@@duartemonteiro9459 It depends on the situation. If your a skilled fighter dueling another fighter sure. But if your being fired at by archers or standing in a line I think the spear and shield would be superior. There's just not enough room to maneuver in formation. On top of that there's no way to tell were the attack is coming from its just a wall of sharp pointy bits poking at you. Another point is moral. Most of the humans throughout history who fought with spear and shield were levy troops, conscripted farmers. I bet it's way easier talking a group of farmers to stand against a charge if they have a shield. You ever watch that lyndbeige video over the topic. Sounds like a awful way to fight. On par with standing in a musket firing line.
@@darkjill2007 si como los casos de falanges macedonias, es estilo barrido. Mas tiene buena fortaleza frontal, trente a testudos, escuderos, etc, su debilidad es no tener escudos mas grandes, y pierde maniobrabilidad a los flancos.
It’s true, and you miss an extremely important component to the success of the legions if you miss it. Field engineering, logistics, organization on the strategic level, and a commander that knows how to maximize all of those things, consistently prove to be the unsexy things that give Rome the edge. Incidentally, all of those things largely come from organizational memory: a standing, professional army is able to keep and pass on what it has learned in a way that a conscripted army has to primarily gain by its own experience, if it survives the process. It’s no joke belonging to an army that has hundreds of years of practical experience across all kinds of situations. Or fighting against one, for that matter; and here’s you, some petty Gaulic chieftain who’s only ever fought other Celts...maybe once you got called up into a larger confederation to repulse the Germans. Caesar played coy in his Gaulic War for the readers back home: “Well, it was touch and go for a minute there... and then we massacred all of them.” His war in Gaul was a slaughter; they stood no chance against that kind of an army. That’s a lot of rambling: if you’re still with me, my point is that the quote is accurate. Individual discipline, training, and equipment, and tactical flexibility count for a lot, but were hardly unique to Rome. The lessons learned and maintained throughout centuries as the Roman army became an institution - how to prepare fortifications every night, how dig in to lay or repel a siege, how to how to build bridges, roads, and walls, how to keep tens of thousands of men in fighting shape in the field indefinitely and prevent the enemy from doing the same, how to properly organize, making soldiering a career instead of a seasonal civic duty - those were what made it special and successful.
Yeah, Rome is a fascinating case study on the topic of military and political development; especially since it’s not always clear which is driving which, the two were inseparably linked. But nothing teaches you about logistics better than chasing the Carthaginians into Sicily, Spain, or North Africa. No better place to learn about sieges than a tour of Macaedonia and Greece (just don’t ask how Syracuse went...). You wanna know the value of not just throwing away fresh recruits, you’ll learn it losing multiple legions under the command of inexperienced generals to the Teutones or Hannibal while they stomp around Italy with impunity.
@@reportx9633 you can be like them you know. All it takes is research. I read a whole 300 page book about roman history. It was very interesting and informing
You already hinted at part of it: the legions of the 4th century were NOT the same as the 1st BC, nor was Rome itself - especially in the West, which would fall, while the East would go on until 1465. There’s a ton of factors as to how and why things got so bad in the West, but I suspect the real issue is that when you think of the Germanic tribes at this time you’re thinking of Conan the Barbarian and his buddies. They had been in contact with Rome and influenced by fighting them for 4 centuries, consistently getting stomped and pacified at first, except for one notable ambush, but growing to be a bigger problem every time. By the time they started migrating west they were fairly sophisticated societies with armies sufficient to beat what Rome was fielding at the time. They weren’t as complex as the Rome of the late Republic/Early Empire, but neither was Rome itself. The west was in a state of serious decline all around, and would stay that way until the First Crusade reestablished regular contact and trade with the East (although Charlemagne has a little renaissance of his own).
Fighting sword vs spear is always a tough prospect in nearly any situation. The trick for the swordsman to get past the spear point, then the spearman is in trouble. This is especially true if the spearman doesn't have a shield.
Ahmed Mustafa the Gaul had a spear From my experience Spears are relatively easy to counter when not tired To drop your shield is to get stabbed by a spear Never drop your shield Ever!
Now remember. There were no gaps, no dancing around. There was just a wall of legionaries, relentless, drilled and switching to keep up stamina. A hacksaw of shields and swords, slowly advancing and grinding whatever was under its heels.
Pretty much so. If a Roman was caught out of formation with a short sword like the gladius, he was likely not long for this world. I'm not sure there is nay evidence for swordsmanship traing for legionaires outside of cloes-in thrust and short slash movements. Any Romans soldier who was forced back by an individual enemy would have been stopped by the rank behind, and would likely have had another trooper thrust out to help, or grab the spear possibly. They had fantastic armor protection and might have been well prepared for any one handed sprear thrust, by simply turning the torso to slip the blow if the point got past the shield, and still have been able to stand in place. Just my 2 cents. I wasn't there....
