"Best fight scene in the movie", and they're charging in a testudo formation... That's why any movie with a pretense for historical accuracy should hire a historian to examine the script. Or a guy with common sense, for that matter.
I never said it was a bad formation. It was just bad for fighting in melee. A bunch of people clumped up without much room for maneuver or even using a sword. It was used for approaching walls manned by archers, and against heavy incoming arrow fire. That's all.
Haha, honestly, I love reading the comments from movies like The Eagle, and Hercules. It's like being in a war council. The only comment section I can stand on youtube is from ancient military strategy and tactics. Filled with actual knowledgeable information and facts. Bravo, Generals, bravo :)Never give up the fight!
Obviously they didn't fight with Maximus at Vindobona or they'd have known they could form a circle stick their shields out and topple the chariots. Sheesz!
I actually don't have an issue with the Testudo here. Yes I know it was a defensive formation used to approach whilst under fire, but Marcus is quick to think on his feet and the Celtic warriors probably weren't expecting a testudo formation used as a shield-wall cannon ball to punch through to the prisoners. The biggest tactical blunder by far in this fight is the running retreat from the chariots. An experienced commander would know they'd be easily run down. An experienced commander would also know that you should meet a cavalry charge with your ranks stationary and braced for impact. Also it's likely the horses would shy away from running directly into a wall of large Roman shields. However, as is said in the film, this is Marcus' first command so he makes a critical error here despite his earlier quick thinking re. the use of Testudo.
what the movie failed to depict was that outnumbered 3 to 1 your formation would be easily runover especially in testudo where you dont have the shields supporting the men up front
In the testudo formation, the men would align their shields to form a packed formation covered with shields on the front and top. The first row of men, possibly excluding the men on the flanks, would hold their shields from about the height of their shins to their eyes, so as to cover the formation's front. The shields would be held in such a way that they presented a shield wall to all sides. The men in the back ranks would place their shields over their heads to protect the formation from above, balancing the shields on their helmets, overlapping them. If necessary, the legionaries on the sides and rear of the formation could stand sideways or backwards with shields held as the front rows, so as to protect the formation's sides and rear; this made the formation slow and they covered very little ground.The testudo was used to protect soldiers from all types of missiles.The testudo was not invincible, as Cassius Dio also gives an account of a Roman shield array being defeated by Parthian cataphracts and horse archers at the Battle of Carrhae.
A testudo formation was nearly impossible for a unit to move together because of the tight coordination it required. Also, did the Britons just miss that the rear of the formation was completely exposed? I also doubt the Romans ever used a " defensive circle " in battle. Once again Hollywood ruins history.
***** For such attack the system is necessary care, or a "hedgehog" for example as in 1343 in battle of Morlaix and etc. The "turtle" is necessary for protection against throwing shells from above.
+Phillip Roy Hm. I don't think that's fake. When fighting against such numbers, how else would you hold your unit in formation for longer than 3-5 minutes? And effectively thrust your men into the center of the enemy. peace
XxEntaroAdunxX Yeah segmentata was only used for a short period after which they went back to hamata pretty quickly, heck mail fits almost anywhere from the early roman republic to the 17th century, it's the most common form of metal armor in history.
Testudo is not the formation any Roman might have chosen for this kind of mission. It is a formation designed to stand missiles, not to close combat fighting. You can even see it in this scene, the heading romans are hit by the flying barbarians without any chance to strike back, cuz testudo keeps you so tight you can barely maneuver your own gladius or scutum. Seems like the director just wanted to show a testudo moment in the move cuz it looks cool. Still, it is above what normally ancient battles look like on Hollywood movies.
Testudo was ONLY used to protect the soldiers from ballistic attacks, NOT in close combat. The testudo would have prevented the Roman formation from taking advantage through reinforcement because the men in 2nd row couldn't take place of taken out soldiers in the first row, and the "mighty Celtic jump attack" is a hilarious legend. But it's realistic how the Romans used their swords in close combat, they never hit the enemy from above, but stang them from between their shields. While being pressed against the Roman shield wall by all the allied soldiers pushing, you couldn't see nor block the sword, and a sword in your intestines is much deadlier than one bouncing off your helmet...
So this commander risks about 50 living and able men to save a few prisoners. The problem with this scene is not just the fact that he uses the testudo formation but also because he risks the lives of 50 of his men to save a few soldiers. If he was adamant on fighting the Celts he should have deployed a proper battle line and fought the traditional manner in which Romans fought.
Discipline my ass. The first part, testudo is not a formation to be used in the close quarter. But the shield circle is OK. But seriously: the enemy has very fast chariots, and your response is to run away? Are they daft? Do the same flipping circle and use your pila as a short spear. The horse won't just charge into a forest of spears.
I didn't see any pila with them.... maybe they left the pila back in camp since they expected to just testudo their way to the prisoners, then testudo back? AFAIK pila were not commonly used as melee weapons so I suppose they didn't want the potential unneeded weight?
pila were crafted to bend after the impact (meant to be thrown) so that it couldn't be used back by the enemy. So it's wrong to think it can be used as "short spear". It'll bend, it's not supposed to be used in melee
Xzv19 excerpts from Flavius Arrianus', Roman govenor of Cappadocia, Ektaxis kata Alanoon or as Acies contra Alanos (Arrays against the Alans). " They should deploy in eight ranks and their deployment should be close ordered. And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies near them, they can thrust the ironpoints of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third an fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness." Yes, the pila can be used as a short spear in melee against cavalry. The text did not call it such. But a spear with long thin soft iron shanks that bent on impact is what we call a pilum. also the text did not say throw, but hold the spear and thrust.
