bad that I can't afford to help you on patreon.
Not due to him routing Darius twice?
His on the move decisions saved countless battles, while he was leading the charge himself, the GOAT 🐐
My ass. The same army got it's ass handed by memnon under parmenio. Philip lost twice
More battle tatics and army structure please. This is fascinating. Plus, do one for the Gauls and Germanics!
3:39 the problem with this is that your leader tends to be the first one to die with this formation.
So they follow the seccond two guys what is your point
A time when a leader actually lead
@@davidjarkeld2333 Just going to charge to your own death doesn't make you a better leader.
@@bilib1891 leading from the front doesn't mean charging to your own death. The example here being Alexander, but anyway I was referring to the origin of the word.
@@davidjarkeld2333 It made sense back then for leaders to be somewhat involved, as they didn't have guns and radios. Nowadays it makes no sense for leaders to be on the frontlines as battles cover far more distance, your leader can be shot from 500 metres away, and if they are in base with equipment and infrastructure they can more effectively use communication technology to command their troops
This channel is outstanding. So many of the other history channels have such elaborate visuals but aren't nearly as interesting or educational. Seriously, well done mate. You've got this absolutely nailed.
This has quickly become one of my favorite channels. Only problem is that I️ have binge watched all your videos and now I️ have nothing. Please upload more, you’re absolutely brilliant!
Can't wait until we continue through Asia minor, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Gedrosia, India and all the way to the edge of the known world! Alexander is gonna wreck shit up!
yo yo actually Baz Battles did Alexander's Conquest in his channel, but I would love Historia Civilis' rendition.
Japhet Falcutila oh right I forgot about that. You are right Historia Civilis might not make this seiries.
Since he did Phillip and now this I doupt he will quit now.
@Joshua JO If it "hasn't been done", it's hardly ever decently researched... bit like "Inside the Sphinx's ear", if you get my meaning ;)
This comment aged well!
Could you do some videos on how Rome came into possession of Iberia? I never understood very well how that happened and you are the best at explaining those things
parts of it were taken from carthage in the punic wars i believe, im sure he covered this in other videos
This process started with the Roman acquisition of the former Carthaginian territories in southern Hispania and along the east coast as a result of defeating the Carthaginians (206 BC) during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), leading to them leaving the peninsula. This established Roman territorial presence in Hispania. Four years after the end of this war, in 197 BC, the Romans established two Roman provinces. They were Hispania Citerior (Nearer Spain) along most of the east coast (an area roughly corresponding to the modern Spanish autonomous communities of Valencia, Catalonia and part of Aragon) and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain) in the south, roughly corresponding to modern Andalusia.
Short story: Carthage had Iberia. Rome beat Carthage into a pulp. Rome had Iberia. End of story.
cjonesabc That was mostly the eastern and southeastern portions of Iberia. There are other parts though, such as the northwest corner of the peninsula that I know nothing of how Rome came to occupy it. This applies to most of the western half of modern Spain and Portugal for me, and I'm to lazy to spend 15 minutes looking for a good source of the information and reading it
+Nobody Important Carthagae and Rome had a agreement to divide Iberia up to an certain river (Sadly i dont remember ne name. they had one province in Iberia already when they conquered the rest from Carthagae. And it wanst until Pompej that they completely conquered it. The Iberer fought a guerrilla war there.
Nobody Important carthage started colonizing it prior to the punic wars and when taken by rome, were folded into the empire
Philip II is woefully underrated
:(
Phillip: "Oracle, will the Persian Empire be defeated?"
Oracle at Delphi:
"The bull is crowned." (Your bloodline reigns over Greece.)
"All is done." (Military preparations are in place.)
"The sacrificer is ready." (Alexander shall conquer.)
Actually, I think it's more "The bull is crowned" (Bulls were used regularly as sacrifices to the gods, and a crowned sacrifice sounds like Phillip, doesn't it.)
"All is done." (Sounds like it does)
"The sacrificer is ready." (Alexander is ready to carry out the strange assassination?)
Unless Phillip himself is the sacrificer, Give his life to ensure victory.
Very Interesting...
@Alex Imagine the intelligence required to script that shit 😂
@Cvnctator Many scholars and historians believe Alexander to be the conspirator who murdered his father ...
"The bull is crowned." (There's that yearling bull with a funny fluff of har on his head.)