Just my two cents but it's kinda hard to beat the Roman combination. A well armored Roman soldier with short sword in a tight formation. Versus a lightly armored (if any) Gaul with a spear and shield. And that is if they still had a shield after a pilum was thrown honestly the Romans were hard to beat In their time. I find it interesting though that spear and shield was used so long, I think armor plays a role in which weapons were used.
@@AmiableLion Except that "roman combination" is a myth: the romans did not just block and thrust like a meat grinder, they also threw short slashes and cuts, the gladius being feared by its ability to amputate limbs. The romans did train in individual combat with gladiator instructors and were known for being good individual fighters...and that requires a decent amount of space, at least meter between each legionnary. That's not super tight, indeed spearmen stood closer to each other than that and could do something the romans couldn't: use those gaps between the legionaries to stab diagonnaly from outside the range of the gladius. The gauls were not that lightly armoured either, they were well known for their metallurgy, so much the romans copied their armor,lol. As for why spear and shield prevailed over sword and shield: sword and shield is weak against cavalry and often is bad when fighting in retreat. Spears are much better at that, since they can keep enemies at a longer range.
John Tyler It's also a myth that the Roman armor was copied from Gauls if by coping you mean the Lorica segmentata. LOL The only thing Romans could have copied from Gauls is a kind of chainmail, but chainmail was already used in Italy by many italic tribes as well who had nothing to do with Gauls.
Well the scutum was designed to be used in formation. It's very different to be fighting a wall of guys all lined up with those scutums, which were in real life narrower, suggesting the formation was quite tight so each soldier would mostly swing from above and in the sides, and rarely have to make big maneuvers.
Becuase Romans of the period the scutum was in use were primarily swordsmen rather than spearmen (as in the Greek Phalanx or the Saxon sheild wall) it is now generally believed the Roman formations were fairly open to allow the gladius to be used effectively. The comparative openess and thus flexibilty of the Roman style formations gave them an advanatge on rough or broken ground over the tighter and less flexible Greek and Macedonian style phalanx which in part helps explain Roman victories in battles like the Battle of Cynoscephalae. Legionaries could close ranks and tighten up when necessary (vs. cavalry or missiles), but retained the tacitcal flexibility to fight in a more open array - this also in theory at least - facilited line relief where the second rank could pass forward easily through the first rank and so on.
@@adriangunn Roman overall field formations were loose "blocks" which enabled the referenced maneuverability described vs the Hellenistic phalanx formations. Roman front lines were tight.
I cant be the only one to realise that the strength of the romans was in their formations. To accurately portray thus you have to have atleast a few guys fighting each other
yeah formations too it is the reason why they used these type of weapons even armors mostly protect their upper body but aslo they had power with alone but if they do duel then mostly used round shields or not used shields because they was very quick and mobile fightning style
@@VirtualVictoryTM the romans (and Alexander Before them) took the Phalanx from being an immobile, inflexible formation that required proper terrain and specialized almost exclusively in defense, and improved it so vastly that it was almost unrecognizable by the time the roman empire fell. The Phalanx was little more than a starting point, And this video and comment were about the Romans, NOT formations in general. Which makes your comment pointless and off topic.
@@lucaswinsor4469 @Lucas Winsor Alexander didn't improve the phalanx formation.. yes the hoplites differed from the Greek Hoplite shield size changed. But it was still slow. No what Alexander did is compensate the phalanx hopilites weaknesses by placing hypaspists on the flanks of the the formation. Alexander knew how to use the phalanx hopilite and was well aware of it's downsides... Unlike others after him like Philip V.
I feel like the dude using the Roman shield was using it wrong. You don't need to raise to deflect blows. Tuck behind it and push forward. Spear blows would Glance off of it allowing you to thrust with the sword.
also he needs to point his foot to the side to better protect his lower weak points, source: 'Roman fencing - Protection and attack technique' but yeah, the Scutum is not for parrying, it's for blocking.
I've watched this video over and over and over again over the course of a few years and always wished I could join in the fun, I love history and Rome and swords and HEMA and.... NEVER noticed that this is BOSTON Armizare!!!! From Framingham: I love you all and are you still practicing during COVID? Can I join?
Same here man, there isn't anything like this in austria, especially not since covid. And if there is its just shows, like who tf cares I want to fight myself!
Yehh also super heavy tho that's a 1:40 fight and he's struggling to bring it up towards the end. Great as part of a wall. Not so great in a 1v1. All anyone would havto do is bait the head over n over and get him to tire out and slow down then slash at the legs from range then bait the legs and switch high and the spod wouldn't be there when tired to go for a low block then be able to switch it a up and block high. It's the down side of big shields. Movement wins 9 times out of 10.
Pretty cool. I think the Gaul eventually realized that the roman would raise his shield to block higher and so was continuously baiting it. I'm not an expert but from my point of view, I don't think the shield should or needs to be raised as such to block higher. Leaving yourself very open down low to a fast spear point looks pretty dangerous. I think that when he sticks his spear towards your face you should punch forward with it rather than lift the scutum face up. Catching the shaft of the spear, in essence disabling/distracting it, and then stabbing around his shield like you do in the end. Again, really cool vids guys!