Xuan Vinh To The original text is in greek, which unfortunately I didn't study, I did study latin. It would have helped if the original was in latin, to be sure he was talking about pila. If they translated it as "spear" I'm not that confident they're talking about pila
Testudo was most effective in sieges against missile fire, but it could also be used for other purposes - as long as the men held firm it could even hold a chariot rolling over it, as was demonstrated by a Roman general with his legionaries.
Митра бог солнца, отец отцов наших не дай мне уронить честь легиона! Митра бог солнца, отец отцов наших прими любую жертву но помоги мне сохранить честь легиона!
To all you mad dogs. There is ATTACKING testudo and DEFENSIVE testudo. Attacking Testudo was GREAT to pass through a mob. Since Blades were coming out from everywhere UNarmoured soldiers were an easy pray.
Again Giannis, Rome 2 total war is not history. There is no such thing as attacking testudo or defensive testudo. If anyone jumped on top of your shield while you had your shield up, you couldn't hold that entire weight and would fall down, thus breaking the line. It's only protection against missile attacks. If you use a testudo formation when passing a "mob", then your soldiers will be dead meat, since they'll get surrounded. Blades aren't coming out of everywhere, they might be coming out, but it's harder to coordinate when you have to hold your shield up in the air rather than using it toward the enemy.
DaReaperZ well I did nto mention about the guy jumping on the top of the testudo because these is clearly theatrical nonsense*, but it is awesome to protect you from bows and stones that mob or archers could through to you, as you saw, the flank of the testudo opens in order not to get surrouned! well its good enough for me to see at least a nice formation in the movie. :D
very true. Most media productions made about the ancient Roman war machine usually only have 1 maybe 2 good scenes, that depict the skill of the legions formation fighting. Whoever directed Kingdom of Heaven and Alexander needs to be contracted to do a film about the 2nd roman invasion of Briton.
Chris Holland I presume you are talking about The Eagle..? Because if so, I agree - I hate it when (medieval and earlier, obviously) films, use American accents. Obviously, an RP accent won't be realistic, but it is still better.
yall dont understand the purpose for testudo here it is to not fight but to protect the most amount of troops until they arrive at their objective which was to rescue.
Big scene, yet so many details wrong. Stirrups for one. Roman costumes, and actions so stereotypical. Testudo turns up in every movie, from Cleopatra, to Gladiator, to this one.
Rule no:1 Any dimwits who where tempted to unload their unorganized rage on organized troop formations will have their ass handed to them for breakfast. This can be translated as fight in formations and don't break formation.
+Darth Violent what's the diffrence ? Romans/Latins were Italic people and Rome consisted mainly of Etruscan latins & Samnites all 3 are Italic Italy is Rome Rome is Italy
Briseur De Lance i was speaking about the population as a race not a culture modern day italian have just a bit more germanic in them but overall italians are the same as antiquity
I actually enjoyed the American Romans in this whilst many found it absurd. It makes them seem like foreigners whilst letting them speak English so the audience identifies with them as the "good guys" in this story. Other "good" celtic characters in this story like Jamie Bell's character speak with English accents to show their characters are local but still protagonists. And then I loved that they made the "barbarian" tribes of the North speak real scottish Gaelic. It made them feel mysterious, alien, and like brutal foes that we couldn't understand whilst drawing on real Celtic and ancient Scottish culture. It sets the northerners apart from the heroes and assists in making them feel like a antagonist faction. So from a film narrative PoV, the English speaking American Romans makes sense.
snkhuong Actually I know two movies directed by Mel Gibson where the characters spoke ancient languages: The Passion of the Christ (Romans speak Latin sic!) and Apocalypto. I studied ancient Latin and Greek and can tell you it's not a big deal to just learn how to pronounce it but this can be a strong input to create a really good atmosphere in HISTORICAL movies.
Most of random commenters here udnerstand on pure logic and reason that TESTUDO IS NOT FOR CLOSE COMBAT and who are those peoples working over those movies ? a 9 years old kids ? seriusly ..
Aaand why exactly did he give the order to retreat from the chariots? I don't think that those blades would be a threat to a compact shield wall and that would be the best moment to form the Testudo.
under normal circumstances I don't think a sally from the fort would be standard operating procedure in that day and age. It would normally be considered a high-risk, low-chance-of-success operation, considering the enemy's numbers, for the Romans to leave the protection of the fort. Unlike today, soldiers back then were considered more expendable, and risking dozens of casualties to save less ten or fewer prisoners probably wouldn't have sat well with a higher-ranking officer if there had been one present. That's probably why Marcus hesitated at all.
walter chiappini I think in those days the concept of saving your comrades didn't exist nearly as much as it does today. In a situation like that (a scouting party being captured), I'm quite certain the average response from an officer would probably be "they knew the risks". That's not necessarily because he doesn't believe his men have value as soldiers, but because (like I mentioned in my first reply) trying to save ten men while potentially losing twenty or thirty (or perhaps failing altogether and losing your entire sallying force PLUS the prisoners) wouldn't make for a pretty report to the CO.
