man that "calm before the storm" moment when Caesar's men stopped right before the charge to reform must have been insanely scary for the guys facing them. Imagine a sizable body of fully armored men jogging/sprinting towards you just to come to a full stop like 20 meters away, reform into a perfect line, and start advancing at a controlled pace. I'd fucking shit myself.
Fear is natural, that's why most of the soldiers takes drugs or mushrooms through history, those shit swept away the fear and pain, just full rage mode until you can't see any lights
@@vonxoliver Thats wrong most soldiers dd not take any drugs, there are accounts of soldiers taking drugs and some warrior tribes who used drugs before battle but certainly not most.
@@AndrewRyan-rd1wl definitely not happening with any kind of regularity in a professional army. Discipline disappears when people take drugs, there's enough unpredictability already going into battle.
This video was made to be a first-of-its-kind, that dives into a topic that fascinates us all, but is nowhere to be found - the reality of ancinet warfare. This video took weeks to make, and every second of it was done for the purpose of everyone's enjoyment and knowledge. What's better is that Part 2 is half way done, and will be release in 1-2 weeks!
loved the video. im assuming you know the video that tods workshop has done on the range of a pilum. he had an athlete come on his channel to test the range of a pilum and they were able to throw a pilum around 24 meters, in armor and with a shield from a standing start in just a few tries. i think that an experience soldier could reach 30 meters if they threw the javelin whille running.
@@malipedduparthiv6147 Yeap we know about it. But since roman pila were not all the same in weight and shape throughtout the republican period we chose to stay cautious
I love those movies and shows where they show two ancient armies marching up to each other in perfect formation, only for both sides to break ranks and charge at each other like the whole thing was only for show.
@@sunofpeter2 Most of the major battles were pretty well done in that show and finally the movie. Occasionally it got a little showy but not super bad.
Can only imagine the terror millions of men across history must've felt as they sat in formation, watching an enemy formation slowly close distance. We live good lives, comparatively
Plenty of people in the modern day know the same fear, and the past few centuries have introduced increasingly elaborate and overwhelming threats. Many soldiers in history have had to fight in direct prolonged CQB with melee weapons, butchering people in close combat with extremely long sessions of uninterrupted fighting. This is compounded by spread of horrific disease, total lack of information to the average soldier and execution or slavery being very common. But many other soldiers in more modern fighting have had to keep in mind other things, persistent, unending threat from artillery and missile attacks (even when sleeping) for months at a time, many opportunities for instantaneous death or mutilation via mines, IEDs, ambushes, snipers, mortars, anti-vehicle missiles and drones. If you've ever seen footage from helicopter gunships you may be aware how utterly helpless troops are if spotted - and nobody can hide from thermals, really. Though one way to survive might be to fall convincingly after seeing your squadmates dismembered by a Russian gunship's autocannon (according to a Finnish recon friend of mine) I think war just fucking sucks no matter what. The fundamental dynamics are even similar. Engineering, political and social technologies change the specifics and dynamics, but not the humans doing it.
@@FoxAboutTown if you think people don't routinely get tortured to death or bleed out or die horribly while being left to rot in modern warfare you've been propagandised Also who tf is getting crucified lol
??? I'd rather watch an enemy formation come side by side with my comrades than sit in wet trenches getting bombarded by artillery day and night. The terror of contemporary warfare is incomparably worse to ancient warfare.
It's an amazing to see how different this is than Hollywood's representation of Roman battles. The psychological aspect that you have captured is absolutely spine chilling. Awesome video, can't wait to see part 2!
Actually he failed and gave you a hollywood story: he keeps going on about charging as if they are running in. That only rarely occurred for organized forces. The author presents nicely but the content is Hollywood-biased still. He's obviously not a real scholar but someone reading up imo.
@@melanieenmats Charges were a real thing and will be tackled in part 2! They are clearly mentioned by Livy and Polybius, and were a devastating psychological occurrence that was present in almost EVERY rout (for various periods of history, not only Roman warfare). The sources are at you disposal in the description, if you wish to read up! Your misunderstanding is probably a result of you imagining a "charge" to be as showed in Hollywood; reckless and impetuous - this was obviously not the case! Charges were carried out en masse, with explosive speed, but were obviously more cautious and slower than you would see in movies. Cheers!
@@HistoriaMilitum Well given your incredibly polite argument I will make sure to watch the second episode with an open mind. I will sub too, because you are too nice for the internet. You must be AI :D.
@@vanivanov9571I am pretty sure "sprint"in this video was only mentioned as a recommendation in a battle manual, while the video is also pointing out that records indicate that the reality was much different
I've always thought that battles looked much more like riot control and group fights than hollywood style free for all or Total War robotic battles where units don't care about their own self preservation. In riot control for example you can see how protesters and police always keep a clear line between themselves at the start, throwing stuff at each other (rocks, molotovs, fireworks - flashbangs, smoke, water) with some small groups at times trying to cross the no-mans-land and fight before retreating or being pulled back by their allies that don't want to start an engagement, while other times instead you see that as the two masses move the shape of the no-mans-land changes with perhaps a confrontations starting at a point or two in the lines where from there it would expand as more people get involved in the fight, eventually encompassing the whole line as a full engagement starts, other times you would see one group be overwhelmed and run away with the other beginning a chase and violently attacking the retreating group (and even here this point is probably where generally the most damage is given) only for the retreating group to eventually regroup, make a new line to contrast the rushing group and counterattack to save their surrounded allies. You see similar things happen during football fans clashes though the engagements are a bit different because there is less formation fighting but still I think that it's no coincidence that often times riots and riot police tactics are often compared to ancient tactics (group formations, testudo, spear walls etc) because the nature of the engagement, technology used usually and the group psychology that controls the two masses should be fairly similar to ancient battles with the difference of course that in the past there was a much greater killing potential by both sides
You are actually very right. It's very close but not the same thing. The only difference would be the spacing between combatants but in the rest you are spot on with your description😊
You can still see the reluctance to get into a fight even in sports today. In fencing, for example, specifically in epee, there's a passivity rule that punishes the fencers if no points have been scored after a minute of fencing, which is quite common because neither fencer wants to give up a hit. The massive runaway scores then happen because the trailing fencer has to force attacks to get back into the game or be defeated by the clock. Obviously, this doesn't always happen, but when skill levels are close it's quite common. The rule itself was even created after a particular team engagement where the fencer in the trailing team knew he wouldn't be able to attack to regain points, whereas the fencer in the leading team saw no reason to attack in the first place, because it would only risk his team's lead. Consequently, they simply ran down the clock doing nothing at all. IIRC, this match (a world championship final or semifinal) was meant to be a demonstration of the dynamic nature of fencing to the IOC to convince them to keep it in the roster. Oops.
the guy in the trailing team sounds like an idiot lol. theres one outcome where you have a 0% chance of winning, and one where you have a nonzero chance. From a game theory perspective, this guy is what you would call "an nooblet"
I come from the MMA world where a bunch of different rules for passivity across the disciplines. It was super interesting to read about it in epee, bonus points for including the historical roots for the rule. Plus, my buddy is super into fencing, so now we have something to talk about🤙
We figured it was about time this topic was covered in detail and made readily available for everyone to learn from. So we really hope to start seeing this in re-enactments!
3:50 generals and speeches 5:08 advance, noise 6:40 speed, sprint and being stastionary 7:40 lines well charging, skirmisheing 9:00 the battle 12:10 breaking ranks, Hollywood batttle 13:10 battle chash fear and currage
Thank goodness, I have had the question of what frontline combat in ancient/medieval battles looked like for forever, I'm so glad you are making these vids!
I actually did my dissertation on this exact subject at university, where I looked into the importance of soldier psychology in ancient warfare, even comparing some of Rome's training excercising with modern improvements made in training between WW2 and Vietnam. This model is excellent and I find myself agreeing with 99% of it. I'm glad models like these are steadily becomming more and more accepted.
Hey a fellow historian! Step by step we are getting closer mate. I'm actually doing my PhD on the political evolution of the roman republican infantryman and I rely a lot on this model 😊
Historians about WWI in 2000 years: "They probably didn't charge out of their trenches at the blow of a whistle because the battlefield would be too noisy and chaotic for it."
Armchair Historians in 2,000 years: “Nobody actually marched to war in brightly colored uniforms. As soon as Gunpowder was invented everyone switched to camouflaged uniforms. Certainly no Tri Cornered Hate, Bear fur Shakos, or Black Leather Helmets with Brass decorations were ever worn on the battlefield. It would make one too easy to spot and shoot at a distance.”
Civil War had pictures, WW1 had black and white videos WW2 had black and white videos with sounds, Vietnam finally added color, modern combat individual soldiers can record on their own devices, and future warfare will have fake AI propaganda videos. So it's not likely historians will get it wrong with that sort of documentation where they can see parts of actual battles play out. But in the future they may get modern warfare writing with all the misinformation tactics being so good with future tech lol
Cant wait for part 2!! Amazing stuff.. in movies they always portrait it as large casualties on both sides, brave soldiers on both sides but it is much more likely most soldiers were fearful and just tried to survive.
One thing that bothers me about this. Combat veterans. It seems to me the video is going on the idea that all the combatants are of the same experience. Not bragging just using my own experiences as a 22 year veteran. My first combat experience was in 1983 in Grenada. I was 20 when the first round whizzed by me I pissed myself. In retrospect I was glad it was raining. Fast forward 20 years and several combat tours to AFG 2003 , I was a SFC leading a 10 man patrol. We were pinned down by a force of at lest platoon strength who had good cover and were a 100 meters up a mountain with RPGs and at lest 1 NSV heavy machine gun. I had 3 wounded and we were taking cover in a small ravine . I half expected them to over run us. All we could really do is conserve ammo and wait for air support which I had called in. Out of the 10 men I had with me only 3 had taken fire before. We had been like this for 15 min or so and I looked down the line and saw 2 of these men were side by side and one was laying on his back the ravine being at an angle eating an MRE while his buddy kept look out. When he was finished they swapped places. When the second had finished I called them over. I had them go down the line and let the other 4 men have a break doing the same thing. Me being the first. My point with this long story is that soldiers will look to those who are fighting with them especially the ones with experience on how to act a lot of times before looking to their leader. I saw this time and time again. You get use to being in a life or death situation and it becomes your normal outlook on the world. My best example is being in a FOB and getting some decent sleep and the FOB came under mortar attack. I woke up listened to see which direction the fire was coming from and how close it was. Seeing that it was not coming close to me I went back to sleep, sleeping through the whole thing. In a Roman battle line for every 80 men there was a Centurion and by all accounts they lead from the front. Each Legion having approximately 59 Centurions. Also the whole front line was the lest experienced men and the deeper you went into the line them more experienced the soldier. With all the inexperienced men looking to the Centurion sand those with more experience than them for guidance. Do not under estimate the effect to training. It 's not a normal thing for one person to kill another. That is were training kicks in. I had an instructor to us one time tell us just that. And he was there to teach us otherwise. When your mind shuts down in combat and it does your training kicks in. All of this turns into morale. The most important thing in combat. At the time the Roman military was the best trained, best disciplined and equipped military of it's time. I call into question the statement that a whistle could not be heard over the din of battle. If 20 soldiers can hear my command to cease fire while modern weapons are being used and while wearing helmets that provided some hearing protection the Romans could hear a whistle. Those around the Centurion most certainly could. Who more than likely would use some sort of hand signal to those in front of them to get them to switch places. As I did as a paratrooper when finishing the soldier who was in front of me equipment check after we stood up minutes before we went out the door by smacking his helmet a couple times. You cannot hear a thing in the jump bay of a C-130 with 2 doors open or the rear door open, it's as good as being deaf. Going back to discipline and morale. I doubt very seriously that there was much there was much screaming or talking in the battle lines of a Roman legion, I point to discipline and training. In hand to hand combat there is little if any talking it takes to much air, energy and breaks your concentration. Do you see Boxers or MMA in a fight talking or yelling at each other in the ring. They might in a clinch. The idea of yelling while running into combat is stupid and mostly a Hollywood thing. A Roman front line while moving to engage would have been silent and moving no more than at a military pace. I only ran in combat for one thing only to get out of the line of fire. The Romans knew well the effect of morale. The sight of a Roman battle line coming at you no sound other than them walking, while maintaining formation would rattle all but the best trained soldiers. Look to warfare in the Napoleonic era and WW 1 trench war fare to see good examples of training and discipline. There are other things these are just the things that came to me first. My apologies for such a long post. I like to explain things when disagreeing it saves misunderstandings. Thanks for reading till the end. I am going to go get a beer and some popcorn ready for all the Carl's to tell me how wrong I am etc.