"All is done." (Dinner's ready.)
"The sacrificer is ready." (My appetite has build up - gtg.)
Macedonian Battle Tactics aka How to kill boxes Macedonian style
vesteel Genius.
Well, in a world full of boxes, the better box won. And one day they made such a big box with such a long stick that they defeated themself with it...
Actually the sarissa had a big disadvantage - much weaker ranged proptection due to teh samler shield. But that was negated by the Maccedonians already having good cavalry before that reform. And the shieldbearers took over the flanking/flanking protection duty.
Interestingly, in Rome total war multiplayer, there was a popular tactics called boxing which is just the getting a bunch of Phalanx in a square formation so it couldn’t be flank. It mocked as noob box. The most effective and popular way to defeat these boxes are baiting the enemy into pushing out of the formation, open up a gap and exploit the inflexibility of their formation.
Duy Linh Chu Ha or use archers and horse archers to destroy their units, especially the back line.
@@lc9245 Urbans and Sacred band could defeat them if concentrated on one part of the line, basically a conga line of shock troops.
Phalanx also didn't counter cavalry properly once the infantry forced them to switch to spears.
It is really great that this channel started presenting the ancient Hellenic/Greek History along with Roman :)
As Macedonian Kingdom unified the other Greek Tribes/States/Kingdoms (in Metropolitan Greece/Hellas) of that era this is the logical outcome.
If it was Athenians, Thebans or Spartans (etc.) it would be *mainly* Athenian, Theban or Spartan (etc.) history.
@ziggyonthemoon, thank you for stating what should be obvious. In any case, we live in an era that everybody wants to form history according to his views. Greek History has A LOT of good and bad moments. I do not reject any of them and I do not want to be credited with something which has not happened (e.g. saying that Roman Empire is Greek :P).
Alas!
Hellas Commentor aka the beginning of western civilization
true. What is this trend with Pepe avatars? 3 comments and 3 with almost the same avatar :P
@@pasal99 gayreece gayreek
I've recently have been playing "Rome total war" and I just realised that I've always been using Macedonian's tactics
... all the time(?
We all have, the Macedonians invented the ancient European system of battle and basically everyone ripped them off to some extent for like 2 thousand years
The game was designed to reward Macedonian style tactics, that's how they promoted realism was making the real tactics of the Macedonian army, were real effective
Cheers for sighting your sources, it made writing my history essay much easier!
6:18 wait what do you mean the spears they used in Greece? Macedonia was too a Greek state. Sarissa is longer than the spears they used in the REST of Greece or in southern Greece.
Xd good luck with that u moron🖕🖕🇬🇷
Olympic games were only for Greeks and guess what, Macedonians were there... So Find luck with that...
@@Johnny-xi4ti so you probably hate Macedonia. If so, why did you watch this video? You hate both Greece and Macedonia, so you don't have a side in this argument.
@@IMAK1063 that's what she sad lololo🖕🖕🖕🖕
@@Johnny-xi4ti oh my god ask any historian, they categorise macedonian history along with the rest of greece. Its a shame you have no identity and you are so committed into trying to steal ours. Try as you might, you will never become Greeks. You will always be slavs.
Day made, cheers Historia Civilis
"And now you got the pan-hellenist from Pella hella pissed"
Vito C nice reference ;)
ENOUGH! I don't stand a chance against your skills... NASDROVIA, a drink to your victory...
Because you insist, I get your gist.
amazing video! i'm sure i'm not alone in the giddiness and excitement when i experience this kind of military history goodness. i'm a huge fan of military 'metas' (to use a gaming term), and this video was a great overview of what made macedon's military so impressive. keep doing what you're doing!
Dude, your videos are getting more and more polished with each one. Keep it up! After having to take History 101 4 times before passing it, in college, I never thought I would look forward to these videos as much as I do!
Underrated channel. Keep up the high quality and thank you good Sir!
@HistoriaCivilis there might be an audio issue with the first minute or so of the video
Getting the same issue
Same here. Weird. Ive seen the video before with no issue
10:05 that hammer was pitiful. I was expecting a blacksmith's hammer. lmao
Kinda same, I was thinking about Mjolnir but uhh... that is a little far south and out of culture for that heh
@@rico1346 Wouldn't it be a bit early too?