Why would U think it is different than today>? Those Roman units existed for hundreds of years.Fathers were followed by sons in generational fashion.They were much more like the British Army where unit pride and history are huge. Unlike the US forces where only a few units continue with the same designation. My fathers artillery unit descended from Alexander Hamiltons artillery unit but it was redesignated several times split into two units as half became the core of a new one,\ I dont think it is around anymore, By the way in WW2 this artillery unit had more continuous combat time than any other US ARmy Unit and in addition had many landing invasion citations -4.Only the US ARmy Rangers -5 and One infantry unit-4 were close.I mean that is what the RAngers do=Go in first. I WW1 that unit existed but saw no combat. Anyway long service together usually means a closer bond so... These Roman soldiers also were professionals and not conscripts.
walter chiappini dang, that's cool (the part with your father); thanks to him for his service! In any case, I think the logic of high-risk, low-reward still stands. Also, although I neglected to mention this before, I've read numerous accounts of wars and battles involving the Romans, and I've never heard of rescue missions of this nature being undertaken. You might attribute that to the events (if they happened) having never been recorded, but it seems unlikely that something so daring and successful would not have at least a single recorded instance. I certainly won't dispute the issue of unit pride; however, despite their training, many Roman legionaries _were_ actually conscripted. The original military structure called for an annual levy, a tradition which never went away, but was later supplemented by the inclusion of volunteers, mostly from the lowest social classes, due to the need for more troops during the Punic Wars.
C'est n'importe quoi cette stratégie. La tortue n'est pas faite pour un combat comme ça, et c'est le meilleur moyen de se faire exterminer, (Bataille de Cannes 216 av J.C)
The Guy You Always Hated In Your Childhood Read it again. I am saying that the enemy should counter the testudo by spearing/swording the lower part of legs on the Romans. I'm not talking about horses..
+Timothy Integra Wingates Hellsing Horses does tend to solid block of men if they're not using long spears like forest. Combination of the adoption of a frame saddle secured in place by a breastband, stirrups and the technique of couching the lance under the arm delivered a hitherto unachievable ability to utilise the momentum of the horse and rider. These developments began in the 7th century but were not combined to full effect until the 11th century.The Battle of Dyrrhachium in 1081 was an early instance of the familiar medieval cavalry charge; recorded to have a devastating effect by both Norman and Byzantine chroniclers. By the time of the First Crusade in the 1090s, the cavalry charge was being employed widely by European armies.
when soldiers have armor, shields and swords with superb training and discipline it is difficult to defeat them. the leader of the Britons should have known this and strategized to nullify these strengths.
For the people who said that the testudo would not be very effective in close range, you are confused. When attacking while being outnumbered testudo was the best choice as it acted like a tank. They were able to muscle their way through the mob of barbarians like a machine. Going into that mob in a line however would be so effective as they can just quickly close through the flanks or use their numbers to bash the front line down.
You're an ignorant fool that's talking out of his arse. The testudo is NOT used for melee combat: units that somehow came under melee attack in testudo formation would be wiped out quickly and easily, as they would be packed in far too tight to actually use their weapons. Romans were not dumb, so of course that never happened because noone ever used the formation in battle. The formation is used exclusively for protection against missiles, and exclusively when approaching walls during a siege. It can't even be used in open battle for protection against missiles, as your troops can come under melee attack and redeploying them into a battle line would be difficult and too risky. In fact applying a testudo against missiles would be playing right into the hands of the enemy, who is precisely hoping that his missiles will mess up your line somehow. It is NOT, repeat: NOT a tank. Soldiers in a testudo *can not fight*.
if they have enemy soldiers as prisoners one would think a roman horse or two were taken as well. romans were there a while...perhaps this rider learned to ride from one of the foreigners sometime in his life maybe as a soldier himself....
Why do people always feel they have to flap their mouths about stuff when there's ZERO possibility they have the faintest clue what they're talking about. Even if you're a bloody archaeologist and professional historian, there's no CERTAINTY about these things. Yeah, Rome 2 is not history - but neither is your opinion on how things worked. Have you scanned through every book ever written and found that that formation never worked in melee, or are you talking out of your ass? And even with that said - it's a bloody MOVIE. It's allowed to be dramatic. Notice how they're speaking in american accents? That's not realistic either. Let's complain about that while we're at it shall we?
mister m When was your tour of duty in Britannia, and which Legion did you serve in? You seem to be very certain that for hundreds of years, no one ever once used a certain formation to fight a mob. I can only assume your certainty comes from having been there!
mister m The exact same thing can be said about the opposite side of the argument. We don't know. Therefore it didn't happen. No evidence is indeed no evidence.
Karathos It would had been dramatic if they just sent out one man to drive away all the barbarians, possible killing everyone in the process, then saving the prisoner and resurrecting the killed. While protecting the retreating prisoner the heavily injured one-many-roman-legion with his broken sword and lost shield will have an epic final stand down with the leader who is charging in from the clouds of heaven with his shiny chariot of gold and steel and army of undead warriors all while the barbarian boss is shooting lightnings from his eyes and fireballs from his arse as special effects. Of course our now armless hero soaked in his own and others blood from top to toe will, at the end, kill the leader before he parish himself. And then when we all think our hero is dead he is brought back to life again by the soft kiss of a beautiful spirit woman with tears in her eyes, only to come back the next day in his golden armor and divine sword to decimate barbarians by the thousands like nothing ever happen. That would had been dramatic! But I guess budgets sets limits to what actually can be done in a movie, so all we got was a handful of men in a testudo challenging the onslaught from a couple of hundred angry barbarians going berserk with armor piercing heavy axes, but since the barbarians are stupid they, of course, lose. Then rounded of with a 3-second boss fight with no extra special effects. Over all, not to bad, but it could had been better or more drama.