Thanks for the long comment. I read everything you said 😊 Let me share my two cents here and I'm sure we can understand each other perfectly. It is true that the roman army was known by its discipline and training. Of course we tend to imagine the discipline of the roman army as in today's armed forces. And that's when we start to miss the point a bit. Roman soldiers followed two principles mainly, virtus and disciplina. Disciplina was not the primary value of the soldier, what made a roman soldier stand out was his virtus. And everything was oriented to achieving it. Disciplina was meant to prevent the excess of virtus. To restrain the soldier for being too aggressive or foolish but not turn him into an "obedient" soldier. That's why aggresiveness was a critical trait in the centurion. For us a roman soldier would look too insubordinate, brash and aggressive. In fact it was considered very rude to tell a roman legionary to "mind his own business". Aemilius Paulus had huge problems with his troops because of that. You are also right, silence is much more frightening than shouting. No question about it. Of course we are not saying that they yelled while fighting in hand to hand combat. Sources do state that silence was encouraged while advancing but in practice the examples to shouting during the advance are too abundant. The video is also aimed at the Mid/Late Republican period. Roman soldiers of this time were still not full professionals with of course some exceptions. Episodes of "amateur" behaviour are to be expected. Also finally, wait for part 2 to see how the rotation was done. It has nothing to do with the whistle. I'm not trying to say that you are wrong and have no idea. I would never say that to a veteran. Only that some aspects you mentioned in your comment might have been different. In fact, there was a study done in the 60s-80s in which they read passages of the Illiad to veterans and a good portion of them could relate their experiences to the book. So veterans have a lot say. Just asking you for a vote of confidence with the info we presented in the video. It doesn't come out of the blue, quite the opposite. It's the fruit of decades of study of roman battles, psychology and ancient texts.
@@JonEtxebeberriaRodriguez Good points. I can be wrong and am freely open to that fact. Open minds are the only way people can move forward. And no matter the era a soldier is a soldier. And I to o have read Iliad and many works of warfare and combat and if they are written by someone who has been in or seen combat I can very easily relate to the scenes. To well sometimes. And I never thought that it was out of the blue or not thought out. My apologies if that came across in my comment. I could see that from the sources you gave etc. I got a degree in Military History after I retired and I focused maybe a bit to much on the Roman military and had read a couple of the same sources. I am now working on my Masters. Retirement got boring lol. Anyway, If using the Roman Disciplina which meant " instruction and training then I see your point. Any Army or Marine unit and saw them off duty you would see them as insubordinate, brash and aggressive as well as arrogant and a few other things. But on duty never, true you could get a way with that depending on who was in charge, and you better know the limit. IN formation I cannot imagine a Centurion not knocking the crap or of a Legionnaire with his vitis from being insubordinate that is a challenge to his leadership abilities. brash and aggressive where things that the Roman soldier was trained to be. But aggressive to a Centurion? I'd pay to see that beat down. My point is I cannot see a Roman Solider being undisciplined while on duty. Off duty, sure. ON and in combat? Never. You could not fight as well as the Romans did against the odds then did unless you had a great deal of discipline. I enjoy a polite debate on most anything. On the internet I find that very rare, and dying. Thank you for a breath of fresh air.
@@Crowwalker100 One of these examples where "virtus" eclipsed "disciplina" on duty was actually in one of Caesar's final battles (namely, his last one in Africa) which is recorded in "De Bello Africo." Now, the original author of this piece is unknown, but it is presumed to be someone who interviewed the soldiers who served in the battle and formulated an account of it from their words. An excerpt from it reads as such: "As he ran from rank to rank, he observed the enemy about the camp very uneasy, hurrying from place to place, at one time retiring behind the rampart, another coming out again in great tumult and confusion. As many others in the army began to observe this, his lieutenants and volunteers begged him to give the signal for battle, as the immortal gods promised him a decisive victory. While he hesitated and strove to repress their eagerness and desires, exclaiming that it was not his wish to commence the battle by a sudden sally, at the same time keeping back his army, on a sudden a trumpeter in the right wing, without Caesar's leave, but compelled by the soldiers, sounded a charge. Upon this all the cohorts began to rush toward the enemy, in spite of the endeavors of the centurions, who strove to restrain them by force, lest they should charge withal the general's order, but to no purpose." Here, we have legionarii outright initiating a battle without orders in contrast to Caesar's initial desires; his own soldiers goading a trumpeter within a local unit to start the engagement without express permission or command and even the centurions could not reign in the impetuosity of the men. Note that these were not green legionarii or any old regular unit. These were LEGIO X EQUESTRIS. That is, these were Caesar's best veterans. Of course, Plutarch seeks to explain this strange phenomenon by saying that Caesar had actually suffered from an epileptic shock and was not in position to give command. Well, luckily for Caesar, the virtus of his men carried the day here and he won a sweepingly decisive victory.
Out of some 30 and change subscriptions, this is the channel which I monitor daily, eagerly waiting for a new video on Roman history! Thank you for doing such wonderful work, I know I've said it countless times before but you're the best!
Thank you so much for the comment! It motivates us greatly to know we have such loyal viewers, such as yourself. We have no plans of stopping the uploads any time soon!
This taught me more about battle and war than absolutely anything I’ve ever experienced in my life. I always felt that the missing piece was self-preservation when it came to battles and war in media. The idea that people don’t understand that everyone wants to win but no one wants to fight or die. But it makes so much more sense. Also the feeling of almost no battle being a close one in matchmaking in video games or sports is an amazing observation.
You have no clue of what battle tastes like. Buy a plane ticket and go find out. The world is full of battles. I recommend Africa. There's always some small massacre somewhere.
Yep the footage of tribal warfare that I’ve seen since there’s still some happening here in Papua for example, is a few people on one side will go forward then fall back while throwing weapons or trying to stab without going too far from formation. Same things with big clash between students, one or two will go forward and backwards while most keeping position as the body of each side.
yeah, same thing with animals. they shout, scream, if that doesn't work, fake run/ lunge, or throw something nearby. Then strike as a last resort. But with arrows and firearms you dont even need to fear close combat as often and so casualties rise just like US civil war- no close combat to rout the enemy, just stand there till 'last man standing'... theres some mock up medieval battle vids where they do what a full day of battle would be like.
That's exactly the point, Hollywood portrays ancient and medieval soldiers like suicidal morons! In war, soldiers forget about self-preservation only when they have taken potent drugs, maybe that was the case for Berserkers vikings or more recently for Nazi soldiers under the influence of the pervitine drug!
I'm really happy to help you for this video ! I've learnt a lot of things especially about the surprising fact about the battle casualties , didn't know about that . Can't wait to see part 2, being as eager to help you as i was for this first part Cheers
Dunno if this will come up later but from modern experiments (some of which I've been part of), there are quite a few things you can do in an infantry formation in contact with the enemy to get a few sneaky hits on your opponents if the people in your formation are used to working together and quick on the uptake. A single fighter on your side, for example, can use his weapon or shield to temporarily displace the weapons of one or perhaps two or three enemy fighters and create a moment of vulnerability where his own comrades can strike them in relative safety, if they can react quickly enough. Formations using long spears or pikes are especially vulnerable to this. It's worth using spears, though, because they allow an infantryman to target not just the enemy directly in front of him (who is likely to be prepared for his attacks) but also the adjacent files of the enemy front rank, who are likely focused on the men in front of them and thus more vulnerable. You thus need to watch not only the enemy in front of you, but every enemy soldier to his left and right who might plausibly be able to hit you with a spear, both to ward off incoming attacks and also to spot and exploit momentary openings while they were distracted by your comrades. If you have javelins, you can reach even farther (but only as many times as you have javelins). The latter trick might, incidentally, be why pawns in chess capture diagonally. We do know that roman infantry trained as a unit quite a lot, so it's reasonable to assume they were quite good at these kinds of techniques.
This sounds like the beginning of a series of how the tactics evolved over time and adapted to different enemies. Thanks for all the work this was amazing! 🙏
The study you cite on WWII battles comes from S.L.A. Marshall, a historian whose conclusions have been heavily scrutinized on their research methodology. He did a lot of interviews, but he also claimed to have done many more and a lot of his work is less than up to academic par.
That’s right, interesting as this video is, it’s based on models of battle rather than actual verifiable descriptions of battle. The claims that most soldiers avoid fighting is attractive but very dubious, because there are simply countless descriptions by soldiers of huge numbers of men being willing to expose themselves to risk. The documentation of World War One soldiers going over the top or modern videos of war from all over the world, can overcome the limitations of anecdotal evidence to at least some degree
@@christophervaughan2637agreed and I believe if u look at any audit for ammunition spent during periods on the front line u will see the numbers do not add up to just a small portion of a company or platoon doing all the fighting due to the vast numbers of ordinance expended
@@qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm3937 Well actually, I did say the study claimed that 2/10 would use their weapons “effectively”, “with aiming”. So audits of spent ammunition is not a valid counter, as many rifles were fired without aiming or as repressing fire. In fact, most of them were. Actually, modern rifles switching from automatic to semi-automatic rifles is specifically being done to counter this! Here’s the truth: When I was making the video, I was aware of Marshall’s incredibility, but still chose to include the study as it highlights the message that not every front liner would fight effectively. Let’s say the actually rate of aggressive WW2 fighters was 7/10. And sure, we have evidence of mass trench charges and people exposing themselves to risk. But now factor in the use of cold steel weapons instead of rifle warfare, and the extremely close combat experience of looking the enemy in the eyes.. Suddenly, you will find the amount of aggressive fighters significantly goes down. The truth, of course, is that the amount of effective fighters would depend on a multitude of factors. In an experienced Roman century, commanded by a fierce respected centurion is facing a visibly inexperienced and terrified unit, the rate could be as high as 8 or even 9/10! But if the same century was facing an unknown enemy that terrified them, it could be as low as 2 or 1/10. I felt the WW2 statistic was the fastest way of compelling this message, but perhaps I should explained it more!
@@HistoriaMilitum you also gotta consider that it’s easier to not fight or fake fighting when armed with a gun shooting at ppl at range compared to standing directly in front of the man who wants to stab you
@@HistoriaMilitum I've realized another flaw in your hypothesis; the wounded. Ancient authors never recorded the wounded in their casualty reports, only the straight dead Using your same method of imposing modern battlefield statics on the past, we can use the casualty reports of the 19th century, where they did commonly report the amount wounded, to hypothesize that, on the winning side, the amount wounded would always be, at least, double the amount dead, if not more.
This video put me into the frame of mind of an ancient soldier. Seeing the route begin, knowing there is nothing you can do to stop it. Imagine the piles if excrement around a battle field after a few days? Then having to walk hundreds of miles to get home, or die. Life is pretty good today. Maybe oil isn't so bad, huh?
Thanks, this was really interesting. These battles must have been so unbelievably terrifying that I think it's important to recognize what these people went through, both on conquering, and conquered sides, and remind ourselves that there were real people there.
i don't always click a video as soon as i see what channel posted it but when it's Filaxim Historia the click comes as swift as a spear thrown by the mightiest of Spartans.
Outstanding presentation and well documented. Like many, I've wondered about the very questions you're providing plausible explanations to. Highly credible.