Uhh
Their sarissas increased in length to the sixth row, leaving the spear points aligned externally. They could form circles or squares and fight completely surrounded, moving to either side. The mistake of finding that all spears were the same size, like pikes, was spread by Machiavelli in "The Art of War."
2:12 “Remember, switching to your sword is faster than replacing a spear”
Love these types of channels that focus on a specific topic and make incredibly high-quality content about it. Keep up the good work, I love battle tactics :D
awesome work! ☺ hope you'll do a few episodes about the greek city states too in the future! 😊
This is a Greek city state.
4:56 Where does this idea of the phalanx scrum come from? It's an absolutely stupid *and* unnatural way to fight yet I've heard so many youtubers mention it that I'm not willing to dismiss it outright without knowing the source.
You're on the right path to not accept information from youtubers without doubt.... then you go ahead and ask youtuber commenters as your best source. So close.
@@nykidxxx I'm asking for a source so I can check it myself.
From the Athenians, perfected by the Spartans (by having the only professional military). Phalanxes were the dominant military formation and the supporting troops would often negate each other (cavalry would chase each other's peltasts away then chase each other around as they weren't able to do much against an unengaged phalanx even with a flank attack). It's strategic inbreeding, but it happened. "My Life and Times" by Xenophon (Athenian general circa 300BC) has a good description of how the Greeks saw it was the perfectly manly way to wage a war - the strongest at shoving the others off their feet won.
There were other tactics to break up the "phalanx scrum", such as widening the phalanx upon engagement (trying to wrap around the enemy) once the initial charge had been absorbed, or deploying the same number of men into more phalanxes to outflank the enemy, however since the phalanx with more momentum (from deeper ranks providing more pushing power by pushing your shield against the guy in front of you) usually wiped out the phalanx with less momentum on the initial charge (i.e. pushing them off their feet) these strategies were considered questionable at best. It was usually determined by the strength of your soldiers (generally depending on how well trained they were) and the number of hoplites in the phalanx that carried the day.
Then Leuctra happened and 200 years of inbred military theory got turned on its head... about 20 years before Philip of Macedon.
@@jarrodbright5231 But why do it in the first place? I can't believe that two spear-wielding units would walk within spear range and not use the spears. As I've said before, I can believe phalanxes got pressed together sometimes but not that they _intended_ to, given they're armed with spears.
@@Robert399 If they weren't fighting other phalanxes they wouldn't; they would use the natural advantage of the phalanx of having 3 people fighting each individual enemy due to being in closer formation.
However if you have a phalanx and the other side has one, the most decisive way to win is to break their phalanx formation up. Momentum from the charge pushes enough people in the phalanx that doesn't charge out of formation that they are no longer locked shield-to-shield. Worse, the enemy phalanx is now inside your phalanx, in formation, and can form a fighting square, arrow-wedge or similar formation (there is documentation of a few of these though few first-hand accounts of it happening as people would just run if their phalanx was broken).
Some of the people in the phalanx getting pushed out of formation will get trampled or stabbed by the spears of the charging phalanx and the rest will be at a severe disadvantage. There is also a significant morale factor of being physically pushed out of your formation if you're planning to fight a battle a certain way and it just isn't working out, and you no longer have the advantage of knowing where your friends and enemies are on the battlefield whereas your opponents know very well that everyone outside of their formation is an enemy.
Since each side using a phalanx know the other side will do this even if they don't, both sides inevitably charge to avoid giving the other side such an overwhelming advantage.
It's worth mentioning that the front rank would try to aim their spears at the other side as they charged, but remember that spears tend to break when they hit bronze shields so this would inflict minimal casualties. Spear and short sword thrusts would definitely happen once the phalanxes are shield to shield, however with large hoplon shields, helmets, greaves and armored kilts, these would do a lot less damage than you might think.
The strategy at this point would be to win the battle as decisively as possible to minimize casualties on your own side (i.e. people like to survive the battle). If you kill the guy in front of you with a spear or sword thrust you have someone else replace him as soon as his body is out of the way. If you break the enemy formation and force your phalanx into their phalanx you win the battle because now only one side is fighting in formation. Most enemies will flee at that point and that's the battle won and hooray you live to fight another day.
Also, with spear and sword thrusts, only the front 2 ranks of the 8-20 ranks of the phalanx can get involved in the fighting (as opposed to the front 6 ranks with a Macedonian phalanx). With shields to the backs of the guys in front of you, all of the ranks can get involved. Now those thrusts did happen because they would disrupt the enemy's momentum / pushing power, but they wouldn't be the main way to win the battle.