Nice comment I agree the swordsman should make every effort to press pass the spear and get on the inside leaving the other in an undefended situation.
It would be interesting to do this in some kind of simulated close order. The spearman can count on help from the ranks behind him, but the swordsman is on his own. All the manuevering is interesting but a bit of a farce, no one had that kind of room to move around and work to your weapon's best advantage.
Against the spear, close the gap and get past the shield. The Romans played with these variations with the different types of gladiators... but really, the shield and short sword was most effective when in numbers and locked together.
As someone who's been practicing gallic sparing in a HEMA club for 5 years, this is painful to watch. That's not a gallic shield, that's not how you hold a spear, that's not even how you're supposed to fight as a scandinavian (since this is more of a medieval scandinavian equipment than a gallic one).
Judging solely from what I see and so not from an expert point of view I feel like the scutum could have been used to push and unbalance more. My compliments to both though, particularly in showing how agile a spear and shield combination can be even if not in formation
Legionnaires were meant to fight in formation. What would most likely happen is the gaul would have nowhere to manuever, and his shield might be busted from a pilum. Then the Roman would be in minimum range of the spear, where the Gaul would not be able to fight effectively
Very good one of the best but two suggestion use a arming sword maybe Fabris armour he has a bit shorter I believe the guy with a spear that is a German franc goth will do bather only with a spear hope to meet you soon great work
Your helmet would’ve helped you From the weak impact of spearsmen You be fought liek this. Theirs no real power up close with spears. It’s gotta be at the spears tip Not sides
@@yolfio3873 he would feel his helmet get hit. Witch is important. 1- you know your alive and still in the fight . 2- you know just how close you are to the enemy. 3- just how lousy trained spearsmen really are terrible against any trained force. Including the infamous legionary.
It’s a good fight and good show of combat trials between chiefs and centurions however in a pitched battle the point was when you can’t go backwards cause there’s a thousand guys behind you pushing forward and you can’t go forward cause a Roman line is in the way the spear becomes useless and the short Roman gladius was designed to stab forward and they couldn’t pull away
The spear lacks reach-around - the 'roman' should press forward, bridge the gap and try to attack whilst the distance between him and the base of the enemy's spear is minimal. The shield up while sword cuts/slashes horizontally underneath it would be a start.
i think the spearguy holds the advantage in an open battle. simply cause the roman equipement was designed to fight in formation rather than this example here. you just dont get enough space to whield a longsword in formation battle.first pilum is thrown, not necessarly to kill the enemy but to make his shield unusable. secondly he'll be confronted with a wall of shields, each one protecting the shoulders of the legionaire next to him. in such close combats its where the gladius shines. its a thrusting weapon, not meant to be slice. its all about close combat formation fights with this equipement. in the late stages of the roman empire they actually abandoned the gladius and equiped the legionaires with the longer roman cavalry sword cause fights tended to become more guerilla like, more 1v1 fights since big open field battles became rarer and rarer.
Yes in reality the spearmen couldnt really back up to give himself reach. Cause the rank behind him would prevent him from doing so. Also the gladius is always hidden behind the shield so as to conceal where the attack came from.
*Actually the other guy is wrong - the sword and shield should have an advantage in an 1v1 situation.* The spear and shield is better used in large formations....yet in 1v1 combat...the sword can just rush the guy with the spear using the large shield as protection....and going for cutting off the legs/foot....which is a common tactic used which the re-enacter did not capitalize on. Spears are better than duel wielding swords....but sword/axe and shield is king. (if you take plate armored halberd guys out of the equation...which those guys get trumped by longbowmen....its like rock paper scissors really)
The spear is not always the best option against swords. If the opponent gets too close the lenght of the spear is a problem because the spearman can only strike with the shield and try to gain distance between him and the opponent. In this case, the roman equipment os better than spear and shield in a 1vs1 combat.
you're meant to keep the scutum further out than your toe and keep your foot angled to the side, so you can slam it down to protect your feet if the spearman attacks there, without destroying your foot yourself, this guy with the scutum is not doing that and at 1:18 it gets really bad, sourcing from youtube video 'Roman fencing - Protection and attack technique'
It make no sense, first Gauls use rarely those type of shield, secondly this shield is designed to be used with the sword to hide the blade behind and what is doing the guy with the Roman shield ? Why is he throwing it in the air ?
my biggest problem with hema is that touch the back of an opponents neck after a failed thrust coutns as a kill. I see this especially is sword vs spear duels.
It depends on the ruleset you're playing to. Sometimes you'll have 'insufficient contact' rules. Sometimes you treat a small touch with good structure as a kill shot. It's about learning, not about simulating a real fight. You might want to train for an ideal outcome - IE not getting hit at all, in which case counting a touch as a point against you makes more sense. You might want to practice a more realistic level of force, or continuing to fight under damage / poressure, then you bring in insufficient contact rules.