I’ve always struggled with the relief mechanic for resting their fighters on the frontline. I keep envisioning mass slaughters as I the individuals try to disengage in the midsts of a pitched battle. Then I remember the amount of spacing between them and maybe I think they may have had the relief forces slide forward in the gaps? Great video, been loving all your content, can’t wait for the next!
@bostonteapartycrasher In my mind, the exhausted soldier would shuffle back while continuing to face the enemy, and as he did so the fresh soldier would shimmy around him to take his place. This would happen on an “individual” level within a unit. This method would allow a single unit to keep fighting for hours as soldiers rest and rejoin the fight, breaking their opponents thru attrition
My expectation is that it would be similar to a line change in hockey. If there's a break in action, the entire front line can fall back and be replaced. If not, someone can signal to be replaced, and the designated or available substitute can give them a tap on the back to signify they're ready, and they can live-swap when both see the opportunity.
@@pippi2285 I think not, the roman army at that point in its history was extremely professionalized, Centurions had the small whistle to call for the change and it was an easy process, if you're in front go to your right holding your shield out and then slide back between the lines. If you messed up or didn't move back you either got killed because you were an idiot who thought he could fight longer, or you got disciplined atfer which we see in the show. The tactic worked extremely well and coupled with them being supported by cavalry and skirmishers on the sides and behind it became an almost easy, "Just survive for 2-3 minutes then you get to rest at the rear for 15-20 until you do it again.
An excellent video. As someone who studies and practices the ancient battle/duel techniques, this information is invaluable. It really does help paint the picture of a realistic and accurate battlefield. Simply learning the techniques of fighting is not enough as the psychology and strategy are much more important. Thank you very much for this. P.S. Would you consider doing a video of the effects of cavalry charges upon infantry? I know it wasn't as common for the Romans but I often wonder how a cavalry charge would be executed and how effective they were against a formation of soldiers.
I am very glad you enjoyed! Flanking attacks will be briefly covered in part 2, but not to the extent of cavalry on infantry. But that’s a great idea and we will try to tackle it in future parts!
Yes, the cavalry seems to have being very important in many victories. I'd like to hear more about it. Personally, i believe that if you are on a high horse and thus harder to reach with a sword and safer then all you have to do from the horse is attack from behind or manuever to a weak position like a flank of an enemy and then swipe at the legs, achilles, or calf of a standing soldier with a long blade and disable him. The soldier would lose mobility and may even fall to the ground and be helpless.. The ground soldier would do the rest. In other words the strike would not have to be fatal from the horse to be effective.
I forgot which battle, but it was one where a Roman line pushed the enemy into a route, went to raid the camp, but the rest of the army was losing. Then, an unnamed centurion gathered men to leave the raiding of the camp and flank the enemy and save the battle. This centurion must have been highly respected.
Maybe the Battle of the Sabi, during Caesar's Gallic Wars. X legion broke the opposite flank, chased the fleeing troops back to their camp, sacked it, turned around and helped the opposite Roman flank which was struggling
Maybe your thinking of the battle of Cynoscephalae where one flank was pushing successfully and a centurion led his men into the rear of the other flank
I've been studying roman history for over 20 years and there is a lot of evidence that even the hardest, battle proven soldiers would suffer from PTSD. In one particular case I read about a Centurion who couldn't sleep without hearing the noise of battle, comrades dying all around him and the evil smell of guts and blood. I'll dig into my books and let you know who wrote about it
I read an article where it was speculated if the Viking Berserkers (believed to be blessed with divine rage from Odin himself) were simply suffering from PTSD. Imagine suffering from PTSD and being sent to the front of the battle. - I can understand how they went berserk and even attacked their own in fits of rage.
@@hb9145 They were perhaps guys who'd had everything taken from them in battle and didn't GAF anymore and the wires crossed and they were out for blood. Probably drunk and high AF too.
I asked this on reddit once but was downvoted to hell. "Why would people charge into a wall of spears" well according to this, they probably didnt or when they did, it was qith great hesitation not like the totalbwar games. Thank you for the video. It really gives a great insight to the human aspect of it all. I wish we had massive reenactions of this stuff so we could learn more about the ideosynchrities of ancient battles.
they very probably didnt, 1st they had to break the defensive spear-line somehow... ranged weapons, flank attack, or some other tactic and after having an opening, they could charge in... no one just blindly runs into a spear in front of him... those soldiers were not japanese kamikaze who desired to die.. There were ways and tactics which worked against heavy spear formations but it took some time to get them working. We could see this in the era where the Phalanx was a very popular and strong unit, but was weak against fast flank attacks... so light infantry or light cavalry was deadly to them with proper tactics.
In terms of reenactment, it is interesting to watch videos of police in riot gear going after peaceful protestors, angry mobs, or holiday sales. The formations are recognizable, and at least a little of the all-important psychology is there.
This is pretty great. It really resonates with what I've found about early 16th century warfare, and it was explained really well. Top notch content! :D
This was great! I am excited to see part 2, I definitely will subscribe so I don't miss it. This is a subject I am very interested in. I have recently thought that battles may not even look like they do in Total War, where soldiers stand shield to shield with the enemy. Instead, each side stands just beyond weapons range and segments will step up to make an attack after they have built up their courage, followed by stepping back or pushing forward if the enemy steps back. This comes from participating in/observing some large-scale LARPs and watching police riot actions. I know LARP is missing the fear of death factor but that might increase people's hesitation to close the distance even more. This also allows for battles to be mobile and to rotate soldiers out of the front easily. I very well could be wrong though, looking forward to the next video.
As a soldier who fought in the front lines in Iraq, my NCO would asked me why I shot my rifle infrequently, I told him I only fire when I have a target in sight, running out of ammunition is a real fear of a modern soldier. Many of our guys fire their weapons often when the target was not visible, and later found themselves short on ammo
My father is a Vietnam Veteran. He said you knew the guys who had run out of ammo in a battle because they would show up with hundreds of rounds strapped all over them, and they didn’t mind the extra weight.
@@johnlibonati7807In Iraq I put 6-7 extra magazines in my assault pack, as well as 2 more in my leg pockets. You never knew when you were going to need more, and it was useful for situations where you needed to suppress someone.
That's exactly what happened to the 9 red caps in Iraq. They expended all their ammo in a rush of panic, firing in every direction...before they ended up with nothing but their bayonets, and getting overrun and wiped out.
This was one of the best videos about Rome that I watched. For a very long time I was trying to imagine how warfare back then would have been for the individual man, but movies, games and whatever always gave an unrealistic feeling as if all these men weren't afraid of dying and under immense stress
agreed! I just discovered channel yesterday..GREAT detail under a cool 18min. some channels love sound of own voices and repeat SAME DATE 3x for an hour.. this guy's PERFECT!
Perhaps this is a point you will make in the next part, but an historian on Roman history (Goldsworthy?) described two factors which made the Roman legion system so devastating against most all opponents. One, mentioned, is that they had a system to methodically replace men on the front line. The other is that there was a subtle tactic woven into / dependent on the large broad shield and the gladius short stabbing sword. When the Roman soldiers stood in a line each facing a man to their front, they did not stab at the man to their front, but instead stabbed towards 2 o clock i.e. the man standing in front of the Roman to their immediate right. That enemy would carry his shield on his left arm and focus his slashing / hacking / stabbing on the Roman facing him leaving his sword arm and that side relatively open to receiving a gladius thrust from that unexpected direction. This tactic required much discipline to be most effective. The line would have to be maintained i.e. no melee fighting, in order to work.
Neat, thank you! Subscribed! I would love to see a high-value recreation (film, documentary even) of an "actual" battle - start to finish - with vignettes of individual cohorts and such. This is so cool!
I would be careful applying war psychology from 20th century wars to the ancient world. Firearms are used at range, & the majority of fire would be used for suppression, not directly neutralizing enemy forces. In contrast, soldiers at the front of the line were directly engaged face-to-face with the enemy & expected to hold the line for as long as they could until they were either too injured or tired to press on, upon which time they'd cycle out with the man behind them. There's no getting out of combat if you're at the front, yet most warriors still avoided combat simply by being in the rear or in reserve units that didn't end up getting used.
This is why I believe ancient combat had even less confident fighters in the front ranks - because killing or being killed by cold steel weapons has more of a psychological impact, in comparison to more modern firing rifles from many meters apart, and barely seeing your enemy, which solidifies the main message of this video even more. This explains why so many times in rifle combat, it were the mass melee charges that routed enemies, rather than prolonged trench warfare. This will all be talking about in part 2. Thanks for commenting!
ปีที่แล้ว +4
Wasn’t it that in WW1 soldiers were hesitant to shoot to kill - and this was changed by drilling at WW2.
@@HistoriaMilitum I definitely believe you're correct in terms of hesitancy & psychological impact, hence why more experienced troops & professional armies almost universally dominated the battlefield in ancient times. That said, there is a cultural element to consider. For example, compare the Argyraspists vs the Triarii; both are veteran, blooded units with unquestionable courage in the face of battle, yet the former fought in the front in direct assaults while the latter was used as support/reserves in case the resolve of less experienced units failed. I think your analysis is spot-on as it relates to the Romans, but the psychology of war can manifest itself in various ways from place to place. I always think about how the Imperial Japanese or the Mongols approached warfare compared to the traditions we see in the West; I think this is a subject you could spend a lifetime studying. BTW love your content, can't wait for a part 2!
@ It has been like this since as far back as we have data. Soldiers in a "cold state" of mind (not immediately threatened and able to think) are well able to both kill and do worse to other humans; realizing the cold logic of war and/or accepting superior orders. On the other hand, soldiers in a "hot state" of mind (under threat, dominated by psychology of survival) does not only go out of his way to minimize risk, but also will generally not want to kill his fellow man. There are probably deep evolutionary reasons for this (a clan where every earnest fight went lethal would not last very long), but whatever theory you apply, the data is very conclusive. In spite of understanding the issue for centuries, the "fix" hasn't been apparent until quite recently (mostly post-WW2). Early attempts usually targeted the "cold state" of mind: demonizing the enemy, offering rewards for killing and creating a culture of hero-worship, hate and self-sacrifice. On most neurotypicals, this doesn't work. "Hot state" minds cannot process long-term goals like that, so while fighters will readily profess a willingness or even eagerness to kill (when in a "cold state"), they will not follow through when it counts. What _does_ work, however, is to go through the most basic motions present in a firefight - the ones you will fall back on when your mind is too flooded with fear to process anything else - and conditioning shots at a human form as a natural part of that motion. It was not uncommon in the pre-industrial and early industrial era to find soldiers reload without firing, or reload and then fire in the air: The drill of load was ingrained (having been practiced a lot), while the drill of aiming at a human was not (this being the first time). Nowadays it is. I want to add a personal thought here: that, while undoubtedly effective, this is probably something that comes with a cost. Modern Western fighters are almost invincible in stand-up fights against fighters not so conditioned (if one side has 80% shooting to kill and the other has 5%, you know how an even fight will end...), but PTSD seems to be present in a very large amount of soldiers coming home. Interestingly, we also see drone pilots showing symptoms of PTSD - in spite of having physically gone nowhere near a battlefield at all. This suggests to me that at least part of the trauma of war is simply the act of breaking with your natural instinct to limit the amount you are hurting other humans - perhaps more so, even, than a reaction to the physical danger.
ปีที่แล้ว +2
@@Snagabott Great answer, thank you for taking the time. I recall hearing a veteran saying that killing the enemy was ‘for the boys’ ie. ensuring the survival of group.
The assumption that a soldiers psychology hasn't changed feels like it's missing something. We have the example of Napoleonic era soldiers, who somehow convinced themselves to face off against each other in firing lines, or WW1 soldiers who would walk into machine gun fire. If the psychology of combat hasn't changed, that would suggest that indoctrination plays a big part, and raises the question of what the 'risk culture' was within the legions.