I think its amazingly foolish decision for a commander with numerically less soldiers to come out of their fortification to engage a numerically superior enemy. I mean this is movie so everything turned out pretty well.. I real world his army would have been annihilated..
+Karthik Mahesh Not always. In the last major battle against the Soviet Red Army in 1944, the Finnish Army made with numerically smaller units a three-headed counterattack against the two attacking soviet divisions, surrounding them and mostly destroying them. Some soviet troops escaped and the last of remaining soldiers were later saved by the armistice between the nations; referring to the Battle of Ilomantsi.
Not really. The Roman Century that would have potentially been garrisoned there would not have utilized the 'testudo' formation, however, their five deep centuria formation would have easily annihilated up to a cohort of enemy strength. Tacitus and Cassius Dio both wrote of the power of the Roman army, even at small 'platoon' levels. The Romans were strategically, tactically, and logistically superior to all fighting forces opposing Rome after the 1st century AD.
read little bit of history, in example "Battle of Watling Street" 10000 (ten thousand) romans won battle against 230000 (two hundred and thirty thousand) britons... Casualties: 400 romans, 80000 britons roman army it was perfect machine .
The only reason they won Watling Street is because they had the right terrain. If it were a fight on a flat battlefield with no geographical advantage to either side, the Britons would have surrounded and destroyed them with their cavalry.
Andrew Stagg but britons fought in its own grounds, so they should chose better place for battle, also they outnumbered romans... in other words romans were better than britons that is all :-) similar story was during siege of alesia, when gauls' relief forces (250000 man) attacked romans (40000 man), of course romas were fortified but in trap.
That celt was really going ham on the speech acting. Never seen anyone look like they were trying to shoot lightning while talking
"Best fight scene in the movie", and they're charging in a testudo formation... That's why any movie with a pretense for historical accuracy should hire a historian to examine the script. Or a guy with common sense, for that matter.
I never said it was a bad formation. It was just bad for fighting in melee. A bunch of people clumped up without much room for maneuver or even using a sword. It was used for approaching walls manned by archers, and against heavy incoming arrow fire. That's all.
this is a movie, not a documentary.
God I hate these idiots who uses their mouth(keyboard) first before rationalizing first with equality
Sunspear45 Were I making a movie, I'd rather take a guy with a degree, just in case. Since everyone's an expert on the internet.
Observer29830 Fair play. Can't wrong ya there.
+Observer29830 i was like "lets see if someone in comment section..... yeah"
"Sir let me lead them with my american accent"
Testudo in close combat, that script writer is a "genius" :D
Haha, honestly, I love reading the comments from movies like The Eagle, and Hercules. It's like being in a war council. The only comment section I can stand on youtube is from ancient military strategy and tactics. Filled with actual knowledgeable information and facts. Bravo, Generals, bravo :)Never give up the fight!
I wish there would be more historical films about Roman/Byzantine empire.
Obviously they didn't fight with Maximus at Vindobona or they'd have known they could form a circle stick their shields out and topple the chariots. Sheesz!
tbf, Maximus was a veteran badass General. Channing Tatum is just a young centurian.
I actually don't have an issue with the Testudo here. Yes I know it was a defensive formation used to approach whilst under fire, but Marcus is quick to think on his feet and the Celtic warriors probably weren't expecting a testudo formation used as a shield-wall cannon ball to punch through to the prisoners.
The biggest tactical blunder by far in this fight is the running retreat from the chariots. An experienced commander would know they'd be easily run down. An experienced commander would also know that you should meet a cavalry charge with your ranks stationary and braced for impact. Also it's likely the horses would shy away from running directly into a wall of large Roman shields.
However, as is said in the film, this is Marcus' first command so he makes a critical error here despite his earlier quick thinking re. the use of Testudo.
what the movie failed to depict was that outnumbered 3 to 1 your formation would be easily runover especially in testudo where you dont have the shields supporting the men up front
It's also a movie.
Funnier thing. Celts chariots didn't had scythes, they were used for "more baddass battle entry" for renowned warriors/chieftains than for battling.
In the testudo formation, the men would align their shields to form a packed formation covered with shields on the front and top. The first row of men, possibly excluding the men on the flanks, would hold their shields from about the height of their shins to their eyes, so as to cover the formation's front. The shields would be held in such a way that they presented a shield wall to all sides. The men in the back ranks would place their shields over their heads to protect the formation from above, balancing the shields on their helmets, overlapping them. If necessary, the legionaries on the sides and rear of the formation could stand sideways or backwards with shields held as the front rows, so as to protect the formation's sides and rear; this made the formation slow and they covered very little ground.The testudo was used to protect soldiers from all types of missiles.The testudo was not invincible, as Cassius Dio also gives an account of a Roman shield array being defeated by Parthian cataphracts and horse archers at the Battle of Carrhae.
A testudo formation was nearly impossible for a unit to move together because of the tight coordination it required. Also, did the Britons just miss that the rear of the formation was completely exposed? I also doubt the Romans ever used a " defensive circle " in battle. Once again Hollywood ruins history.
fake. "Turtle" for this type of fight this suicide. This order was applied to protection against throwing types of weapon.
Agreed. This tactic doesn't protect the flanks, a barbarian horde could easily exploit such a weakness.