@Historia Civilis
@5:00
Again with the shallow"othismos" myth with physical shoving with shields which was proven false by historians and reenactors over and over again. You seem to forget that word "othismos" was also used to describe fearsome verbal debate, therefore, you should not use it in literal translation.
Honestly the best history channel on youtube or anywhere else for that matter. Thanks for all of the incredible content man.
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
Never clicked so fast on a notification !
me neither!
1905parth same
Facts!!
Never came so fast before
pretty ordinary video... U must need a doctor around when you see a great video come out.
The Macedonian phalanx was also deeper-- often 16 men instead of 8.
Thats intresting. How come?
@@shweatypalms4423 I believe the purpose of it was to basically create such density so that nothing could penetrate it. You kill one guy with a sarissa, right away another one comes up with his, just makes it impossible to get through it
@@nono-kr7um Makes perfect sense. Thanks very much
@@shweatypalms4423 The Macedonian reserve force were on the flanks, so they did the phalanx so deep to get shure they will not break for any price.
Wonder if he'll ever get a sponsorship deal from total war, hopefully they make a third Total War : Rome
Medeival Thats the stuff. I mean, then we Will have evrythin in HD
@@sybedb We just need a graphically better Medieval 2, I can't think of anything the new engine does better other than the unit response time.
2 weeks of waiting for a video is too much for me to handle. Content is great. Keep it coming.
WOW. I didn't know so much of this. And I really geek out on this topic on an armchair level. Videos like that are tough to find. This channel is consistently fantastic.
Not mentioned here are the light-armed specialists like the corps of Creto-Macedonian archers and the Agrianian javelineers, who were often employed to form a flying column with the Hypaspists and the Hetairoi; and the Thracian and Illyrian peltasts in general, who screened the army on the march, provided flankers, and who supported the Companions during a charge.
great video, please do more in-depth analysis of ancient strategies and tactics, and maybe even some medieval ones as well
I really enjoy military history but I can happily say I learned quite a bit from your video and how you break down tactics. Great job, definitely subbing
Once again, superb work. One of finest channels on YT.
Amazing. Absolutely amazing, you are the only channel who makes these kind of good no. great quality about history. Well done!
Ok, I have to dispute the shoving match thing. I've looked a few times and failed to find a first hand reference to this happening. As far as I can tell, it is simply an archeological assumption. While I'm sure it happened occasionally, it just seems like a worst case scenario. Most battles ended with ~10% casualties(from what I've read). This would happen almost immediately if it was a shoving match. Take a small, hypothetical formation 10 men deep and 20 men wide. Just that would be enough to probably kill the front line of BOTH formations. The weight of 9 rows of dudes behind you plus 10 in front of you simply does not seem survivable. I know the front lines often got double pay but this seems like utter suicide. Also, this would make the sarissa less effective. You simply equip a bigger shield so your side has more weight and better protection. A sarissa seems far *more* effective if you're approaching with tight, enclosed formations and trying to poke at people without getting into a shoving match. Otherwise all you need to close the reach advantage is the discipline to make it past the initial barbs. But that honestly sounds crazy for both sides *especially* because the companion infantry has smaller shields. That would be such a massive gamble that could go awry very easily. You could lose men just because the opponent's weren't *able* to break fast enough. Have you ever been in a super dense crowd? One that panicked?
I dunno, can someone point me to a *first hand* account that describes two formations actually making _shield contact_ and then _pushing_ against each other as a whole formation? Do they really describe their buddies shoving them from behind with their own shields? It seems like you wouldn't actually be able to fight that way. How do you even bring your arm back to thrust if there's a wall of shield against your back? It doesn't sound very mechanically plausible to me.
Outstanding video as always, btw. I'm a big fan, I just fail to understand this specific detail and it has bothered me for a long time now.
Anguel Roumenov Bogoev Its a false fact and I tired of hearing it all the time too
Their ancestors are current day offense linemen….
"Alexander, Parmenion, Philip, Aristotle''
In Greek language those names mean words and characteristics actually.
Very curious if those names mean anything in slavic language or it's just letters in a random queue...
“The foot companions”
Sounds like something I would name my lvl 4 heavy cav in civ 6
Underrated comment
this channel is getting better with each video
One of the best channels on the youtube!