Very well done! Awesome that you plan to put out a series of these. Based on the content here I’m sure I’ll enjoy whatever units you decide to cover but I am hoping that’ll include some Hoplite on Hoplite action and a theory on how a lanced calvary charge might actually realistically be used to break infantry lines.
The pursuit is still where most are killed on the modern battlefield…at least if you’re led by a general that’s a killer and not an administrator. Not many of those. This is an exceptional video that I’d use to educate young officers, had I not just retired. So many threads you can connect to the present. I’m subscribing.
Incredibleby well-researched and depicted using R2. This is like my dream documentary - where instead of actors wearing cheap replica armor we can use games modded to show historically accurate gear, armor, and weapons to depict what was described by primary sources while narrated by experts. Subscribed!
My understanding is that SLA Marshall’s studies of the Second World War American army were methodologically flawed and underestimated that amount of aggression that most soldiers showed, far from the findings of timid and inactive troops. Great video regardless - The Roman Army At War by Adrian Goldsworthy was excellent, and sounds like you used it as a source
Actually we didn't hahaha. Don't panic it all has an explanation, trust me. The theory you might find in Goldsworthy's books was coined by Philip Sabin, who can be said is the creator of the Dynamic Standoff theory. Goldsworthy is a disciple of such theory of course. That's why when creating this video we went straight to the core hahahaha. You have the full list of references used in the description section :)
@@JonEtxebeberriaRodriguez thanks for much for the reply! Goldsworthy was my introduction to the topic, and I thoroughly enjoy his other writing, including his Roman fiction. I will have to check out some of the references.
As a Veteran of the Total War Rome 2, I can attest that the first part of the series to be true. Once the enemy routes its a free for all with the help of the calvary. LOL This video was very interesting and I can't wait for the other parts. :)
That’s actually a big annoyance I have with total war games. If you pit two equally trained and equipped armies against each other you will often lose like 50% of your army in combat even before the pursuit phase. CA needs to watch and learn from this video. It shouldn’t be about killing the enemy in battle, morale should be a lot more important than it is and the front line should be a lot more pushing back and forward, not just a stationary mosh pit where most of the soldiers are dying in the middle without any sense of self preservation.
@@ares106 While not perfect by any means Rome 1 did it better by having morale play more of a factor where units that get flanked will most likely route instead of just keep fighting so long as the units flanking are not too fragile like infantry or light cavalry. Only really high morale units will last any longer than 30 seconds during that and they are pretty rare in the game.
14:43. the Paredo distribution strikes again. Also, I've watched tons and tons and tons of mediaeval battle videos and this is the only one that ever delves into the topic and answers questions I had. Amazing video. Thanks so much. To find out the casualty rates were so low is astonishing to me, but it makes total sense. I've always thought the way that wars or shown on TV would mean no soldier could last more than a half dozen battles at most.
Not a bad start to the series. You might cover it later, but its also worth considering how credible the sources are. Most are written from a Roman perspective and have obvious agendas, and so aren't always reliable. The other thing worth mentioning (and again, you might cover it later), is that single combat and battlefield looting seems to have been a pretty common occurence in warfare, particularly in the Early and Middle Republic eras. There are numerous accounts of Roman warriors taking on Gauls and claiming their torcs, and there were also a number of awards and honours available for doing so. It fits into the dynamic standoff theory as well, since in between all the posturing one brave warrior might call out another and enter an impromptu 1v1 that might play a role in breaking the deadlock.
Great video - quick little grammar tip with the title - it should be "what ancient battles really looked like" or "how ancient battles really looked" what is there currently is incorrect
Incredible video, I was delighted to see every point I learned through multiple readings (in French and English alike) through the years about ancient and most specifically Roman warfare, and even the post WW2 psychological studies, I've read general Richoux's book which lead me to Michel Goya's and now I'm about to read Stéphane Audoin-Rousseau "Combattre. Une anthropologie de la guerre moderne" / "Fighting. An anthropology of modern warfare". Everything in here is valid and extremely documented content. Can't wait to get the rest!
I think a core point to understanding pre-firweapon battles is understanding how everyone really wants to have at least 2m distance to an opponent with a pointy thing. Even a well trained soldier would rather keep his distance than risking a fight on life and death. Or as you mentioned it: Every soldier wants to return home in one piece.
This is a very good and seldom explored aspect of ancient battles. I think an interesting future video would be exploring the surprisingly small percentage of fatalities in these clashes unless one side was routed.
The explanation is is the huge infantry shield and metal armour making it difficult to land fatal blows. And even if you did there were 7-20 more rows right behind with the exact same huge ass shield blockimg your way. A single lucky kill doesn't spiral into more deaths unless the army breaks and stops defending each other.
I've read that many people think combat was kind of like a boxing match. Soldiers clashed for a max of five minutes apiece. Formations weren't guys rotating in like robots just kind of tapping in. So wrestling and boxing plus swords and shields. That's why battles like Cannae were rare. It's thought by some historians part of the Roman collapse at Cannae was mainly due to complete panic due to adrenaline falling away and exhaustion slipping in.
This will all be covered in part 2, but I have to say, you nailed it pretty accurately right here! The boxing match is the exact example I use to explain the regular breakaways from the enemy.
Very interesting and I learned a thing or two! The early Roman Republic learned that many things could happen, almost randomly, to an otherwise good army, even when well-led. They seem to have concluded that randomness was more of a threat then poor leadership or excellent enemy qualities. So they developed the SPQR system of standardization. The leaders all 'knew' how to fight, taught from a century of record keeping. The Roman army had the same elements, arranged in the same way, and committed to battle scenarios modified from the system. The open-order formations evolved from the 'stronger' phalanx/shield system because of the mountain fighting vs the Samnites, as maneuver and recombination of various battle elements was more likely to win a battle, rather than the pure frontal application of more force. As such, they realized the value of flanking effects, sought these out, and tried to reduce the opportunity of the enemy force to use these stressors against themselves. When all else failed for Rome, they had a system to replace a lost cohort, or legion, or army, or leader. The manpower issue was hardly every serious due to massive populations from broad agriculture, the material replacement was not a serious bottleneck as their economy was superior, and leaders were ready and willing as younger men Must command in battle to qualify for a higher political role in the Tribe and then in the Senate. In a sense, Roman armies were more confident because they knew that, in battle victory or battle defeat, the war would almost certainly be won by their own side. And if everyone followed orders, the chance of personal death was relatively small. As an American in Texas, USA, this seems very similar to our own ideas on warfare/economics/leadership. We may not ever be 'excellent' compared to various allies and enemies, but this is the point. We are predictable and very replaceable, until victory.
Pre modern warfare can basically be defined with two words: peer pressure. Even in the gunpowder era until the American Civil War, a time and technological phase when it was totally absurd to fight in lines, men fought in lines. The fear and uncertainty probably never went away, but it's a lot harder to make that decision to run when all your comrades were doing the same thing, in it together, marching to the beat of a drum.
Just wanted to point out a bit of an inaccuracy. At 2:53 you say the Battle of Pharsalus was the first devastating defeat of Pompey's career. Pompey's first would have been the Battle of Lauron in the Sertorian War at the hands of Quintus Sertorius, a Roman general fighting a guerrilla war in Hispania. Pompey fell into a trap that resulted in the loss of 10,000 soldiers, a third of his entire army, and caused the Sertorian War to continue for another four years. I would define that as a devastating defeat. Although if by devastating defeat you mean one that a general can never recover from, then you can say any historical general only ever had one devastating defeat, as all previous defeats wouldn't be devastating because they were able to fight again. Anyhow, a good watch, just want to point out something that irked me as I'm a pretty big Sertorius fan boy.
It really triggers the pedant in me when people say something is "how they looked like." It makes sense to instead say "what they looked like" or "how they looked." It's like asking to describe something's appearance by saying "that looks like how?" It doesn't make any sense, but it would make sense to ask "that looks like what?" or "how does that look?"
Yeah me too. Even if there’s an English speaking narrator, I immediately envision a foreigner writing the script. That phrase, “how it looked like” is similar to hearing somebody say “more better”. Its just a thing that native speakers don’t say.
2:30 This modern narrative of soldiers being full of fear and anxiety is very 'woke'. In reality trained men and tough men dont feel such emotions unless actual danger is right in front of them. Especially in a battlefield environment like the Ancient world where you could see your opponent. The 'lads' who took up a formation would have sung songs and chatted to each other. They would have told jokes to each other and hurled insults at the enemy. To think of them standing there anxiously crossing their legs because they want to go to the toilet is exactly what the average BBC historian would think but far from the truth.
Filax my dude . its been a while since i last commented , im sorry . BUT YOU ARE KNOCKING IT OUT OF THE PARK WITH ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO ! You NEVER disappoint.
man that "calm before the storm" moment when Caesar's men stopped right before the charge to reform must have been insanely scary for the guys facing them. Imagine a sizable body of fully armored men jogging/sprinting towards you just to come to a full stop like 20 meters away, reform into a perfect line, and start advancing at a controlled pace. I'd fucking shit myself.
Agreed incredible discipline that comes with experience. Truly a scary sight for the enemy
Fear is natural, that's why most of the soldiers takes drugs or mushrooms through history, those shit swept away the fear and pain, just full rage mode until you can't see any lights
@@vonxoliver Thats wrong most soldiers dd not take any drugs, there are accounts of soldiers taking drugs and some warrior tribes who used drugs before battle but certainly not most.
@@AndrewRyan-rd1wl definitely not happening with any kind of regularity in a professional army. Discipline disappears when people take drugs, there's enough unpredictability already going into battle.
@@xenophonicus I agree 100 percent
This video was made to be a first-of-its-kind, that dives into a topic that fascinates us all, but is nowhere to be found - the reality of ancinet warfare. This video took weeks to make, and every second of it was done for the purpose of everyone's enjoyment and knowledge. What's better is that Part 2 is half way done, and will be release in 1-2 weeks!
Please don't advertise investments that are clearly highly volatile and sketchy at best. I wouldn't say it's a scam, but it's pretty close
@Filaxim Historia
Hmm, I feel like this one could blow up a little.
Hoping for it.
Subbed, liked and commented.
loved the video. im assuming you know the video that tods workshop has done on the range of a pilum. he had an athlete come on his channel to test the range of a pilum and they were able to throw a pilum around 24 meters, in armor and with a shield from a standing start in just a few tries. i think that an experience soldier could reach 30 meters if they threw the javelin whille running.
Because of all the issues you mentioned veterancy in the ancient periods is considered a major factor in determining victors.
@@malipedduparthiv6147 Yeap we know about it. But since roman pila were not all the same in weight and shape throughtout the republican period we chose to stay cautious
I love those movies and shows where they show two ancient armies marching up to each other in perfect formation, only for both sides to break ranks and charge at each other like the whole thing was only for show.
Dude I hear yah. It is so annoying. Last Kingdom did a good job for the most in the first battle in the first episode.
@@sunofpeter2 Most of the major battles were pretty well done in that show and finally the movie. Occasionally it got a little showy but not super bad.
Hollywood never got past the barroom brawl from the old westerns.
@@keithallen6339
Last kingdom has a movie?
@@miracleyang3048 It's called "Seven Kings Must Die" and is the finale of the show. It completes Uhtreds story.
Can only imagine the terror millions of men across history must've felt as they sat in formation, watching an enemy formation slowly close distance. We live good lives, comparatively
Plenty of people in the modern day know the same fear, and the past few centuries have introduced increasingly elaborate and overwhelming threats. Many soldiers in history have had to fight in direct prolonged CQB with melee weapons, butchering people in close combat with extremely long sessions of uninterrupted fighting. This is compounded by spread of horrific disease, total lack of information to the average soldier and execution or slavery being very common.