@@heresjonny666 awesome makes sense, and thanks for filling me in. I still think the butter spreading attacks to the backs of shielded opponents teaches the wrong lesson, at least to the attacker.
I watched a documentary and it said they only used it to stab since battles lasted for hours sometimes and they would be exausted from swinging the sword around.There was also the risk they would hit another legionare because they fought in tight formations
A lone Legionnaire is nothing, He only works within a centurion and with a pilum. If you want a great lone warrior you have to look for a Berserker, a Samurai, a Shaolin Monk. If your are looking for an army a Legionnaire or a Spartan is your best choice.
First of all.. it's a spear. Not a lightsaber. Second. Legionaries dont dance around waving their scutum around. They move in. Get close. Stay close and stab
Until you factor in that these two men would be crushed together by the mass of men behind them. Having 6 feet of range is irrelevant when fighting from 6 inches.
"Legionnaire" is holding his leg incorrectly. Correctly place the leg sideways parallel to the shield so that the legionnaire does not injure the leg if it is kicked.
You can't put a Roman on a 1 vs 1 the whole point of that shield and dagger was all about the Unit. Roman fought as a unit that's why they were so effective.
man, this is wrong. there should be either a small gaul or a large obese gaul, with a tiny dog.
Obelix is not obese, he is big boned.
@@Jompo92 yes!
@@Jompo92 big bones are a myth
@@matchboxlover9797 That is simply not true. I have read the comics and seen the truth.
Obelix is not obese, he is just well covered 😉😉
Usual logic: Spear and shield is superior
The Roman Legion: CLOSING THE GAP
Normally spear without shield is superior
@@duartemonteiro9459 It depends on the situation. If your a skilled fighter dueling another fighter sure. But if your being fired at by archers or standing in a line I think the spear and shield would be superior. There's just not enough room to maneuver in formation. On top of that there's no way to tell were the attack is coming from its just a wall of sharp pointy bits poking at you. Another point is moral. Most of the humans throughout history who fought with spear and shield were levy troops, conscripted farmers. I bet it's way easier talking a group of farmers to stand against a charge if they have a shield. You ever watch that lyndbeige video over the topic. Sounds like a awful way to fight. On par with standing in a musket firing line.
En el caso de que la lanza, es mas de 3.5 mtrs, pero pierde fortaleza y flexibilidad a los flancos.
@@jeimmyguizargongorajeinsgo7079 I don't think you'd throw the spears used in formation. That's more of a stand and stab meekly sort of thing.
@@darkjill2007 si como los casos de falanges macedonias, es estilo barrido.
Mas tiene buena fortaleza frontal, trente a testudos, escuderos, etc, su debilidad es no tener escudos mas grandes, y pierde maniobrabilidad a los flancos.
01:18 that little exhausting idle animation got me 😂💚
Animation?
@@XavierZazi Because it looked like animation from video games when u out of stamina 😅✌🏼
A roman general of Julius Cesar says "Roman's legion owes more to picks and shovels than shields and spears".
It’s true, and you miss an extremely important component to the success of the legions if you miss it. Field engineering, logistics, organization on the strategic level, and a commander that knows how to maximize all of those things, consistently prove to be the unsexy things that give Rome the edge. Incidentally, all of those things largely come from organizational memory: a standing, professional army is able to keep and pass on what it has learned in a way that a conscripted army has to primarily gain by its own experience, if it survives the process. It’s no joke belonging to an army that has hundreds of years of practical experience across all kinds of situations. Or fighting against one, for that matter; and here’s you, some petty Gaulic chieftain who’s only ever fought other Celts...maybe once you got called up into a larger confederation to repulse the Germans. Caesar played coy in his Gaulic War for the readers back home: “Well, it was touch and go for a minute there... and then we massacred all of them.” His war in Gaul was a slaughter; they stood no chance against that kind of an army.
That’s a lot of rambling: if you’re still with me, my point is that the quote is accurate. Individual discipline, training, and equipment, and tactical flexibility count for a lot, but were hardly unique to Rome. The lessons learned and maintained throughout centuries as the Roman army became an institution - how to prepare fortifications every night, how dig in to lay or repel a siege, how to how to build bridges, roads, and walls, how to keep tens of thousands of men in fighting shape in the field indefinitely and prevent the enemy from doing the same, how to properly organize, making soldiering a career instead of a seasonal civic duty - those were what made it special and successful.
Wow. You guys know what you are talking about. That is some in-depth knowledge about the topic
Yeah, Rome is a fascinating case study on the topic of military and political development; especially since it’s not always clear which is driving which, the two were inseparably linked.