***** For such attack the system is necessary care, or a "hedgehog" for example as in 1343 in battle of Morlaix and etc. The "turtle" is necessary for protection against throwing shells from above.
Besides on horizontal shields it was possible to climb on a low wall. But it was almost not used and demands good preparation.
+Phillip Roy Maybe they expected a shitload of throwing weapons.
+Phillip Roy Hm. I don't think that's fake. When fighting against such numbers, how else would you hold your unit in formation for longer than 3-5 minutes? And effectively thrust your men into the center of the enemy.
peace
Epicness everywhere. Looks like a Total War scene.
Like it!
But the use of testudo in this situation is suicide.
Oh great. Leather segmentata..
Hollywood pls
At least use Lorica Hamata, those fit good in almost any era of Rome.
XxEntaroAdunxX Yeah segmentata was only used for a short period after which they went back to hamata pretty quickly, heck mail fits almost anywhere from the early roman republic to the 17th century, it's the most common form of metal armor in history.
I liked this movie. got it on dvd otherwise wouldn't have seen it. loved the effects and story
Rest in Peace Lukács Bitskey! (The barbarian army leader)
3:33 Romans before - today Riot police
yeah lets charge using a defensive tactic.....brilliant
Testudo is not the formation any Roman might have chosen for this kind of mission. It is a formation designed to stand missiles, not to close combat fighting. You can even see it in this scene, the heading romans are hit by the flying barbarians without any chance to strike back, cuz testudo keeps you so tight you can barely maneuver your own gladius or scutum. Seems like the director just wanted to show a testudo moment in the move cuz it looks cool. Still, it is above what normally ancient battles look like on Hollywood movies.
6:32 ... Mars took note !
Testudo was ONLY used to protect the soldiers from ballistic attacks, NOT in close combat. The testudo would have prevented the Roman formation from taking advantage through reinforcement because the men in 2nd row couldn't take place of taken out soldiers in the first row, and the "mighty Celtic jump attack" is a hilarious legend. But it's realistic how the Romans used their swords in close combat, they never hit the enemy from above, but stang them from between their shields. While being pressed against the Roman shield wall by all the allied soldiers pushing, you couldn't see nor block the sword, and a sword in your intestines is much deadlier than one bouncing off your helmet...
So this commander risks about 50 living and able men to save a few prisoners. The problem with this scene is not just the fact that he uses the testudo formation but also because he risks the lives of 50 of his men to save a few soldiers. If he was adamant on fighting the Celts he should have deployed a proper battle line and fought the traditional manner in which Romans fought.
If this was a best scene in the movie, than I don't wan't to see the rest.
My favorite scene from this pretty cool movie! ;)
0:42 RIP Bicskey Lukács
jesus christ! they let the enemy wrap around them.
That centurion fought like a real roman!
Ave!
Discipline my ass. The first part, testudo is not a formation to be used in the close quarter. But the shield circle is OK.
But seriously: the enemy has very fast chariots, and your response is to run away? Are they daft? Do the same flipping circle and use your pila as a short spear. The horse won't just charge into a forest of spears.
its called a movie they wanted to add cinematic effect
I didn't see any pila with them.... maybe they left the pila back in camp since they expected to just testudo their way to the prisoners, then testudo back? AFAIK pila were not commonly used as melee weapons so I suppose they didn't want the potential unneeded weight?
pila were crafted to bend after the impact (meant to be thrown) so that it couldn't be used back by the enemy. So it's wrong to think it can be used as "short spear". It'll bend, it's not supposed to be used in melee
Xzv19 excerpts from Flavius Arrianus', Roman govenor of Cappadocia, Ektaxis kata Alanoon or as Acies contra Alanos (Arrays against the Alans).
" They should deploy in eight ranks and their deployment should be close ordered. And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies near them, they can thrust the ironpoints of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third an fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness."
Yes, the pila can be used as a short spear in melee against cavalry. The text did not call it such. But a spear with long thin soft iron shanks that bent on impact is what we call a pilum. also the text did not say throw, but hold the spear and thrust.
Xuan Vinh To
The original text is in greek, which unfortunately I didn't study, I did study latin. It would have helped if the original was in latin, to be sure he was talking about pila. If they translated it as "spear" I'm not that confident they're talking about pila
Soldiers against warriors, the Soldiers win every time unless the odds are ridicolous.
Tactics can a lot of the time outmatch plain numbers.
Michael Moen True but warriors seldom have tactics.
who's watching this in 2016 ? :D or in 27 BC - AD 14 ? xD
Me
:D
I do :D
Good scene, it could almost trick you the movie was going to be great :)
Testudo was most effective in sieges against missile fire, but it could also be used for other purposes - as long as the men held firm it could even hold a chariot rolling over it, as was demonstrated by a Roman general with his legionaries.
a bit of fantasy there. as testudo is only used against missile attacks and the rear of a testudo is very open.
Brilliant scene watched it quite a few times, love the way they march out of the fort with the Centurion at the front.
Митра бог солнца, отец отцов наших не дай мне уронить честь легиона! Митра бог солнца, отец отцов наших прими любую жертву но помоги мне сохранить честь легиона!
To all you mad dogs. There is ATTACKING testudo and DEFENSIVE testudo. Attacking Testudo was GREAT to pass through a mob. Since Blades were coming out from everywhere UNarmoured soldiers were an easy pray.