But many other soldiers in more modern fighting have had to keep in mind other things, persistent, unending threat from artillery and missile attacks (even when sleeping) for months at a time, many opportunities for instantaneous death or mutilation via mines, IEDs, ambushes, snipers, mortars, anti-vehicle missiles and drones. If you've ever seen footage from helicopter gunships you may be aware how utterly helpless troops are if spotted - and nobody can hide from thermals, really. Though one way to survive might be to fall convincingly after seeing your squadmates dismembered by a Russian gunship's autocannon (according to a Finnish recon friend of mine)
I think war just fucking sucks no matter what. The fundamental dynamics are even similar. Engineering, political and social technologies change the specifics and dynamics, but not the humans doing it.
@@mattjk5299nah, id rather get shot than crucified.
@@FoxAboutTown if you think people don't routinely get tortured to death or bleed out or die horribly while being left to rot in modern warfare you've been propagandised
Also who tf is getting crucified lol
Play a large-scale LARP with 500+ battles and you'll get a real feel for battle. Still not the same but the fear is still there.
??? I'd rather watch an enemy formation come side by side with my comrades than sit in wet trenches getting bombarded by artillery day and night. The terror of contemporary warfare is incomparably worse to ancient warfare.
It's an amazing to see how different this is than Hollywood's representation of Roman battles. The psychological aspect that you have captured is absolutely spine chilling. Awesome video, can't wait to see part 2!
Thank you!!
Actually he failed and gave you a hollywood story: he keeps going on about charging as if they are running in. That only rarely occurred for organized forces. The author presents nicely but the content is Hollywood-biased still.
He's obviously not a real scholar but someone reading up imo.
@@melanieenmats Charges were a real thing and will be tackled in part 2! They are clearly mentioned by Livy and Polybius, and were a devastating psychological occurrence that was present in almost EVERY rout (for various periods of history, not only Roman warfare). The sources are at you disposal in the description, if you wish to read up! Your misunderstanding is probably a result of you imagining a "charge" to be as showed in Hollywood; reckless and impetuous - this was obviously not the case! Charges were carried out en masse, with explosive speed, but were obviously more cautious and slower than you would see in movies. Cheers!
@@HistoriaMilitum Well given your incredibly polite argument I will make sure to watch the second episode with an open mind.
I will sub too, because you are too nice for the internet. You must be AI :D.
@@vanivanov9571I am pretty sure "sprint"in this video was only mentioned as a recommendation in a battle manual, while the video is also pointing out that records indicate that the reality was much different
I've always thought that battles looked much more like riot control and group fights than hollywood style free for all or Total War robotic battles where units don't care about their own self preservation. In riot control for example you can see how protesters and police always keep a clear line between themselves at the start, throwing stuff at each other (rocks, molotovs, fireworks - flashbangs, smoke, water) with some small groups at times trying to cross the no-mans-land and fight before retreating or being pulled back by their allies that don't want to start an engagement, while other times instead you see that as the two masses move the shape of the no-mans-land changes with perhaps a confrontations starting at a point or two in the lines where from there it would expand as more people get involved in the fight, eventually encompassing the whole line as a full engagement starts, other times you would see one group be overwhelmed and run away with the other beginning a chase and violently attacking the retreating group (and even here this point is probably where generally the most damage is given) only for the retreating group to eventually regroup, make a new line to contrast the rushing group and counterattack to save their surrounded allies. You see similar things happen during football fans clashes though the engagements are a bit different because there is less formation fighting but still I think that it's no coincidence that often times riots and riot police tactics are often compared to ancient tactics (group formations, testudo, spear walls etc) because the nature of the engagement, technology used usually and the group psychology that controls the two masses should be fairly similar to ancient battles with the difference of course that in the past there was a much greater killing potential by both sides
Damn I never thought to compare ancient battle tactics with riot control tactics, that’s really interesting.
You are actually very right. It's very close but not the same thing. The only difference would be the spacing between combatants but in the rest you are spot on with your description😊
Interesting take. Ofc you also have to consider the size of the engagement
Total war has a morale system but it's not perfect for sure.
yep it's a real thing, the major difference come from the ''unlethal'' weap use
You can still see the reluctance to get into a fight even in sports today. In fencing, for example, specifically in epee, there's a passivity rule that punishes the fencers if no points have been scored after a minute of fencing, which is quite common because neither fencer wants to give up a hit. The massive runaway scores then happen because the trailing fencer has to force attacks to get back into the game or be defeated by the clock. Obviously, this doesn't always happen, but when skill levels are close it's quite common.
The rule itself was even created after a particular team engagement where the fencer in the trailing team knew he wouldn't be able to attack to regain points, whereas the fencer in the leading team saw no reason to attack in the first place, because it would only risk his team's lead. Consequently, they simply ran down the clock doing nothing at all. IIRC, this match (a world championship final or semifinal) was meant to be a demonstration of the dynamic nature of fencing to the IOC to convince them to keep it in the roster. Oops.
the guy in the trailing team sounds like an idiot lol. theres one outcome where you have a 0% chance of winning, and one where you have a nonzero chance. From a game theory perspective, this guy is what you would call "an nooblet"
I come from the MMA world where a bunch of different rules for passivity across the disciplines. It was super interesting to read about it in epee, bonus points for including the historical roots for the rule. Plus, my buddy is super into fencing, so now we have something to talk about🤙
I’m actually happy you covered this! This would mold greatly with writers and reenactments of battles for ages to come with this perspective!
We figured it was about time this topic was covered in detail and made readily available for everyone to learn from. So we really hope to start seeing this in re-enactments!
3:50 generals and speeches
5:08 advance, noise
6:40 speed, sprint and being stastionary
7:40 lines well charging, skirmisheing
9:00 the battle
12:10 breaking ranks, Hollywood batttle
13:10 battle chash fear and currage
Thank goodness, I have had the question of what frontline combat in ancient/medieval battles looked like for forever, I'm so glad you are making these vids!
I actually did my dissertation on this exact subject at university, where I looked into the importance of soldier psychology in ancient warfare, even comparing some of Rome's training excercising with modern improvements made in training between WW2 and Vietnam.
This model is excellent and I find myself agreeing with 99% of it. I'm glad models like these are steadily becomming more and more accepted.
Hey a fellow historian! Step by step we are getting closer mate. I'm actually doing my PhD on the political evolution of the roman republican infantryman and I rely a lot on this model 😊
I was wounded in Vietnam I would love to see this research.
Can I ask what grade you recieved when you completed your degree and whether you have carried your studies further?
@@nigeh5326 I got a first (UK undergrad). Unfortunately I didn't carry on with my studies as I ended up getting a job in another industry.
@@PetelliusCerialis thanks for your reply I got a 2:1 in history/politics and like you ended up working in another industry.
Historians about WWI in 2000 years: "They probably didn't charge out of their trenches at the blow of a whistle because the battlefield would be too noisy and chaotic for it."
Armchair Historians in 2,000 years: “Nobody actually marched to war in brightly colored uniforms. As soon as Gunpowder was invented everyone switched to camouflaged uniforms. Certainly no Tri Cornered Hate, Bear fur Shakos, or Black Leather Helmets with Brass decorations were ever worn on the battlefield. It would make one too easy to spot and shoot at a distance.”
@@wyatttyson7737 Riot police never carried roman-esque shields, they only carried guns and intimidated civillians, shields were outdated by then
And still nobody will be allowed to know the whole war was precipitated and executed by British banking interests
Civil War had pictures, WW1 had black and white videos WW2 had black and white videos with sounds, Vietnam finally added color, modern combat individual soldiers can record on their own devices, and future warfare will have fake AI propaganda videos. So it's not likely historians will get it wrong with that sort of documentation where they can see parts of actual battles play out.
But in the future they may get modern warfare writing with all the misinformation tactics being so good with future tech lol
@nicobenji0248 future warfare will have fake AI propaganda videos?
Are you implying that's not already real?
So glad to see you tackling these challenging but deeply interesting topics!
Great material! Thanks a lot! :) Can't wait to see the continuation!
oh I already know I'm gonna bust with this video
?!?
?????
🤨
Who let this man cook??? 🔥🔥🔥⁉️⁉️⁉️💀💀💀🔥🔥🔥
Im about to blow
The segway into the ad at 11:40 is absolutely perfect.
Cant wait for part 2!! Amazing stuff.. in movies they always portrait it as large casualties on both sides, brave soldiers on both sides but it is much more likely most soldiers were fearful and just tried to survive.
One thing that bothers me about this. Combat veterans. It seems to me the video is going on the idea that all the combatants are of the same experience. Not bragging just using my own experiences as a 22 year veteran. My first combat experience was in 1983 in Grenada. I was 20 when the first round whizzed by me I pissed myself. In retrospect I was glad it was raining. Fast forward 20 years and several combat tours to AFG 2003 , I was a SFC leading a 10 man patrol. We were pinned down by a force of at lest platoon strength who had good cover and were a 100 meters up a mountain with RPGs and at lest 1 NSV heavy machine gun. I had 3 wounded and we were taking cover in a small ravine . I half expected them to over run us. All we could really do is conserve ammo and wait for air support which I had called in. Out of the 10 men I had with me only 3 had taken fire before. We had been like this for 15 min or so and I looked down the line and saw 2 of these men were side by side and one was laying on his back the ravine being at an angle eating an MRE while his buddy kept look out. When he was finished they swapped places. When the second had finished I called them over. I had them go down the line and let the other 4 men have a break doing the same thing. Me being the first. My point with this long story is that soldiers will look to those who are fighting with them especially the ones with experience on how to act a lot of times before looking to their leader. I saw this time and time again. You get use to being in a life or death situation and it becomes your normal outlook on the world. My best example is being in a FOB and getting some decent sleep and the FOB came under mortar attack. I woke up listened to see which direction the fire was coming from and how close it was. Seeing that it was not coming close to me I went back to sleep, sleeping through the whole thing. In a Roman battle line for every 80 men there was a Centurion and by all accounts they lead from the front. Each Legion having approximately 59 Centurions. Also the whole front line was the lest experienced men and the deeper you went into the line them more experienced the soldier. With all the inexperienced men looking to the Centurion sand those with more experience than them for guidance. Do not under estimate the effect to training. It 's not a normal thing for one person to kill another. That is were training kicks in. I had an instructor to us one time tell us just that. And he was there to teach us otherwise. When your mind shuts down in combat and it does your training kicks in. All of this turns into morale. The most important thing in combat. At the time the Roman military was the best trained, best disciplined and equipped military of it's time. I call into question the statement that a whistle could not be heard over the din of battle. If 20 soldiers can hear my command to cease fire while modern weapons are being used and while wearing helmets that provided some hearing protection the Romans could hear a whistle. Those around the Centurion most certainly could. Who more than likely would use some sort of hand signal to those in front of them to get them to switch places. As I did as a paratrooper when finishing the soldier who was in front of me equipment check after we stood up minutes before we went out the door by smacking his helmet a couple times. You cannot hear a thing in the jump bay of a C-130 with 2 doors open or the rear door open, it's as good as being deaf. Going back to discipline and morale. I doubt very seriously that there was much there was much screaming or talking in the battle lines of a Roman legion, I point to discipline and training. In hand to hand combat there is little if any talking it takes to much air, energy and breaks your concentration. Do you see Boxers or MMA in a fight talking or yelling at each other in the ring. They might in a clinch. The idea of yelling while running into combat is stupid and mostly a Hollywood thing. A Roman front line while moving to engage would have been silent and moving no more than at a military pace. I only ran in combat for one thing only to get out of the line of fire. The Romans knew well the effect of morale. The sight of a Roman battle line coming at you no sound other than them walking, while maintaining formation would rattle all but the best trained soldiers. Look to warfare in the Napoleonic era and WW 1 trench war fare to see good examples of training and discipline. There are other things these are just the things that came to me first. My apologies for such a long post. I like to explain things when disagreeing it saves misunderstandings. Thanks for reading till the end. I am going to go get a beer and some popcorn ready for all the Carl's to tell me how wrong I am etc.
Good comment
Yeah, I aggry with u, I had the same thought as u
Thanks for the long comment. I read everything you said 😊 Let me share my two cents here and I'm sure we can understand each other perfectly.