But nothing teaches you about logistics better than chasing the Carthaginians into Sicily, Spain, or North Africa. No better place to learn about sieges than a tour of Macaedonia and Greece (just don’t ask how Syracuse went...). You wanna know the value of not just throwing away fresh recruits, you’ll learn it losing multiple legions under the command of inexperienced generals to the Teutones or Hannibal while they stomp around Italy with impunity.
@@reportx9633 you can be like them you know. All it takes is research. I read a whole 300 page book about roman history. It was very interesting and informing
You already hinted at part of it: the legions of the 4th century were NOT the same as the 1st BC, nor was Rome itself - especially in the West, which would fall, while the East would go on until 1465. There’s a ton of factors as to how and why things got so bad in the West, but I suspect the real issue is that when you think of the Germanic tribes at this time you’re thinking of Conan the Barbarian and his buddies. They had been in contact with Rome and influenced by fighting them for 4 centuries, consistently getting stomped and pacified at first, except for one notable ambush, but growing to be a bigger problem every time. By the time they started migrating west they were fairly sophisticated societies with armies sufficient to beat what Rome was fielding at the time. They weren’t as complex as the Rome of the late Republic/Early Empire, but neither was Rome itself. The west was in a state of serious decline all around, and would stay that way until the First Crusade reestablished regular contact and trade with the East (although Charlemagne has a little renaissance of his own).
The guy with the spear should have had an advantage but the Roman shield is hard to beat. Cheers.
Fighting sword vs spear is always a tough prospect in nearly any situation. The trick for the swordsman to get past the spear point, then the spearman is in trouble. This is especially true if the spearman doesn't have a shield.
he should have dropped the shield to manouver that spear with two hands to be faster and more effective
Ahmed Mustafa he would’ve been stabbed by the spear
And also shield less
@@shadowdeslaar by what spear
Ahmed Mustafa the Gaul had a spear
From my experience
Spears are relatively easy to counter when not tired
To drop your shield is to get stabbed by a spear
Never drop your shield
Ever!
PULLO! BACK IN FORMATION!!
Great show
Justice knows every mans number!
Good comment :)
Man of culture i see lol
Loved the series. For those who don't know what we are talking about, the series is called Rome. 10/10 would watch again.
Now remember. There were no gaps, no dancing around. There was just a wall of legionaries, relentless, drilled and switching to keep up stamina. A hacksaw of shields and swords, slowly advancing and grinding whatever was under its heels.
Pretty much so. If a Roman was caught out of formation with a short sword like the gladius, he was likely not long for this world. I'm not sure there is nay evidence for swordsmanship traing for legionaires outside of cloes-in thrust and short slash movements. Any Romans soldier who was forced back by an individual enemy would have been stopped by the rank behind, and would likely have had another trooper thrust out to help, or grab the spear possibly. They had fantastic armor protection and might have been well prepared for any one handed sprear thrust, by simply turning the torso to slip the blow if the point got past the shield, and still have been able to stand in place. Just my 2 cents. I wasn't there....
@@OutnBacker until they started using the longer spatha instead of the gladius
Just my two cents but it's kinda hard to beat the Roman combination. A well armored Roman soldier with short sword in a tight formation. Versus a lightly armored (if any) Gaul with a spear and shield. And that is if they still had a shield after a pilum was thrown honestly the Romans were hard to beat In their time. I find it interesting though that spear and shield was used so long, I think armor plays a role in which weapons were used.
@@AmiableLion Except that "roman combination" is a myth: the romans did not just block and thrust like a meat grinder, they also threw short slashes and cuts, the gladius being feared by its ability to amputate limbs. The romans did train in individual combat with gladiator instructors and were known for being good individual fighters...and that requires a decent amount of space, at least meter between each legionnary. That's not super tight, indeed spearmen stood closer to each other than that and could do something the romans couldn't: use those gaps between the legionaries to stab diagonnaly from outside the range of the gladius.
The gauls were not that lightly armoured either, they were well known for their metallurgy, so much the romans copied their armor,lol.
As for why spear and shield prevailed over sword and shield: sword and shield is weak against cavalry and often is bad when fighting in retreat. Spears are much better at that, since they can keep enemies at a longer range.
John Tyler
It's also a myth that the Roman armor was copied from Gauls if by coping you mean the Lorica segmentata. LOL
The only thing Romans could have copied from Gauls is a kind of chainmail, but chainmail was already used in Italy by many italic tribes as well who had nothing to do with Gauls.
proof that adidas made the best sport shoes even back in antiquity
Nothing beats the Calceus sandal though.
@@user-ej8vr1vx7u was gunna say, Roman sandals looked pretty close.
Well the scutum was designed to be used in formation. It's very different to be fighting a wall of guys all lined up with those scutums, which were in real life narrower, suggesting the formation was quite tight so each soldier would mostly swing from above and in the sides, and rarely have to make big maneuvers.