I tried very similar tactics out with my airsoft team and in a few Video games with my friends. It's suprisingly very effective even in smaller scale.
GODS BE PRAISED, A NEW VIDEO IS UPLOADED, THE DAY IS OURS!
Phalanxes didnt lock shields because that would mean surrendering their main advantage (the spear's length).
This channel is pure gold! Keep up the amazing videos.
yay another Historia Civilis video!
"companions" and shield bearers?
*Skyrim intensifies* :ppp
Why when you refer to Macedonian you don't put the capital south near Pella but you choose to locate it in Thessaloniki?
Γιατί δεν ξέρει
PELLA -- PANONIA 25 CENTURIES MACEDONIAN LAND.
PHILIP and ALEXANDER are born in M A K E D O N I J A ! !
Phalanx shoving shields? Sceptics arise! I've heard a criticism of this before.
I reacted to that too. It seam highly unlikely that that would ever happen because you have 2 enemies that are looking to kill each other and also not die them self. So marching well within the range of your opponents weapons just to get so close so that the enemy could punch/stab you in the face seams like a very bad strategy to win any fight.
I was looking for this comment. Faith in mankind restored.
stony990 Plus your shield is just an obstacle to fight around if it's bound to your opponent's shield. Sure they are in the same situation, but if another enemy strikes at you you're dead.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this discussion / critisism:
Hoplites also carried a sword, mostly a short sword called a xiphos, but later also longer and heavier types. This very short xiphos would be very advantageous in the press that occurred when two lines of hoplites met, capable of being thrust through gaps in the shieldwall into an enemy's unprotected groin or throat, while there was no room to swing a longer sword.
(Note that this is not the full text of the paragraph; only what's useful for this topic. You can visit the Wikipedia page about hoplites to read the whole thing.)
Casper Kersten
That certainly sounds more realistic than the sports day version, although it is wikipedia so pinch of salt.
Edit: also aren't hoplites and phalanx slightly different?
P.p.s while I'm at it if you got this far I should also note that tbf it is still an interesting and well made video on the whole.
Fantastic video... a lot is made of Alexander's brilliance as a general, but one thing rarely examined is the fact that he inherited one of the most hi-tech armies the world has ever seen
these videos are probably the best i have ever seen on the topic. wow
I think you need to correct something. No one knows if the Greek, pre-Macedonian, phalanx did do shoving matches. It makes little sense anyway as why shove when you have spears and knives? Not to mention if the people on the back shove those at the front won't they end up breaking the bones of their own men with enough pressure?
Isn't that most popular assumption still? Or is there alternative which is more popular?
I really don't know. But looking at pottery depicting phalanx fights it seems there is no real sign of shoving. Instead, they look like they're fighting like most other spear-wielding warriors. They stand about a meter or so apart and try and stab each other while not being stabbed in return.
Yes, I agree! It makes more sense since the shield the men used were essentially bucklers. A short sword would be the end of them. I think Lindybeige rants about the same sort of thing in one of his videos. But I don't know squat about the history though.
WisePictWarrior The great thing about using the spear over arm is that you could use it far away or up close. Also, if your shield is bound by someone else's shield, you can no longer use that shield to defend yourself, so shoving doesn't make much sense if you want to survive.
ultraboy222 It's not a buckler, a buckler is about 12 inches, primary sources and archeological finds show shields that are about 2 feet. Bucklers are also held by a center grip and are basically an extended center boss. A Macedonian pelta is smaller and less domed than a hoplon and has a thin arm strap and a cord to hold it by the rim.
10:40 Complete baloney. Hannibal placed his weakest troops in the edges of his line and told the veterans in the middle to feign-retreat, thus baiting the enemy into an encirclement. It has nothing to do with "hammer and anvil" or Alexander's tactics. Had they held the line like in your previous "anvil" explanations they would've been meat-grinded by the romans handily.
Could you start using the metric system in your videos? It's hard for me and the rest if the world to understand distances, lenghts and so on without pausing and checking. Thanks! :P
Simon Hagsten no
HacaPotato 3 fucking countries in the World use this mile and foot shit. One of them is america and you expect the Rest of the World to learn this unlogical shit? Hell no
HacaPotato so let the rest of the world convert so you can stay the same?