It is true that the roman army was known by its discipline and training. Of course we tend to imagine the discipline of the roman army as in today's armed forces. And that's when we start to miss the point a bit. Roman soldiers followed two principles mainly, virtus and disciplina. Disciplina was not the primary value of the soldier, what made a roman soldier stand out was his virtus. And everything was oriented to achieving it. Disciplina was meant to prevent the excess of virtus. To restrain the soldier for being too aggressive or foolish but not turn him into an "obedient" soldier. That's why aggresiveness was a critical trait in the centurion. For us a roman soldier would look too insubordinate, brash and aggressive. In fact it was considered very rude to tell a roman legionary to "mind his own business". Aemilius Paulus had huge problems with his troops because of that.
You are also right, silence is much more frightening than shouting. No question about it. Of course we are not saying that they yelled while fighting in hand to hand combat. Sources do state that silence was encouraged while advancing but in practice the examples to shouting during the advance are too abundant. The video is also aimed at the Mid/Late Republican period. Roman soldiers of this time were still not full professionals with of course some exceptions. Episodes of "amateur" behaviour are to be expected. Also finally, wait for part 2 to see how the rotation was done. It has nothing to do with the whistle.
I'm not trying to say that you are wrong and have no idea. I would never say that to a veteran. Only that some aspects you mentioned in your comment might have been different. In fact, there was a study done in the 60s-80s in which they read passages of the Illiad to veterans and a good portion of them could relate their experiences to the book. So veterans have a lot say. Just asking you for a vote of confidence with the info we presented in the video. It doesn't come out of the blue, quite the opposite. It's the fruit of decades of study of roman battles, psychology and ancient texts.
@@JonEtxebeberriaRodriguez Good points. I can be wrong and am freely open to that fact. Open minds are the only way people can move forward. And no matter the era a soldier is a soldier. And I to o have read Iliad and many works of warfare and combat and if they are written by someone who has been in or seen combat I can very easily relate to the scenes. To well sometimes. And I never thought that it was out of the blue or not thought out. My apologies if that came across in my comment. I could see that from the sources you gave etc. I got a degree in Military History after I retired and I focused maybe a bit to much on the Roman military and had read a couple of the same sources. I am now working on my Masters. Retirement got boring lol. Anyway, If using the Roman Disciplina which meant " instruction and training then I see your point. Any Army or Marine unit and saw them off duty you would see them as insubordinate, brash and aggressive as well as arrogant and a few other things. But on duty never, true you could get a way with that depending on who was in charge, and you better know the limit. IN formation I cannot imagine a Centurion not knocking the crap or of a Legionnaire with his vitis from being insubordinate that is a challenge to his leadership abilities. brash and aggressive where things that the Roman soldier was trained to be. But aggressive to a Centurion? I'd pay to see that beat down. My point is I cannot see a Roman Solider being undisciplined while on duty. Off duty, sure. ON and in combat? Never. You could not fight as well as the Romans did against the odds then did unless you had a great deal of discipline. I enjoy a polite debate on most anything. On the internet I find that very rare, and dying. Thank you for a breath of fresh air.
@@Crowwalker100 One of these examples where "virtus" eclipsed "disciplina" on duty was actually in one of Caesar's final battles (namely, his last one in Africa) which is recorded in "De Bello Africo." Now, the original author of this piece is unknown, but it is presumed to be someone who interviewed the soldiers who served in the battle and formulated an account of it from their words. An excerpt from it reads as such:
"As he ran from rank to rank, he observed the enemy about the camp very uneasy, hurrying from place to place, at one time retiring behind the rampart, another coming out again in great tumult and confusion. As many others in the army began to observe this, his lieutenants and volunteers begged him to give the signal for battle, as the immortal gods promised him a decisive victory. While he hesitated and strove to repress their eagerness and desires, exclaiming that it was not his wish to commence the battle by a sudden sally, at the same time keeping back his army, on a sudden a trumpeter in the right wing, without Caesar's leave, but compelled by the soldiers, sounded a charge. Upon this all the cohorts began to rush toward the enemy, in spite of the endeavors of the centurions, who strove to restrain them by force, lest they should charge withal the general's order, but to no purpose."
Here, we have legionarii outright initiating a battle without orders in contrast to Caesar's initial desires; his own soldiers goading a trumpeter within a local unit to start the engagement without express permission or command and even the centurions could not reign in the impetuosity of the men. Note that these were not green legionarii or any old regular unit. These were LEGIO X EQUESTRIS. That is, these were Caesar's best veterans. Of course, Plutarch seeks to explain this strange phenomenon by saying that Caesar had actually suffered from an epileptic shock and was not in position to give command. Well, luckily for Caesar, the virtus of his men carried the day here and he won a sweepingly decisive victory.
Out of some 30 and change subscriptions, this is the channel which I monitor daily, eagerly waiting for a new video on Roman history!
Thank you for doing such wonderful work, I know I've said it countless times before but you're the best!
Thank you so much for the comment! It motivates us greatly to know we have such loyal viewers, such as yourself.
We have no plans of stopping the uploads any time soon!
This taught me more about battle and war than absolutely anything I’ve ever experienced in my life.
I always felt that the missing piece was self-preservation when it came to battles and war in media. The idea that people don’t understand that everyone wants to win but no one wants to fight or die. But it makes so much more sense.
Also the feeling of almost no battle being a close one in matchmaking in video games or sports is an amazing observation.
You have no clue of what battle tastes like. Buy a plane ticket and go find out. The world is full of battles. I recommend Africa. There's always some small massacre somewhere.
Yep the footage of tribal warfare that I’ve seen since there’s still some happening here in Papua for example, is a few people on one side will go forward then fall back while throwing weapons or trying to stab without going too far from formation. Same things with big clash between students, one or two will go forward and backwards while most keeping position as the body of each side.
yeah, same thing with animals. they shout, scream, if that doesn't work, fake run/ lunge, or throw something nearby. Then strike as a last resort.
But with arrows and firearms you dont even need to fear close combat as often and so casualties rise just like US civil war- no close combat to rout the enemy, just stand there till 'last man standing'...
theres some mock up medieval battle vids where they do what a full day of battle would be like.
I've been in pitch battle that is so true, and we weren't even trying to kill eachother
That's exactly the point, Hollywood portrays ancient and medieval soldiers like suicidal morons! In war, soldiers forget about self-preservation only when they have taken potent drugs, maybe that was the case for Berserkers vikings or more recently for Nazi soldiers under the influence of the pervitine drug!
I'm really happy to help you for this video ! I've learnt a lot of things especially about the surprising fact about the battle casualties , didn't know about that .
Can't wait to see part 2, being as eager to help you as i was for this first part
Cheers
Dunno if this will come up later but from modern experiments (some of which I've been part of), there are quite a few things you can do in an infantry formation in contact with the enemy to get a few sneaky hits on your opponents if the people in your formation are used to working together and quick on the uptake. A single fighter on your side, for example, can use his weapon or shield to temporarily displace the weapons of one or perhaps two or three enemy fighters and create a moment of vulnerability where his own comrades can strike them in relative safety, if they can react quickly enough. Formations using long spears or pikes are especially vulnerable to this.
It's worth using spears, though, because they allow an infantryman to target not just the enemy directly in front of him (who is likely to be prepared for his attacks) but also the adjacent files of the enemy front rank, who are likely focused on the men in front of them and thus more vulnerable. You thus need to watch not only the enemy in front of you, but every enemy soldier to his left and right who might plausibly be able to hit you with a spear, both to ward off incoming attacks and also to spot and exploit momentary openings while they were distracted by your comrades.
If you have javelins, you can reach even farther (but only as many times as you have javelins).
The latter trick might, incidentally, be why pawns in chess capture diagonally.
We do know that roman infantry trained as a unit quite a lot, so it's reasonable to assume they were quite good at these kinds of techniques.
Good stuff! I'll note this stuff for any books I write. ❤️
This sounds like the beginning of a series of how the tactics evolved over time and adapted to different enemies. Thanks for all the work this was amazing! 🙏
The study you cite on WWII battles comes from S.L.A. Marshall, a historian whose conclusions have been heavily scrutinized on their research methodology. He did a lot of interviews, but he also claimed to have done many more and a lot of his work is less than up to academic par.
That’s right, interesting as this video is, it’s based on models of battle rather than actual verifiable descriptions of battle. The claims that most soldiers avoid fighting is attractive but very dubious, because there are simply countless descriptions by soldiers of huge numbers of men being willing to expose themselves to risk. The documentation of World War One soldiers going over the top or modern videos of war from all over the world, can overcome the limitations of anecdotal evidence to at least some degree
@@christophervaughan2637agreed and I believe if u look at any audit for ammunition spent during periods on the front line u will see the numbers do not add up to just a small portion of a company or platoon doing all the fighting due to the vast numbers of ordinance expended
@@qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm3937 Well actually, I did say the study claimed that 2/10 would use their weapons “effectively”, “with aiming”. So audits of spent ammunition is not a valid counter, as many rifles were fired without aiming or as repressing fire. In fact, most of them were. Actually, modern rifles switching from automatic to semi-automatic rifles is specifically being done to counter this!
Here’s the truth:
When I was making the video, I was aware of Marshall’s incredibility, but still chose to include the study as it highlights the message that not every front liner would fight effectively. Let’s say the actually rate of aggressive WW2 fighters was 7/10. And sure, we have evidence of mass trench charges and people exposing themselves to risk. But now factor in the use of cold steel weapons instead of rifle warfare, and the extremely close combat experience of looking the enemy in the eyes.. Suddenly, you will find the amount of aggressive fighters significantly goes down.
The truth, of course, is that the amount of effective fighters would depend on a multitude of factors. In an experienced Roman century, commanded by a fierce respected centurion is facing a visibly inexperienced and terrified unit, the rate could be as high as 8 or even 9/10! But if the same century was facing an unknown enemy that terrified them, it could be as low as 2 or 1/10.
I felt the WW2 statistic was the fastest way of compelling this message, but perhaps I should explained it more!
@@HistoriaMilitum you also gotta consider that it’s easier to not fight or fake fighting when armed with a gun shooting at ppl at range compared to standing directly in front of the man who wants to stab you
@@HistoriaMilitum I've realized another flaw in your hypothesis; the wounded. Ancient authors never recorded the wounded in their casualty reports, only the straight dead
Using your same method of imposing modern battlefield statics on the past, we can use the casualty reports of the 19th century, where they did commonly report the amount wounded, to hypothesize that, on the winning side, the amount wounded would always be, at least, double the amount dead, if not more.
Excellent video and animation about a very interesting and unknown topic, looking forward to part 2!
What an amazing video. such an interesting topic most get wrong or dont get talked about enough. cant way for the next in the series!
Brilliant. Great video with the kind of insights I’ve hoped for in a video before now but never have never seen. Subscribed!
Good video, guys!! Such an interesting topic but unexplored, glad you're changing that! I will wait for the next one 🎉😊
Thanks for your comment and support!
Great video!
Muchas gracias! Siempre es bueno saber de otros youtubers españoles 😉
This video put me into the frame of mind of an ancient soldier. Seeing the route begin, knowing there is nothing you can do to stop it. Imagine the piles if excrement around a battle field after a few days? Then having to walk hundreds of miles to get home, or die. Life is pretty good today. Maybe oil isn't so bad, huh?
Thanks, this was really interesting. These battles must have been so unbelievably terrifying that I think it's important to recognize what these people went through, both on conquering, and conquered sides, and remind ourselves that there were real people there.
i don't always click a video as soon as i see what channel posted it but when it's Filaxim Historia the click comes as swift as a spear thrown by the mightiest of Spartans.
Haha, much appreciated! :)
Outstanding presentation and well documented. Like many, I've wondered about the very questions you're providing plausible explanations to. Highly credible.
I’ve always struggled with the relief mechanic for resting their fighters on the frontline. I keep envisioning mass slaughters as I the individuals try to disengage in the midsts of a pitched battle. Then I remember the amount of spacing between them and maybe I think they may have had the relief forces slide forward in the gaps?