Becuase Romans of the period the scutum was in use were primarily swordsmen rather than spearmen (as in the Greek Phalanx or the Saxon sheild wall) it is now generally believed the Roman formations were fairly open to allow the gladius to be used effectively. The comparative openess and thus flexibilty of the Roman style formations gave them an advanatge on rough or broken ground over the tighter and less flexible Greek and Macedonian style phalanx which in part helps explain Roman victories in battles like the Battle of Cynoscephalae. Legionaries could close ranks and tighten up when necessary (vs. cavalry or missiles), but retained the tacitcal flexibility to fight in a more open array - this also in theory at least - facilited line relief where the second rank could pass forward easily through the first rank and so on.
@@adriangunn Well I was mainly talking about the rectangular scutum of the post principate period
@@adriangunn Roman overall field formations were loose "blocks" which enabled the referenced maneuverability described vs the Hellenistic phalanx formations. Roman front lines were tight.
buhuhu
That's not true
I cant be the only one to realise that the strength of the romans was in their formations. To accurately portray thus you have to have atleast a few guys fighting each other
Be a pretty entertaining scrap too, no?
yeah formations too it is the reason why they used these type of weapons even armors mostly protect their upper body but aslo they had power with alone but if they do duel then mostly used round shields or not used shields because they was very quick and mobile fightning style
Not just the romans.... Literally every army... Or have you not heard of a phalanx... 🙄
@@VirtualVictoryTM the romans (and Alexander Before them) took the Phalanx from being an immobile, inflexible formation that required proper terrain and specialized almost exclusively in defense, and improved it so vastly that it was almost unrecognizable by the time the roman empire fell. The Phalanx was little more than a starting point, And this video and comment were about the Romans, NOT formations in general. Which makes your comment pointless and off topic.
@@lucaswinsor4469 @Lucas Winsor Alexander didn't improve the phalanx formation.. yes the hoplites differed from the Greek Hoplite shield size changed. But it was still slow. No what Alexander did is compensate the phalanx hopilites weaknesses by placing hypaspists on the flanks of the the formation. Alexander knew how to use the phalanx hopilite and was well aware of it's downsides... Unlike others after him like Philip V.
Now line up 10 roman guys and let 10 gauls charge at them, that will be a more realistic depiction of how the fight would have gone
Whoa, that Gaul is not wielding his spear the Lindybeige-way!
I feel like the dude using the Roman shield was using it wrong.
You don't need to raise to deflect blows. Tuck behind it and push forward. Spear blows would Glance off of it allowing you to thrust with the sword.
There is no greater weapon than using the one in your hand correctly
He’s using the shield as if it were small and light
@@jacklaurentius6130 i think since he was more accustomed in usibg a buckler instead
also he needs to point his foot to the side to better protect his lower weak points,
source: 'Roman fencing - Protection and attack technique'
but yeah, the Scutum is not for parrying, it's for blocking.
I've watched this video over and over and over again over the course of a few years and always wished I could join in the fun, I love history and Rome and swords and HEMA and.... NEVER noticed that this is BOSTON Armizare!!!! From Framingham: I love you all and are you still practicing during COVID? Can I join?
Somebody help this mans
@@ro4486 lol
Same here man, there isn't anything like this in austria, especially not since covid.
And if there is its just shows, like who tf cares I want to fight myself!
Hema the sport of trying to bring back European combat styles with out actual combat. More like point fighting.
@@niklashrast8122 they had showers with strange air for sports
Awesome. They even brought a Numidian auxiliary.
Yo why i laughed at this?
The roman shield is op. It's like the guy wearing it their almost no openings.
Yehh also super heavy tho that's a 1:40 fight and he's struggling to bring it up towards the end. Great as part of a wall. Not so great in a 1v1. All anyone would havto do is bait the head over n over and get him to tire out and slow down then slash at the legs from range then bait the legs and switch high and the spod wouldn't be there when tired to go for a low block then be able to switch it a up and block high. It's the down side of big shields. Movement wins 9 times out of 10.
@@michaelgallacher4800 all you do is keep advancing, of course. If the gaul had buddies blocking the way back, that's the end of it.
Pretty cool. I think the Gaul eventually realized that the roman would raise his shield to block higher and so was continuously baiting it. I'm not an expert but from my point of view, I don't think the shield should or needs to be raised as such to block higher. Leaving yourself very open down low to a fast spear point looks pretty dangerous. I think that when he sticks his spear towards your face you should punch forward with it rather than lift the scutum face up. Catching the shaft of the spear, in essence disabling/distracting it, and then stabbing around his shield like you do in the end. Again, really cool vids guys!
Nice comment I agree the swordsman should make every effort to press pass the spear and get on the inside leaving the other in an undefended situation.
@@armorvestrus6882 It’s important to be aggressive especially when you’re carrying around such a large and protective shield like the scutum.
So much advice in the comments, from so many people, who have never done anything even close to this.
they fight like total war AI
TRUE. Yes, this is rather a spar than an actual fight.