Imperial makes more sense
Well since you know both then there is no reason to not use the metric system so all of us can understand.
you are one of three channel on youtube which i literally love to watch and i cannot wait to get my first salary after this mouth to support you in patrion :)
OMG I love this channel so much, please don't stop and god bless you!
fun fact: Phillip II ordered his soldiers to cut their beards so that enemy soldiers could not grab them by it during the fight.
It is a great video but there are certain inaccuracies and speculations.
The right explanation of the phalanx is a tightly packed rectangular formation of infantry. I never see people getting the phalanx terminology right.
Also, a thing which is already noted in the comments - these shoving matches cannot be proven with sources. This is just a speculation.
Shoving matches is extremely bizarre and din't happen regularly if at all.
Why arm men with spears then just get into a shoving match? Why not just give them all knives or swords and do the shoving?
@@elessargriz1736 Worked fine for the romans
I disagree with your explanation of how cavalry was used despite mentioning the lack of stirrups and saddles you are still under the assumption that the wedge formation was designed to smash into the enemy. No. And i am extremely sceptical of the pushing match theory.
I like many believe that where as a shoving match could occur it was not the intention of phalanxes going into battle. Evidence for this is found in the equipment of the soldiers and areas of extra protection in the armour. Long spears and slashing and thrusting swords coupled with limited neck protection and strong chest protection suggests a preference for combat at the limits of reach to mid range exchange.
it seems that the Greek soldiers where not concerned about protecting areas such as the arm pits, collar and groin. areas that would be very vulnerable at grappling range. This suggests that the shoving match is a myth.
As for Cavalry i should point out that it is now widely agreed that the wedge formation was designed to ride past the exposed ranks and scythe through the enemy much like cavalry columns of the Napoleonic era or indeed the function of any light cavalry.
"As for Cavalry i should point out that it is now widely agreed that the wedge formation was designed to ride past the exposed ranks and scythe through the enemy much like cavalry columns of the Napoleonic era or indeed the function of any light cavalry." -- Interesting. Do you have any sources to support this argument?
day gets so much better when I see another one of your videos, thanks!
Since I have watched this battle I have won way more Rome 2 total war matches online as Carthage and Hellenistic factions with the pikemen in the centre hoplites on the flanks to move behind the enemy. Surrounding the enemy is an obvious idea, but this combo is op! Thank Historia Civilis!
It's funny how you keep mentioning Greece and Macedonia as two different entities when it was Alexander himself who first united the various city states as Greece. By your logic you should not call Athens, Sparta, and the other city states Greece, but by their city names, as you do with Macedon. Be consistent in your naming, especially since this is a very contested topic at the moment. If you call Athens and the other city states 'Greece', then do the same with Macedon.
Do a Persian empire battle tactic
10 second video: "We got lots of guys and chariots. CHARGE!"
Razzy1312 dummy
Don't mind me I'm just watching a Total War tutorial
Hip di do
Another stellar video Mr. Civilis.
the content is at an all time high, keep it up!
Use the metric system, please!!
The Greeks used a foot that was slightly longer than a customary foot (.308m). Metric is useful but he isn't saying feet to be American, that is literally how primary sources described the length of a sarissa or xyston.
@@BiggestCorvid Since virtually no one knows exact ancient units, metric is even more needed.
One correction. Phalanxes couldn't do the shield lock like you suggest. The pressure from both ends would crush the lungs of most of the interior of both units, killing the entirety of both front lines. More likely, they used those spears and poked at each other.
Pls use Metric system next time
pls stfu and learn imperal
1 metre~3 feet, 1 mile~1600 metres, rough estimates but gives you a general idea.
I can convert the imperial system to metric in my head. And I was educated in America. Anyway, you have a Iphone app for converting? Or to busy with your "pint"
@@johnlake3698 Why learn an obsolete system that's dying out and only used in a handful of places?
I love your videos, I love your sense of humor. I want to be like you when I grow up. Please keep teaching me history.