Again Giannis, Rome 2 total war is not history. There is no such thing as attacking testudo or defensive testudo. If anyone jumped on top of your shield while you had your shield up, you couldn't hold that entire weight and would fall down, thus breaking the line. It's only protection against missile attacks. If you use a testudo formation when passing a "mob", then your soldiers will be dead meat, since they'll get surrounded. Blades aren't coming out of everywhere, they might be coming out, but it's harder to coordinate when you have to hold your shield up in the air rather than using it toward the enemy.
DaReaperZ well I did nto mention about the guy jumping on the top of the testudo because these is clearly theatrical nonsense*, but it is awesome to protect you from bows and stones that mob or archers could through to you, as you saw, the flank of the testudo opens in order not to get surrouned! well its good enough for me to see at least a nice formation in the movie. :D
Testudo was used during sieges to avoid arrow fire. Don't trust Hollywood too much.
Defensive testudo? Roflmao, you played too many video games.
ergh... testudo was used for many things, including breaking through the enemy lines.
Brave Roman LEGION .
In fact, it is not the best scene, it is the ONLY scene of some interest in the whole movie :P
very true. Most media productions made about the ancient Roman war machine usually only have 1 maybe 2 good scenes, that depict the skill of the legions formation fighting. Whoever directed Kingdom of Heaven and Alexander needs to be contracted to do a film about the 2nd roman invasion of Briton.
Holy shit they actually formed the orb, well atleast they got that part historically accurate.
What was the point of testudo there?! Ah Holywood, you and your accurate history, never cease to amaze me
using a testudo in a field battle is like using duck and cover against lava (southpark
Please don't Fap on this video if you don't like it! thanks
***** ?
+krypt0n01 he already done
+hankock09 great!
You know what's funny , People from my qountry can't even watch this due copy claim LOL
Opex FlaMe Belgium
bra film , tyvärr inte har framgång det förtjänar
Romans v Ancient Britons the best and only scene in the whole film ."Centurion "was head and shoulders above this.
I agree, I watched The Eagle and ten Centurion directly after, miles better. The ambush scene was awesome
Chris Holland I presume you are talking about The Eagle..? Because if so, I agree - I hate it when (medieval and earlier, obviously) films, use American accents. Obviously, an RP accent won't be realistic, but it is still better.
I partly agree, but it's far better then sub titles.
Yeah haha imagine them all in Latin...
Agreed! Courage in the face of death to protect others.
Rest of the movie was pretty forgettable.
Put the 300th like.God damn it!
Cool video
When you invade another persons country and enslave their people - do not expect them to thank you!
Wait a sec. Is that Channing Tatum?
yall dont understand the purpose for testudo here it is to not fight but to protect the most amount of troops until they arrive at their objective which was to rescue.
well edited!!!
Big scene, yet so many details wrong. Stirrups for one. Roman costumes, and actions so stereotypical. Testudo turns up in every movie, from Cleopatra, to Gladiator, to this one.
3.O7: Channing's scruffy lips in close-up
first they are surrounded than they magically fall back?
veni vidi vici
How does it went on?
Rule no:1 Any dimwits who where tempted to unload their unorganized rage on organized troop formations will have their ass handed to them for breakfast. This can be translated as fight in formations and don't break formation.
italians were really strong in battle :P
lol
+Pierpaolo Murano (Piero) romans*
+Darth Violent
what's the diffrence ?
Romans/Latins were Italic people
and Rome consisted mainly of Etruscan latins & Samnites all 3 are Italic
Italy is Rome Rome is Italy
+Hiwa Joe
Well, Italy ended its unification only in 1871. So, during the Antique Time, speaking about Italians in the same way as today was too soon.
Briseur De Lance i was speaking about the population as a race not a culture
modern day italian have just a bit more germanic in them but overall italians are the same as antiquity
es super pelicula
I just love when Romans speak English... Of course only Barbarians had its own language :) All these "historical" movies are sooo americanized
English is known world wide and they speak english so that everyone understands
I actually enjoyed the American Romans in this whilst many found it absurd. It makes them seem like foreigners whilst letting them speak English so the audience identifies with them as the "good guys" in this story.
Other "good" celtic characters in this story like Jamie Bell's character speak with English accents to show their characters are local but still protagonists.
And then I loved that they made the "barbarian" tribes of the North speak real scottish Gaelic. It made them feel mysterious, alien, and like brutal foes that we couldn't understand whilst drawing on real Celtic and ancient Scottish culture. It sets the northerners apart from the heroes and assists in making them feel like a antagonist faction.
So from a film narrative PoV, the English speaking American Romans makes sense.
i doubt if they could find actors who speak ancient Latin lmao
snkhuong Actually I know two movies directed by Mel Gibson where the characters spoke ancient languages: The Passion of the Christ (Romans speak Latin sic!) and Apocalypto. I studied ancient Latin and Greek and can tell you it's not a big deal to just learn how to pronounce it but this can be a strong input to create a really good atmosphere in HISTORICAL movies.
Jay Kal Dude you're so smart. thanks a lot
Most of random commenters here udnerstand on pure logic and reason that TESTUDO IS NOT FOR CLOSE COMBAT and who are those peoples working over those movies ? a 9 years old kids ? seriusly ..
+ss4456 Isn't TESTUDO for close combat? Really?
Someone111ify no, its defensive formation against missle atack, used esspecialy when you trying to get close to walls of fortified city
ss4456 I see.
Aaand why exactly did he give the order to retreat from the chariots? I don't think that those blades would be a threat to a compact shield wall and that would be the best moment to form the Testudo.