How do I get into this? Where can I buy stuff and get training material? Are there competitions?
I think it's called HEMA (Historical European martial arts)
This looks like loads of fun
I'm looking forward to the celtic one magic blue paint is hard to beat
Gauls also uses similar long rectangular or oblong shields. It's the nobles who uses round shields because they are cavalry.
It would be interesting to do this in some kind of simulated close order. The spearman can count on help from the ranks behind him, but the swordsman is on his own. All the manuevering is interesting but a bit of a farce, no one had that kind of room to move around and work to your weapon's best advantage.
Sword for duel, spear for fighting as a unit.
The scutum is the ultimate shield for one on one close quarter combat on foot.
The polearm, the king of the battlefield!
spear: i am yin
legionnaire's shield: then i must be yang.
Against the spear, close the gap and get past the shield.
The Romans played with these variations with the different types of gladiators... but really, the shield and short sword was most effective when in numbers and locked together.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!
I did Kendo at a high school in Japan. We haven't had a hand shield for a long time. I wanna do this!
spear and shield is more of a formation weapon, it's really hard to be effective in 1v1 situation.
Not to take anything away from these guys but I'm pretty sure the gladius is supposed to be kept behind the shield
As someone who's been practicing gallic sparing in a HEMA club for 5 years, this is painful to watch.
That's not a gallic shield, that's not how you hold a spear, that's not even how you're supposed to fight as a scandinavian (since this is more of a medieval scandinavian equipment than a gallic one).
Judging solely from what I see and so not from an expert point of view I feel like the scutum could have been used to push and unbalance more. My compliments to both though, particularly in showing how agile a spear and shield combination can be even if not in formation
Legionnaires were meant to fight in formation. What would most likely happen is the gaul would have nowhere to manuever, and his shield might be busted from a pilum. Then the Roman would be in minimum range of the spear, where the Gaul would not be able to fight effectively
If someone is using a spear you should absolutely close the gap
Very good one of the best but two suggestion use a arming sword maybe Fabris armour he has a bit shorter I believe the guy with a spear that is a German franc goth will do bather only with a spear hope to meet you soon great work
where did you get the scutum?
Its a Depeeka Scutum bought from Soul of the Warrior.
@@adriangunn Yeah, Deepeeka. They're overly heavy, with a very poor boss. You can also get them off of Kult of Athena.
Your helmet would’ve helped you From the weak impact of spearsmen
You be fought liek this. Theirs no real power up close with spears. It’s gotta be at the spears tip
Not sides
Even with no helmet he wouldn’t even be hurt
@@yolfio3873 he would feel his helmet get hit. Witch is important.
1- you know your alive and still in the fight .
2- you know just how close you are to the enemy.
3- just how lousy trained spearsmen really are terrible against any trained force. Including the infamous legionary.
This place looks so fun
And that is how Gergovia happened
It’s a good fight and good show of combat trials between chiefs and centurions however in a pitched battle the point was when you can’t go backwards cause there’s a thousand guys behind you pushing forward and you can’t go forward cause a Roman line is in the way the spear becomes useless and the short Roman gladius was designed to stab forward and they couldn’t pull away
Do you dare to fight with my two-handed swords?
gaul needs to find a way to hold spear with 2 hands while retaining shield.
The spear lacks reach-around - the 'roman' should press forward, bridge the gap and try to attack whilst the distance between him and the base of the enemy's spear is minimal. The shield up while sword cuts/slashes horizontally underneath it would be a start.
Gaul obviously did not take his magic potion
i think the spearguy holds the advantage in an open battle. simply cause the roman equipement was designed to fight in formation rather than this example here. you just dont get enough space to whield a longsword in formation battle.first pilum is thrown, not necessarly to kill the enemy but to make his shield unusable. secondly he'll be confronted with a wall of shields, each one protecting the shoulders of the legionaire next to him. in such close combats its where the gladius shines. its a thrusting weapon, not meant to be slice. its all about close combat formation fights with this equipement. in the late stages of the roman empire they actually abandoned the gladius and equiped the legionaires with the longer roman cavalry sword cause fights tended to become more guerilla like, more 1v1 fights since big open field battles became rarer and rarer.
Without so much room to move in actual battle, the gaul will be in a great disadvantage.
Goddamn imagine how tiring this was back then
Where is that synthetic Gladius from?
Is it inconvenient to fight with a longsword and a scutum?
Well now im' remembering the weapon triangle of fire emblem.
Yes in reality the spearmen couldnt really back up to give himself reach. Cause the rank behind him would prevent him from doing so.
Also the gladius is always hidden behind the shield so as to conceal where the attack came from.
A large shield is cancer to deal with if you’re a spearman.
With shields, size matters. Romans figured this out before anyone else did. Except the Mycenaeans perhaps.