Great video, been loving all your content, can’t wait for the next!
Those are very good questions, and exactly what will be talked about in part 2! (Disengaging from the enemy and unit spacing)
@bostonteapartycrasher In my mind, the exhausted soldier would shuffle back while continuing to face the enemy, and as he did so the fresh soldier would shimmy around him to take his place. This would happen on an “individual” level within a unit. This method would allow a single unit to keep fighting for hours as soldiers rest and rejoin the fight, breaking their opponents thru attrition
@bostonteapartycrasher personally I think the depiction in hbo Rome is too complicated
My expectation is that it would be similar to a line change in hockey. If there's a break in action, the entire front line can fall back and be replaced. If not, someone can signal to be replaced, and the designated or available substitute can give them a tap on the back to signify they're ready, and they can live-swap when both see the opportunity.
@@pippi2285 I think not, the roman army at that point in its history was extremely professionalized, Centurions had the small whistle to call for the change and it was an easy process, if you're in front go to your right holding your shield out and then slide back between the lines. If you messed up or didn't move back you either got killed because you were an idiot who thought he could fight longer, or you got disciplined atfer which we see in the show.
The tactic worked extremely well and coupled with them being supported by cavalry and skirmishers on the sides and behind it became an almost easy, "Just survive for 2-3 minutes then you get to rest at the rear for 15-20 until you do it again.
Thanks so much for making this. Still watching but damn I've wanted this for years.
this was great! I can't wait for the next one!
as always THANK YOU for your hard work!
An excellent video. As someone who studies and practices the ancient battle/duel techniques, this information is invaluable. It really does help paint the picture of a realistic and accurate battlefield. Simply learning the techniques of fighting is not enough as the psychology and strategy are much more important. Thank you very much for this.
P.S. Would you consider doing a video of the effects of cavalry charges upon infantry? I know it wasn't as common for the Romans but I often wonder how a cavalry charge would be executed and how effective they were against a formation of soldiers.
I am very glad you enjoyed! Flanking attacks will be briefly covered in part 2, but not to the extent of cavalry on infantry. But that’s a great idea and we will try to tackle it in future parts!
Yes, the cavalry seems to have being very important in many victories. I'd like to hear more about it. Personally, i believe that if you are on a high horse and thus harder to reach with a sword and safer then all you have to do from the horse is attack from behind or manuever to a weak position like a flank of an enemy and then swipe at the legs, achilles, or calf of a standing soldier with a long blade and disable him. The soldier would lose mobility and may even fall to the ground and be helpless.. The ground soldier would do the rest. In other words the strike would not have to be fatal from the horse to be effective.
I forgot which battle, but it was one where a Roman line pushed the enemy into a route, went to raid the camp, but the rest of the army was losing. Then, an unnamed centurion gathered men to leave the raiding of the camp and flank the enemy and save the battle. This centurion must have been highly respected.
Sounds like Siccius Dentatus to me...
Cynoscephalae, but the winning wing didn't raid the camp since both armies were on the march. Also, it's rout, not route.
Maybe the Battle of the Sabi, during Caesar's Gallic Wars. X legion broke the opposite flank, chased the fleeing troops back to their camp, sacked it, turned around and helped the opposite Roman flank which was struggling
Maybe your thinking of the battle of Cynoscephalae where one flank was pushing successfully and a centurion led his men into the rear of the other flank
@@BloodyCrow__It was a tribune instead of a centurion
Must be nice to have a time machine and go back in time to witness how ancient armies battle each other!! WOW IM FRACKING IMPRESS
I've been studying roman history for over 20 years and there is a lot of evidence that even the hardest, battle proven soldiers would suffer from PTSD. In one particular case I read about a Centurion who couldn't sleep without hearing the noise of battle, comrades dying all around him and the evil smell of guts and blood.
I'll dig into my books and let you know who wrote about it
I read an article where it was speculated if the Viking Berserkers (believed to be blessed with divine rage from Odin himself) were simply suffering from PTSD. Imagine suffering from PTSD and being sent to the front of the battle. - I can understand how they went berserk and even attacked their own in fits of rage.
@@hb9145 thanks for sharing Sir! This is very interesting and totally understandable
@@hb9145 They were perhaps guys who'd had everything taken from them in battle and didn't GAF anymore and the wires crossed and they were out for blood. Probably drunk and high AF too.
Great call in making a second d vid! Amazing content, looking forward to the next one, and def recommending the channel!
Thank you very much!
Man you never fail to impress me with the videos you come out with your content is absolutely killer keep up the amazing work!
One of the most interesting videos in history of battles I have ever watched, congratulations
I asked this on reddit once but was downvoted to hell. "Why would people charge into a wall of spears" well according to this, they probably didnt or when they did, it was qith great hesitation not like the totalbwar games. Thank you for the video. It really gives a great insight to the human aspect of it all. I wish we had massive reenactions of this stuff so we could learn more about the ideosynchrities of ancient battles.
they very probably didnt, 1st they had to break the defensive spear-line somehow... ranged weapons, flank attack, or some other tactic and after having an opening, they could charge in... no one just blindly runs into a spear in front of him... those soldiers were not japanese kamikaze who desired to die.. There were ways and tactics which worked against heavy spear formations but it took some time to get them working. We could see this in the era where the Phalanx was a very popular and strong unit, but was weak against fast flank attacks... so light infantry or light cavalry was deadly to them with proper tactics.
In terms of reenactment, it is interesting to watch videos of police in riot gear going after peaceful protestors, angry mobs, or holiday sales. The formations are recognizable, and at least a little of the all-important psychology is there.
This is pretty great. It really resonates with what I've found about early 16th century warfare, and it was explained really well. Top notch content! :D
This was great! I am excited to see part 2, I definitely will subscribe so I don't miss it.
This is a subject I am very interested in. I have recently thought that battles may not even look like they do in Total War, where soldiers stand shield to shield with the enemy. Instead, each side stands just beyond weapons range and segments will step up to make an attack after they have built up their courage, followed by stepping back or pushing forward if the enemy steps back.
This comes from participating in/observing some large-scale LARPs and watching police riot actions. I know LARP is missing the fear of death factor but that might increase people's hesitation to close the distance even more. This also allows for battles to be mobile and to rotate soldiers out of the front easily. I very well could be wrong though, looking forward to the next video.
I haven't watched yet, but I'm hitting the like button for the fact alone that you cite your sources in the description. 💚
As a soldier who fought in the front lines in Iraq, my NCO would asked me why I shot my rifle infrequently, I told him I only fire when I have a target in sight, running out of ammunition is a real fear of a modern soldier. Many of our guys fire their weapons often when the target was not visible, and later found themselves short on ammo
My father is a Vietnam Veteran. He said you knew the guys who had run out of ammo in a battle because they would show up with hundreds of rounds strapped all over them, and they didn’t mind the extra weight.
@@johnlibonati7807In Iraq I put 6-7 extra magazines in my assault pack, as well as 2 more in my leg pockets. You never knew when you were going to need more, and it was useful for situations where you needed to suppress someone.
That's exactly what happened to the 9 red caps in Iraq. They expended all their ammo in a rush of panic, firing in every direction...before they ended up with nothing but their bayonets, and getting overrun and wiped out.
Same here. I used to go out at night with my Kbar and find the insurgents sleeping.
@@N238E🙄
This was one of the best videos about Rome that I watched. For a very long time I was trying to imagine how warfare back then would have been for the individual man, but movies, games and whatever always gave an unrealistic feeling as if all these men weren't afraid of dying and under immense stress
agreed! I just discovered channel yesterday..GREAT detail under a cool 18min. some channels love sound of own voices and repeat SAME DATE 3x for an hour.. this guy's PERFECT!
Phenomenal presentation of the "pulse" theory. Can't wait for the follow-on videos!
Perhaps this is a point you will make in the next part, but an historian on Roman history (Goldsworthy?) described two factors which made the Roman legion system so devastating against most all opponents. One, mentioned, is that they had a system to methodically replace men on the front line. The other is that there was a subtle tactic woven into / dependent on the large broad shield and the gladius short stabbing sword. When the Roman soldiers stood in a line each facing a man to their front, they did not stab at the man to their front, but instead stabbed towards 2 o clock i.e. the man standing in front of the Roman to their immediate right. That enemy would carry his shield on his left arm and focus his slashing / hacking / stabbing on the Roman facing him leaving his sword arm and that side relatively open to receiving a gladius thrust from that unexpected direction. This tactic required much discipline to be most effective. The line would have to be maintained i.e. no melee fighting, in order to work.
Neat, thank you! Subscribed!
I would love to see a high-value recreation (film, documentary even) of an "actual" battle - start to finish - with vignettes of individual cohorts and such. This is so cool!
I would be careful applying war psychology from 20th century wars to the ancient world. Firearms are used at range, & the majority of fire would be used for suppression, not directly neutralizing enemy forces. In contrast, soldiers at the front of the line were directly engaged face-to-face with the enemy & expected to hold the line for as long as they could until they were either too injured or tired to press on, upon which time they'd cycle out with the man behind them. There's no getting out of combat if you're at the front, yet most warriors still avoided combat simply by being in the rear or in reserve units that didn't end up getting used.
This is why I believe ancient combat had even less confident fighters in the front ranks - because killing or being killed by cold steel weapons has more of a psychological impact, in comparison to more modern firing rifles from many meters apart, and barely seeing your enemy, which solidifies the main message of this video even more. This explains why so many times in rifle combat, it were the mass melee charges that routed enemies, rather than prolonged trench warfare. This will all be talking about in part 2. Thanks for commenting!
Wasn’t it that in WW1 soldiers were hesitant to shoot to kill - and this was changed by drilling at WW2.
@@HistoriaMilitum I definitely believe you're correct in terms of hesitancy & psychological impact, hence why more experienced troops & professional armies almost universally dominated the battlefield in ancient times. That said, there is a cultural element to consider. For example, compare the Argyraspists vs the Triarii; both are veteran, blooded units with unquestionable courage in the face of battle, yet the former fought in the front in direct assaults while the latter was used as support/reserves in case the resolve of less experienced units failed. I think your analysis is spot-on as it relates to the Romans, but the psychology of war can manifest itself in various ways from place to place. I always think about how the Imperial Japanese or the Mongols approached warfare compared to the traditions we see in the West; I think this is a subject you could spend a lifetime studying. BTW love your content, can't wait for a part 2!
@ It has been like this since as far back as we have data. Soldiers in a "cold state" of mind (not immediately threatened and able to think) are well able to both kill and do worse to other humans; realizing the cold logic of war and/or accepting superior orders. On the other hand, soldiers in a "hot state" of mind (under threat, dominated by psychology of survival) does not only go out of his way to minimize risk, but also will generally not want to kill his fellow man. There are probably deep evolutionary reasons for this (a clan where every earnest fight went lethal would not last very long), but whatever theory you apply, the data is very conclusive.
In spite of understanding the issue for centuries, the "fix" hasn't been apparent until quite recently (mostly post-WW2). Early attempts usually targeted the "cold state" of mind: demonizing the enemy, offering rewards for killing and creating a culture of hero-worship, hate and self-sacrifice. On most neurotypicals, this doesn't work. "Hot state" minds cannot process long-term goals like that, so while fighters will readily profess a willingness or even eagerness to kill (when in a "cold state"), they will not follow through when it counts. What _does_ work, however, is to go through the most basic motions present in a firefight - the ones you will fall back on when your mind is too flooded with fear to process anything else - and conditioning shots at a human form as a natural part of that motion.
It was not uncommon in the pre-industrial and early industrial era to find soldiers reload without firing, or reload and then fire in the air: The drill of load was ingrained (having been practiced a lot), while the drill of aiming at a human was not (this being the first time). Nowadays it is.