+Joshua Günther Some even claims that horses dont want to charge a closed shieldwall.
+Greensiteofhell Of course not! horses aren't stupid
was that the villager's battle cry?
Jag dog där på loka reklamen XD
What was he waiting for to sally out of the fort?
he had to see they would chop heads off?
under normal circumstances I don't think a sally from the fort would be standard operating procedure in that day and age. It would normally be considered a high-risk, low-chance-of-success operation, considering the enemy's numbers, for the Romans to leave the protection of the fort. Unlike today, soldiers back then were considered more expendable, and risking dozens of casualties to save less ten or fewer prisoners probably wouldn't have sat well with a higher-ranking officer if there had been one present.
That's probably why Marcus hesitated at all.
i doubt that leaving your comrades to be tortured would be normal procedure,but with an undermanned fort it might.
walter chiappini I think in those days the concept of saving your comrades didn't exist nearly as much as it does today. In a situation like that (a scouting party being captured), I'm quite certain the average response from an officer would probably be "they knew the risks".
That's not necessarily because he doesn't believe his men have value as soldiers, but because (like I mentioned in my first reply) trying to save ten men while potentially losing twenty or thirty (or perhaps failing altogether and losing your entire sallying force PLUS the prisoners) wouldn't make for a pretty report to the CO.
Why would U think it is different than today>? Those Roman units existed for hundreds of years.Fathers were followed by sons in generational fashion.They were much more like the British Army where unit pride and history are huge.
Unlike the US forces where only a few units continue with the same designation.
My fathers artillery unit descended from Alexander Hamiltons artillery unit but it was redesignated several times split into two units as half became the core of a new one,\ I dont think it is around anymore,
By the way in WW2 this artillery unit had more continuous combat time than any other US ARmy Unit and in addition had many landing invasion citations -4.Only the US ARmy
Rangers -5 and One infantry unit-4 were close.I mean that is what the RAngers do=Go in first.
I WW1 that unit existed but saw no combat.
Anyway long service together usually means a closer bond so...
These Roman soldiers also were professionals and not conscripts.
walter chiappini dang, that's cool (the part with your father); thanks to him for his service!
In any case, I think the logic of high-risk, low-reward still stands. Also, although I neglected to mention this before, I've read numerous accounts of wars and battles involving the Romans, and I've never heard of rescue missions of this nature being undertaken. You might attribute that to the events (if they happened) having never been recorded, but it seems unlikely that something so daring and successful would not have at least a single recorded instance.
I certainly won't dispute the issue of unit pride; however, despite their training, many Roman legionaries _were_ actually conscripted. The original military structure called for an annual levy, a tradition which never went away, but was later supplemented by the inclusion of volunteers, mostly from the lowest social classes, due to the need for more troops during the Punic Wars.
for The ROME'S Formation
That was not a situation where the testudo would be used.
9 legion
Not bad.
C'est n'importe quoi cette stratégie. La tortue n'est pas faite pour un combat comme ça, et c'est le meilleur moyen de se faire exterminer, (Bataille de Cannes 216 av J.C)
lost me by insane circkle -why?
achillies the best soldier
Isn't that how they defeated Boedicca's army?
Why would they leave their fortification to attack an enemy?
Its like...after this scene...the film just turned to shit.
Zzz wheres the rest oohhh nvm its a gaming channel.. Want me to watch it ? Neh im fine watching over 100 1 mil subbed youtube
and why no attack the legs of the roman we will never no lol
Sorry for add's for my gaming videos but have a look don't be mad :(
+krypton77 it\s all right
what do u mean?
+belongaskip aah I get it. thanks bro ;-)
не переживайте! придут русы и всех спасут!
is this roman?
if that was the best scene then it's another one of he's films to leave well alone lol
Maybe they should have just cut their feet. When they are in testudo they dont really pose a threat..
The Guy You Always Hated In Your Childhood Read it again. I am saying that the enemy should counter the testudo by spearing/swording the lower part of legs on the Romans. I'm not talking about horses..
+Timothy Integra Wingates Hellsing Horses does tend to solid block of men if they're not using long spears like forest. Combination of the adoption of a frame saddle secured in place by a breastband, stirrups and the technique of couching the lance under the arm delivered a hitherto unachievable ability to utilise the momentum of the horse and rider. These developments began in the 7th century but were not combined to full effect until the 11th century.The Battle of Dyrrhachium in 1081 was an early instance of the familiar medieval cavalry charge; recorded to have a devastating effect by both Norman and Byzantine chroniclers. By the time of the First Crusade in the 1090s, the cavalry charge was being employed widely by European armies.
Not theatrically 'PC' - still maximum drama.
soldiers fight with domestic people.
definitely soldiers win..not fair
when soldiers have armor, shields and swords with superb training and discipline it is difficult to defeat them. the leader of the Britons should have known this and strategized to nullify these strengths.
Tell that to the Vikings :D
Wow...thanks, Field Marshal. And a ruptured duck never flies at night.
If you're fighting a fair war, then someone's not being a good leader.
Making wars unfair is how you win.
For the people who said that the testudo would not be very effective in close range, you are confused. When attacking while being outnumbered testudo was the best choice as it acted like a tank. They were able to muscle their way through the mob of barbarians like a machine. Going into that mob in a line however would be so effective as they can just quickly close through the flanks or use their numbers to bash the front line down.