I want to do this sooooo bad looks like fun
And then theres me with a gun in my pocket.
porque no hay de esto en Colombia :,(
*Actually the other guy is wrong - the sword and shield should have an advantage in an 1v1 situation.* The spear and shield is better used in large formations....yet in 1v1 combat...the sword can just rush the guy with the spear using the large shield as protection....and going for cutting off the legs/foot....which is a common tactic used which the re-enacter did not capitalize on. Spears are better than duel wielding swords....but sword/axe and shield is king. (if you take plate armored halberd guys out of the equation...which those guys get trumped by longbowmen....its like rock paper scissors really)
Is this considered larping?
When you accidentally swap weapons(or shields)
The spear is not always the best option against swords. If the opponent gets too close the lenght of the spear is a problem because the spearman can only strike with the shield and try to gain distance between him and the opponent. In this case, the roman equipment os better than spear and shield in a 1vs1 combat.
Damn, these Romans are crazy
When the German and Italian have beef
Gauls used rectangular shields.
Where can i do this?
www.hemaalliance.com/club-finders
Roman shield was keeping him alive 😕otherwise it looked like it would’ve been over for him
The Roman would be in a disciplined line, but anyways that wouldn't help him cuz the Gaul would have a potion of strength
pretty cool. If I were the roman I would probably not keep my distance like that. I would just fully commit and stay inside
Waoo quanta concentrazione.
cool
Las batallas no eran tan simples como las pintan las peliculas
Held the scotum to close to his body no room to block headshots
For honor
Gauls didn’t have round shields, did they?
Armed more like a Greek I’d say.
you're meant to keep the scutum further out than your toe and keep your foot angled to the side, so you can slam it down to protect your feet if the spearman attacks there, without destroying your foot yourself, this guy with the scutum is not doing that and at 1:18 it gets really bad, sourcing from youtube video 'Roman fencing - Protection and attack technique'
Sometimes i wonder how much these guys would get destroyed by an actual ancient experienced fighters.
They look like the grown up children playing.
It make no sense, first Gauls use rarely those type of shield, secondly this shield is designed to be used with the sword to hide the blade behind and what is doing the guy with the Roman shield ? Why is he throwing it in the air ?
Isn't the roman suppose to tuck his sword behind the shield
Most of the time though romans would be fighting in a formation y?
my biggest problem with hema is that touch the back of an opponents neck after a failed thrust coutns as a kill. I see this especially is sword vs spear duels.
It depends on the ruleset you're playing to. Sometimes you'll have 'insufficient contact' rules. Sometimes you treat a small touch with good structure as a kill shot. It's about learning, not about simulating a real fight. You might want to train for an ideal outcome - IE not getting hit at all, in which case counting a touch as a point against you makes more sense. You might want to practice a more realistic level of force, or continuing to fight under damage / poressure, then you bring in insufficient contact rules.
@@heresjonny666 awesome makes sense, and thanks for filling me in. I still think the butter spreading attacks to the backs of shielded opponents teaches the wrong lesson, at least to the attacker.
The Legionnaire could off used his sword to wound his opponent many times on the legs.That would be game other.
I watched a documentary and it said they only used it to stab since battles lasted for hours sometimes and they would be exausted from swinging the sword around.There was also the risk they would hit another legionare because they fought in tight formations
sundenly more roman join and you hear TESTUDO!
Epic lol
Legionnaire and no chaaarge?
A lone Legionnaire is nothing, He only works within a centurion and with a pilum. If you want a great lone warrior you have to look for a Berserker, a Samurai, a Shaolin Monk. If your are looking for an army a Legionnaire or a Spartan is your best choice.
Samurai? If the Romans had gotten to Japan Japanese would have become just another Romance language.
Scutum rests on the knee and the foot under it should be turned inward, otherwise your foot was a nice target.
First of all.. it's a spear. Not a lightsaber. Second. Legionaries dont dance around waving their scutum around. They move in. Get close. Stay close and stab
Yes, we know, the Romans fought in formation. Let 2 guys have fun jesus
Did you know that the Romans normally fought in formation?
the roman scutum was taken from celts.
Roman never go out without mate , well they always closing formation , enemy with spear didnt have chance.
I wish the greek Spartan shield in THIS video was like their actual shields. Being double strapped.
The round shield used in the video is not Greek at all, but a type of Northern European shield known as a Gokstad
Until you factor in that these two men would be crushed together by the mass of men behind them. Having 6 feet of range is irrelevant when fighting from 6 inches.
Spears beat swords also they need to keep their shields to their chest
You forgot to say roma invicta after you defeated the gaul
"Legionnaire" is holding his leg incorrectly. Correctly place the leg sideways parallel to the shield so that the legionnaire does not injure the leg if it is kicked.
I did not know that both Legionnaires and Gauls were wearing ADIDAS shoes at that time :-)
If a Roman soldier lost his shield, he'd be screwed. The Shield was just as important as the sword.
You can't put a Roman on a 1 vs 1 the whole point of that shield and dagger was all about the Unit. Roman fought as a unit that's why they were so effective.