The outro music is so loud, mind boggling and out of place i love it
Once and for all, the proper pronunciation is MaKeTHonian, where K is pronounced as in "Kite" and (TH) is pronounced as in "THis". And it is important to clearly and assertively explain to your audience that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe (originally from the city of Argos) and that they have nothing to do with today's FYROM (former yugoslavian republic of macedonia) who for petty political reasons have stolen the macedonian name and also attempt to usurp the Macedonian Hellenic(=Greek) heritage for selfish nationalistic reasons (e.g. lack of ethnic belonging and tradition; somehow they deny they are descendants of Slavs who came to the region almost 1,000 years after the ancient Macedonians had already established their kingdom). Thank you! (and please I expect a courtesy reply here or in my email)
He never mentions the modern states at all, so why is it important to mention thusly? When he speaks of Boudicca, he doesn't go on at length how modern Scots are from Ireland and not the Pictish people of the time. So, why make the distinction here? It's unnecessary, and irrelevant to the topic of the video: the Battle tactics of the Macedonians, not their history and modern counterparts.
to be fair, the hole Argos thing isn't really accurate. But the macedonian language was without doubt Greek, Macedonians' names were greek, their gods were the same as the rest of greeks, the legacy they left was greek. "Hellenistic" stands for something
Go to "The ancient Macedonians were not Greek" channel on youtube, one of the best channels that clearly seperates the Macedonians as a different nation.
Daniel M please stop with your nonesensical propaganda based on overexaggurated (probably butchered it) and ethnicistic ''facts''. Alexander was a proud Macedonian. Macedon was an ancient hellenic kingdom which was considered like many other kingdoms by the arrogant as ever Athenians as '' barbaric''. Its people spoke the greek dialect, had greek names (Philippos= friend of horses, Alexandros= the one who reppels men, which shows how brave he was), Philippos united the factions of Hellas under his rule, Alexandros spread the hellenic culture to Asia, which led places like Egypt to be hellenised after his death and made Hellas a superpower in the Hellenistic Era, hence the name, with many hellenic kingdoms such as Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids. So basically even if Alexander was a Slav like you, why would he do all those things for Hellas? I want to hear what bs mixed with brainwashing propaganda you will say next. How will you re-write history, a greek word?
They call it "North Macedonia" now
"In Greece" -> "In rest of Greece", "that their greek counterparts" -> "than their counterparts". Macedonians were and are Greeks.
Just some people of slavic origin who came after 5th century claim the name, shall not rewrite history.
What does Krum has to do with anything?
No he didn't, but even if this happened, it doesn't mean these slavic people automatically change their ancestry, or that Macedonians magically disappear.
Which seems to result to the destruction of the eyes of thousands of people. Violence brings violence, it isn't something to be proud of, to the contrary it is to be ashamed of.
Right of attack? There is no such a thing. Well it is Bulgarians, Slavic and Avars the foreigners that came (do you even remember your fisrt comments?). They were fierce warlords that enslaved their people. Today's Bulgarians aren't the same with the Bulgarians then. Today's Bulgarians are most probably of Byzantine or Slavic origin.
People in Byzantine Empire were able to develop i.e. arts, literature, economy etc. Byzantium was the first to invent freedom of religion (Order of Mediolanum). The "other believes" you refer to were in fact covers to political reasons.
Also, if Sassanids conquered the Byzantines successor states would reclaim the Empire, so a ressurection would come.
You wished Byzantine Empire dead? Well, it actually is, and that's why the lives of both Greeks and Bulgarians have hardships now. Byzantine Empire fell from within, when Byzantine aristocracy immitated in a sence the outsider warlord system.
For all the Greek commenting that the only Macedonian language is Greek or that Macedonian is just Bulgarian with a couple words changed, well...
1. Greek is Greek, there is no such thing as a "Greek Macedonian Language", there isn't even a Greek dialect that exists any more that is distinct enough to be considered "Greek Macedonian".
2. Yes Macedonian and Bulgarian are SIMILAR, but so are Serbian and Croatian, Russian and Ukrainian, Slovak and Czech, Spanish and Italian. Would you go up to a Russian and tell them that they're really Ukrainian and speaking a dialect of Ukrainian because their languages are so close? Would you go to a Spanish person and try to tell them Spanish doesn't exist, it's just a dialect of Italian? I can say with 1000% certainty you would not, so stop being a hypocrite, it just makes you look really foolish and ignorant.
3. The argument over Macedonia and Macedonian is not actually a linguistic or cultural one, it's all about politics and ethnic cleansing the Greeks have been performing in Northern Greece of indigenous Macedonians for over 100 years now. Greece is well known for being xenophobic and not tolerant of non-Greeks.