You're an ignorant fool that's talking out of his arse. The testudo is NOT used for melee combat: units that somehow came under melee attack in testudo formation would be wiped out quickly and easily, as they would be packed in far too tight to actually use their weapons. Romans were not dumb, so of course that never happened because noone ever used the formation in battle.
The formation is used exclusively for protection against missiles, and exclusively when approaching walls during a siege. It can't even be used in open battle for protection against missiles, as your troops can come under melee attack and redeploying them into a battle line would be difficult and too risky. In fact applying a testudo against missiles would be playing right into the hands of the enemy, who is precisely hoping that his missiles will mess up your line somehow.
It is NOT, repeat: NOT a tank. Soldiers in a testudo *can not fight*.
+StickManVS Its a real tank man!! ;)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_formation
Rome vs zombies.
Foreign invaders vs. people defending their own land and homes.
Britain have horses? I thougt horses originated from middle and far east.
For real?Wtf?
Θανάσης Σταυρογιάννης Always thought the Romans introduced horses to the British Isles.
if they have enemy soldiers as prisoners one would think a roman horse or two were taken as well. romans were there a while...perhaps this rider learned to ride from one of the foreigners sometime in his life maybe as a soldier himself....
and.... horses introduced by hispanic to north america, and native amerikans used them against US army... it is the same story
Gromosław Śmiały exactly!
thumbs down for the fucking screen blockers
Why do people always feel they have to flap their mouths about stuff when there's ZERO possibility they have the faintest clue what they're talking about. Even if you're a bloody archaeologist and professional historian, there's no CERTAINTY about these things. Yeah, Rome 2 is not history - but neither is your opinion on how things worked. Have you scanned through every book ever written and found that that formation never worked in melee, or are you talking out of your ass?
And even with that said - it's a bloody MOVIE. It's allowed to be dramatic. Notice how they're speaking in american accents? That's not realistic either. Let's complain about that while we're at it shall we?
You sound stupid. This kind of shit never happened.
mister m When was your tour of duty in Britannia, and which Legion did you serve in? You seem to be very certain that for hundreds of years, no one ever once used a certain formation to fight a mob. I can only assume your certainty comes from having been there!
We dont know. Therefore it happened? What kind of logic. No evidence is no evidence.
mister m The exact same thing can be said about the opposite side of the argument. We don't know. Therefore it didn't happen. No evidence is indeed no evidence.
Karathos It would had been dramatic if they just sent out one man to drive away all the barbarians, possible killing everyone in the process, then saving the prisoner and resurrecting the killed. While protecting the retreating prisoner the heavily injured one-many-roman-legion with his broken sword and lost shield will have an epic final stand down with the leader who is charging in from the clouds of heaven with his shiny chariot of gold and steel and army of undead warriors all while the barbarian boss is shooting lightnings from his eyes and fireballs from his arse as special effects. Of course our now armless hero soaked in his own and others blood from top to toe will, at the end, kill the leader before he parish himself. And then when we all think our hero is dead he is brought back to life again by the soft kiss of a beautiful spirit woman with tears in her eyes, only to come back the next day in his golden armor and divine sword to decimate barbarians by the thousands like nothing ever happen. That would had been dramatic! But I guess budgets sets limits to what actually can be done in a movie, so all we got was a handful of men in a testudo challenging the onslaught from a couple of hundred angry barbarians going berserk with armor piercing heavy axes, but since the barbarians are stupid they, of course, lose. Then rounded of with a 3-second boss fight with no extra special effects. Over all, not to bad, but it could had been better or more drama.
I think its amazingly foolish decision for a commander with numerically less soldiers to come out of their fortification to engage a numerically superior enemy. I mean this is movie so everything turned out pretty well.. I real world his army would have been annihilated..
+Karthik Mahesh Not always. In the last major battle against the Soviet Red Army in 1944, the Finnish Army made with numerically smaller units a three-headed counterattack against the two attacking soviet divisions, surrounding them and mostly destroying them. Some soviet troops escaped and the last of remaining soldiers were later saved by the armistice between the nations; referring to the Battle of Ilomantsi.
Not really. The Roman Century that would have potentially been garrisoned there would not have utilized the 'testudo' formation, however, their five deep centuria formation would have easily annihilated up to a cohort of enemy strength. Tacitus and Cassius Dio both wrote of the power of the Roman army, even at small 'platoon' levels. The Romans were strategically, tactically, and logistically superior to all fighting forces opposing Rome after the 1st century AD.
read little bit of history, in example "Battle of Watling Street" 10000 (ten thousand) romans won battle against 230000 (two hundred and thirty thousand) britons... Casualties: 400 romans, 80000 britons
roman army it was perfect machine .
The only reason they won Watling Street is because they had the right terrain. If it were a fight on a flat battlefield with no geographical advantage to either side, the Britons would have surrounded and destroyed them with their cavalry.
Andrew Stagg
but britons fought in its own grounds, so they should chose better place for battle, also they outnumbered romans... in other words romans were better than britons that is all :-)
similar story was during siege of alesia, when gauls' relief forces (250000 man) attacked romans (40000 man), of course romas were fortified but in trap.
This scene is the epitome of bad cinematography. Nothingelse to say.
+astalavisitor How so? Trying to understand cinematography better..
Hi Testudo fans , I upload a new video from a good battle scene th-cam.com/video/4YfGzTFfv1w/w-d-xo.html Go check it out and leave a like ;)
The hoplite phalanx was better for this kind of battles
Although the movie had a good start it went for a mediocre score...