I want to add a personal thought here: that, while undoubtedly effective, this is probably something that comes with a cost. Modern Western fighters are almost invincible in stand-up fights against fighters not so conditioned (if one side has 80% shooting to kill and the other has 5%, you know how an even fight will end...), but PTSD seems to be present in a very large amount of soldiers coming home. Interestingly, we also see drone pilots showing symptoms of PTSD - in spite of having physically gone nowhere near a battlefield at all. This suggests to me that at least part of the trauma of war is simply the act of breaking with your natural instinct to limit the amount you are hurting other humans - perhaps more so, even, than a reaction to the physical danger.
@@Snagabott Great answer, thank you for taking the time. I recall hearing a veteran saying that killing the enemy was ‘for the boys’ ie. ensuring the survival of group.
This. I need more of this. Great work and keen eye to detail!
oh great... now I have to play Rome II again...
I wonder if the Total War folks know their game footage was lifted for this?
@@pherbst502 sure! was searching for that comment lol
Thanks!
Much appreciated!
Amazingly detailed descriptions. Thank you so much. It's very well appreciated
You are most welcome ;)
Phenomenal video, can't wait for part two
The assumption that a soldiers psychology hasn't changed feels like it's missing something. We have the example of Napoleonic era soldiers, who somehow convinced themselves to face off against each other in firing lines, or WW1 soldiers who would walk into machine gun fire. If the psychology of combat hasn't changed, that would suggest that indoctrination plays a big part, and raises the question of what the 'risk culture' was within the legions.
Very well done! Awesome that you plan to put out a series of these. Based on the content here I’m sure I’ll enjoy whatever units you decide to cover but I am hoping that’ll include some Hoplite on Hoplite action and a theory on how a lanced calvary charge might actually realistically be used to break infantry lines.
The pursuit is still where most are killed on the modern battlefield…at least if you’re led by a general that’s a killer and not an administrator. Not many of those.
This is an exceptional video that I’d use to educate young officers, had I not just retired. So many threads you can connect to the present. I’m subscribing.
Incredibleby well-researched and depicted using R2. This is like my dream documentary - where instead of actors wearing cheap replica armor we can use games modded to show historically accurate gear, armor, and weapons to depict what was described by primary sources while narrated by experts. Subscribed!
My understanding is that SLA Marshall’s studies of the Second World War American army were methodologically flawed and underestimated that amount of aggression that most soldiers showed, far from the findings of timid and inactive troops.
Great video regardless - The Roman Army At War by Adrian Goldsworthy was excellent, and sounds like you used it as a source
Actually we didn't hahaha. Don't panic it all has an explanation, trust me. The theory you might find in Goldsworthy's books was coined by Philip Sabin, who can be said is the creator of the Dynamic Standoff theory. Goldsworthy is a disciple of such theory of course. That's why when creating this video we went straight to the core hahahaha. You have the full list of references used in the description section :)
@@JonEtxebeberriaRodriguez thanks for much for the reply! Goldsworthy was my introduction to the topic, and I thoroughly enjoy his other writing, including his Roman fiction. I will have to check out some of the references.
There are so many crap videos on youtube about Classical Antiquity. This one was well researched and a pleasure to watch.
This is cool, can’t wait for part 2. But I’m devastated that they didn’t use whistles to replace the frontline 😢
Thanks a million for this !! Subscribed 😊
As a Veteran of the Total War Rome 2, I can attest that the first part of the series to be true. Once the enemy routes its a free for all with the help of the calvary. LOL This video was very interesting and I can't wait for the other parts. :)
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That’s actually a big annoyance I have with total war games. If you pit two equally trained and equipped armies against each other you will often lose like 50% of your army in combat even before the pursuit phase. CA needs to watch and learn from this video.
It shouldn’t be about killing the enemy in battle, morale should be a lot more important than it is and the front line should be a lot more pushing back and forward, not just a stationary mosh pit where most of the soldiers are dying in the middle without any sense of self preservation.
@@ares106 then you haven’t sent 5 units against Lu Bu just to watch them run 🤣🤣 before taking any casualties 🥲🥲
@@halecesar1461 lol I haven't even tried 3K
@@ares106 While not perfect by any means Rome 1 did it better by having morale play more of a factor where units that get flanked will most likely route instead of just keep fighting so long as the units flanking are not too fragile like infantry or light cavalry. Only really high morale units will last any longer than 30 seconds during that and they are pretty rare in the game.
14:43. the Paredo distribution strikes again. Also, I've watched tons and tons and tons of mediaeval battle videos and this is the only one that ever delves into the topic and answers questions I had. Amazing video. Thanks so much. To find out the casualty rates were so low is astonishing to me, but it makes total sense. I've always thought the way that wars or shown on TV would mean no soldier could last more than a half dozen battles at most.
Not a bad start to the series. You might cover it later, but its also worth considering how credible the sources are. Most are written from a Roman perspective and have obvious agendas, and so aren't always reliable. The other thing worth mentioning (and again, you might cover it later), is that single combat and battlefield looting seems to have been a pretty common occurence in warfare, particularly in the Early and Middle Republic eras. There are numerous accounts of Roman warriors taking on Gauls and claiming their torcs, and there were also a number of awards and honours available for doing so. It fits into the dynamic standoff theory as well, since in between all the posturing one brave warrior might call out another and enter an impromptu 1v1 that might play a role in breaking the deadlock.
Your quality is so high, I like the vids before I watch. They are just that good.
More fort tours as well please.
Great video - quick little grammar tip with the title - it should be "what ancient battles really looked like" or "how ancient battles really looked" what is there currently is incorrect
Marshall's claims about how many guns went unfired have been challenged by many historians.
"Dynamic Standoff Theory"
Nice name for it, and something that I wish could be applied to future games covering ancient and medieval warfare.
this was awesome. great idea for a vid series/topic. looking forward to the next one
Incredible video, I was delighted to see every point I learned through multiple readings (in French and English alike) through the years about ancient and most specifically Roman warfare, and even the post WW2 psychological studies, I've read general Richoux's book which lead me to Michel Goya's and now I'm about to read Stéphane Audoin-Rousseau "Combattre. Une anthropologie de la guerre moderne" / "Fighting. An anthropology of modern warfare". Everything in here is valid and extremely documented content. Can't wait to get the rest!
Thanks for your comment! It’s great to hear there is so much interest in this topic, and it’s good that our sources line up!
I waited and searched for so long for this topic! Thank you!
I think a core point to understanding pre-firweapon battles is understanding how everyone really wants to have at least 2m distance to an opponent with a pointy thing.
Even a well trained soldier would rather keep his distance than risking a fight on life and death. Or as you mentioned it: Every soldier wants to return home in one piece.
This is a very good and seldom explored aspect of ancient battles. I think an interesting future video would be exploring the surprisingly small percentage of fatalities in these clashes unless one side was routed.
The explanation is is the huge infantry shield and metal armour making it difficult to land fatal blows. And even if you did there were 7-20 more rows right behind with the exact same huge ass shield blockimg your way.
A single lucky kill doesn't spiral into more deaths unless the army breaks and stops defending each other.
I've read that many people think combat was kind of like a boxing match. Soldiers clashed for a max of five minutes apiece. Formations weren't guys rotating in like robots just kind of tapping in. So wrestling and boxing plus swords and shields. That's why battles like Cannae were rare. It's thought by some historians part of the Roman collapse at Cannae was mainly due to complete panic due to adrenaline falling away and exhaustion slipping in.
This will all be covered in part 2, but I have to say, you nailed it pretty accurately right here! The boxing match is the exact example I use to explain the regular breakaways from the enemy.
Very interesting and I learned a thing or two!
The early Roman Republic learned that many things could happen, almost randomly, to an otherwise good army, even when well-led. They seem to have concluded that randomness was more of a threat then poor leadership or excellent enemy qualities. So they developed the SPQR system of standardization. The leaders all 'knew' how to fight, taught from a century of record keeping. The Roman army had the same elements, arranged in the same way, and committed to battle scenarios modified from the system. The open-order formations evolved from the 'stronger' phalanx/shield system because of the mountain fighting vs the Samnites, as maneuver and recombination of various battle elements was more likely to win a battle, rather than the pure frontal application of more force. As such, they realized the value of flanking effects, sought these out, and tried to reduce the opportunity of the enemy force to use these stressors against themselves.
When all else failed for Rome, they had a system to replace a lost cohort, or legion, or army, or leader. The manpower issue was hardly every serious due to massive populations from broad agriculture, the material replacement was not a serious bottleneck as their economy was superior, and leaders were ready and willing as younger men Must command in battle to qualify for a higher political role in the Tribe and then in the Senate.
In a sense, Roman armies were more confident because they knew that, in battle victory or battle defeat, the war would almost certainly be won by their own side. And if everyone followed orders, the chance of personal death was relatively small.
As an American in Texas, USA, this seems very similar to our own ideas on warfare/economics/leadership. We may not ever be 'excellent' compared to various allies and enemies, but this is the point. We are predictable and very replaceable, until victory.
Pre modern warfare can basically be defined with two words: peer pressure. Even in the gunpowder era until the American Civil War, a time and technological phase when it was totally absurd to fight in lines, men fought in lines. The fear and uncertainty probably never went away, but it's a lot harder to make that decision to run when all your comrades were doing the same thing, in it together, marching to the beat of a drum.
Wow, fantastic video. Great job!
Just wanted to point out a bit of an inaccuracy. At 2:53 you say the Battle of Pharsalus was the first devastating defeat of Pompey's career. Pompey's first would have been the Battle of Lauron in the Sertorian War at the hands of Quintus Sertorius, a Roman general fighting a guerrilla war in Hispania. Pompey fell into a trap that resulted in the loss of 10,000 soldiers, a third of his entire army, and caused the Sertorian War to continue for another four years. I would define that as a devastating defeat. Although if by devastating defeat you mean one that a general can never recover from, then you can say any historical general only ever had one devastating defeat, as all previous defeats wouldn't be devastating because they were able to fight again. Anyhow, a good watch, just want to point out something that irked me as I'm a pretty big Sertorius fan boy.
Thank you! As much as like seeing two armies "box" it out on the battlefield it just looked like squares running into each other.
It really triggers the pedant in me when people say something is "how they looked like." It makes sense to instead say "what they looked like" or "how they looked."
It's like asking to describe something's appearance by saying "that looks like how?" It doesn't make any sense, but it would make sense to ask "that looks like what?" or "how does that look?"
Yeah me too. Even if there’s an English speaking narrator, I immediately envision a foreigner writing the script. That phrase, “how it looked like” is similar to hearing somebody say “more better”. Its just a thing that native speakers don’t say.
Thank you, finally my question of how pre modern era army fight in the battlefield answered, nice video,keeps on
That art shit is a scam
Fantastic high quality video. Please more like this
First
Yall are going to blow up making videos of this quality. Loved it and cant wait to see what else you produce
2:30 This modern narrative of soldiers being full of fear and anxiety is very 'woke'. In reality trained men and tough men dont feel such emotions unless actual danger is right in front of them. Especially in a battlefield environment like the Ancient world where you could see your opponent. The 'lads' who took up a formation would have sung songs and chatted to each other. They would have told jokes to each other and hurled insults at the enemy. To think of them standing there anxiously crossing their legs because they want to go to the toilet is exactly what the average BBC historian would think but far from the truth.
Filax my dude . its been a while since i last commented , im sorry . BUT YOU ARE KNOCKING IT OUT OF THE PARK WITH ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO ! You NEVER disappoint.
Thank you, and great to hear from you again!
soo interesting, can't wait for the next video.
Been waiting for this since I subscribed
Amazing video, cant wait for the next parts!!!!
Looking forward to the next video, as this has long been a topic of wonder for me from the ancient world to the modern
Yes... You are right to divide the topic into several videos. I enjoyed the detailed explanations and visuals.
i realy like this kind of video!! thanks!
You’re uploads get me so hyped up I could slay an emperor and take his throne.. erhm I mean, Sol Invictus.
Dude this video is AWESOME, tnahks a lot! 👏👏👏
You’re welcome, move to come!