4. Greece and Greeks are known liars, the country has lied to the EU about its finances for over 30 years and stole all kinds of money from other EU nations to save itself from a national bankruptcy it caused from all its dishonesty. How can we trust a people who can't even be honest to one of the biggest and most powerful unions in the world? We can't. Germany should have thrown Greece out of the EU and cut off all financial support, would've taught you xenophobic, racist, ignorant Greeks a good lesson.
5. It's really upsetting that Greeks forget that Macedonians fought alongside the Greeks to liberate Greece, Macedonia, and other Balkan countries from the Ottoman Empire. Hundreds of thousands of Macedonians died trying to help liberate Greece from the Turkish, and they succeeded and now the Greeks have their nerve to deny Macedonian existence? Does not make sense, you deny a people that helped save your country by spilling their own blood. That just makes you an evil backward culture with no respect for history or what Macedonians have done for Greece and the rest of the Balkans.
6. Greek society is very easily brainwashed by their governments propaganda and it's sad.
That's all. To all the Greeks reading this, please get a real education, from a real country, like maybe Canada, England, USA, Australia, Germany, Spain, Denmark, etc. Greek education is obviously filled with lies they don't teach anywhere else in the world.
Show less
REPLY
oh boy today's a good day
berserkkkkkk
I think this may be my favorite video from you yet
Excellent video. Its a pleasure watching this channel.
Great video, but a little tip from an Officer Cadet at the Royal Military College of Canada: don't say "battle tactics"; it's redundant. Tactics is the art and science of winning battles, or any type of specific military engagement. Therefore, in war, the only type of tactics is that which takes place in a battle. People often confuse tactics with strategy, or the other way around. There are four levels to war: tactical, operational, strategic and grand strategic. Tactical = Battles, Operations = Campaigns, Strategic = Wars, Grand Strategic = Foreign Policy.
HC: The most effective cavalry unit in history!
Winged Hussars: :'(
TBF The Winged Hussars arent really special, theyre memorable because their moment of Glory is about as good as any military doctrine can ever hope for.
The Companion Cavalry is better because of specifically the unified strategic and tactical order the armies were able to employ.
@@F14thunderhawk not realy winged boys were special
Well did the winged hussars ever conquer the same land mass as the companions?
Macedonians had the best of greek armies in ancient world. Very good video!
There is not a single percent chance that their army was greek cause its different nation
ALEXANDER have MACEDONIAN ARMY FALANGA ! ! !
I'm not interested in military history, but your videos are so well made that they make me want to know more! Great work!
You know that you are the best channel on you tube right?
More campaigns and roman politics please!
Philip on legendary difficulty.
Alexander on Easy.
Macedonians had one of the finest Greeks armies. Like the Spartans and the Athenians.
Greece is macedonia
@@damianignolfi2444 the athenians said that anyone that isnt athenian is a barbarian. Is sparta barbarians or greeks? So pls find a fine reason why macedonia isnt greek
@@damianignolfi2444
Alexander himself said "Thank the Gods that I was born a Greek and not a barbarian".
@@damianignolfi2444 Wrong. They shared Greek culture and blood. They had the same blood, the same language, the same traditions, the same religion. That was self-evident, you cannot miss that. According to Herodotus these were the 4 elements of being Hellenic. In the pursue of glory and power, every city-state wanted to prove of being "better". Athenians thought that they were born in the lands of Athens. During the fight over the civil wars, they only said that to disregard the enemy Macedonians (such as Demosthenes). Greek civil wars were common.
So simple people were Greeks. What about Alexander parents? The same thing applies. Greek dynasties and Greek heritage. They invited "the best of the Greeks" to marry members of the dynasties.
So Greek lineage, Greek culture and heritage (traditions, religion, language).
What more do you need? Oh yes! Alexander the Great did not miss the chance to say he was proud to be Greek. He spread the Greek culture. What more do you need? Oh, yes! He ordered to make an offering in Parthenon which read "Alexander...and all Greeks, except for Lacedaemonians".
before 25 centuries PHILIP create KINGDOM MAKEDONIJA.
PHILIP KING, ALEXANDER TSAR ON MAKEDONIJA ! ! !
These reforms are actually credited to Iphicrates of thebes where Phillip was a prisoner at the time and took those reforms back to Macedonia while still new.
Why are these videos so calming?
i hope one day you come back to complete the rest of alexanders history the way you deliver these videos has always been so great