this whole misconception that armies would charge at each other at full speed is great for the movies but this is much more to how it must have went down. that explains why battles would last a whole day or sometimes several days with intermediate periods of rest. great work.
Don't really care about the charging misconceptions. The true worse part about Hollywood battle scenes is how it descends into chaotic duels. People think that's cool but it's extremely unimmersive
@@adambrande The charging is just as "unimmersive" since I know it wasn't at all like that. I kinda care about gross misconceptions being put into movies. I understand they are meant to entertain, which they do, but historical movies often claim to be (cough* Braveheart), seem to be (by doing other parts of it very accurately) but even more often, are interpreted by the viewer as accurate. Then people "learn" the wrong things and we're no longer ignorant about a topic, but even worse; misinformed. I fell for SO MANY false things, watching movies that looked well researched or with an authentic feel. I hated when I found out I had learned bullshit, and I had in some case TAUGHT that bullshit to others. You get my jist, right? I'm a war history enthusiast and I love teaching about it. When I watch war movies with people, I like to explain some of the things, then these inaccuracies come up, and they're like "that is so dumb, war is so dumb." and I have to re-educate them and undo the misinformation they're being fed. I remember my mom exclaiming how war was dumb when watching the two sides clash like MANIACS in Braveheart. "That's SO not how it happened, mom." "Then how did it happen then? Why is the movie showing it this way?" Sigh. I remember her asking "How did they know who was on their side?" as the same movie showed the whole army break into unsupported individual duels, alllll mixed up in a crowd of men of both sides. "Again, mom. Wasn't even close to looking like that." Damage control again. Without my guidance, my mom would ABSOLUTELY believe that Braveheart's insane battle scenes are a decent representation of historical battles. She would anti-learned history. As a history enthusiast, I hate that. Basically, it's not the worst thimngs for movies to be historically inaccurate, but it's sometimes irresponsible, in a broad educational sense, since millions of people watch some of these movies and think they learn from them.
Sort of, he made some assumptions that seems to disregard the context faced by the soldier themselves which could dramatically influence how they fought. For example, the typical Greek hoplite was a citizen soldier, meaning they were a farmer or a fisherman or politician first and a soldier second, so it's unlikely every man in a unit had the same level of combat skill, discipline, desire to kill, or resolve to resist running away in fear during the heat of battle. There's also the missing context of what those early battles between Greek city states were actually fought over. These armies weren't really trying to destroy each other outright so much as make the other side concede, as these battles usually occurred to resolve disputes over things like who got to farm a particularly good area of land, or who got to fish a specific area, or who got to determine the path and collect tax on certain trade routes, etc.. These were largely battles between farmers from the same country who all spoke the same language, and who likely would have been trading and intermingling with each other in the days before the battle. They didn't really want to kill their opponents, they just wanted them to give up and go home. As such, it makes sense that a citizen army of part time soldiers whose biggest concern is making sure everyone makes it home, and who don't really wish death upon their enemy, would choose to use a tight formation that focuses on defense, unit cohesion and maximizing unit morale and comradery, as it gives everyone the best chance of making it home and keeps everyone in good spirits, reducing the likelihood of men losing their nerve, and making it hard for them to run away even if they do, as they would have to push through their comrades to get away. For armies fighting an existential threat to their homeland and loved ones, or for professionals like the Spartans who trained religiously and enslaved their enemies, a looser formation that requires more discipline to maintain but maximizes maneuverability and offensive capacity makes sense.
@@LoreTunderin I disagree with your assertion that they didn't actually want to kill each other. These city states were clearly very nationalistic, with the citizens feeling a very strong identity to their respective state. Any dispute with another state would be seen as a grave offense against their honor and dignity as a people. It is very escalatory to assemble an army and march on another state over a small dispute, so even a seemingly small issue could easily turn into a violent, vehement conflict. And when the soldier faces off against another soldier with deadly weapons, and they see one of their comrades fall at the hands of an enemy soldier, they will certainly develop the resolve to aim to kill the enemy, if they didn't already before the battle. They did spend a long time screaming at each other and yelling insults before the battle, remember? The two sides hate each other's guts no matter how silly the initial dispute seems.
@@ExponentMars battles over honor were fairly rare in the period addressed in this video, becoming more common in the Classical period. Casualty rates were typically between 3 and 10 percent for the winners and losers respectively on average, with the numbers being inflated by disproportionately large outliers of one or two battles. In the early period referred to here, the vast majority of battles were individual actions lasting hours at most between city states over arable land, pasture land, fishing rights, etc.
@@LoreTunderinno the denser the formation the more discopline cohision and Training is needed, at least if you wanna do any manuvering and not just do a static shield wall. Our medival sources and xenophon, comander of the March of 10 000 talk in dept about how hard it is to maitain formation, cohision when manuvering a dense phalanx (of untrained).
Please do a video on how different types of cavalries were actually used in battles. We all know they had the advantage of mobility and were best flanking troops but how did the charge/skirmish actually take place on a minute-to-minute basis ? How was the communication done ? How did the troops managed to not enter a state of chaos & rampage ? What did the horses and the soldiers do after they made first contact with the enemy ? How long did the troops stay in contact (melee/ranged) with the enemy ? What would be the course of action of a cavalry commander/soldier from the start of a battle till the end of it ? [for any (specific) culture/civilization] ? There are so many questions that are not properly answered anywhere, would love to see many videos on this topic, specially for distinct cavalry types. Thank you for your efforts. Cheers!!!
This was also my next topic that immediately came to mind because it seems like it’s the next step in changing the state of the battlefield but it obviously wasn’t used every time or immediately even when it was available so just as with infantry warfare the ins and outs are not obvious to me.
Cavalry is indeed very interesting. For large parts it was a separate battle. The nobility having their private duel, where they tried to capture each other for ransom. A video would highly exciting.
@@drallcom3ehhh, not really. That mostly only happened if and when two cavalry formations intercepted each other on their way to charge the infantry. At least with heavy cavalry, their main objectives were generally either charge and break enemy infantry, flank them and do the previous, or protect their infantry from enemy cavalry doing it. (or any formation trying to flank. They also had a large part in preventing the use of artillery by charging the crews.
Please, make a realistic cavalry video. Not just horses and swords, but other types, like elephants, chariots and mounted archers. And let some sources in description PLEASE!
I think part of the problem is that Hollywood favors excitement over accuracy. Look at that charge in Troy - outright suicidal, but it looked great! Hollywood also loves to have their heroes break ranks and dive right into the thick of the enemy lines, which in reality would just get you hacked to pieces from all sides, but in movies it serves to distinguish the characters who matter from the faceless mooks.
@@KroganCharrYes this is the crux of it. It's not about knowing what's realistic or not, it's about humans innate desire for hero worship. Depicting an ancient battle realisticly leaves little to no room for individual feats of heroism or storytelling, a very bleak affair. It would be a bunch of men awkwardly shuffling around out of the enemies weapon range, mixed with brief periods of intense violence that end in some poor men getting caught out and cut down in an inglorious fashion. The followup to that would be one side breaking and the other side massacring them in small isolated groups for as long as possible. If modern audiences saw that, they'd immediately support the looser of that battle just beacause the way it was won and the pursuit that ensued would seem incredibly villanous to most people. Unless the realistic battle depiction is used to set up the antagonist faction in the beginning of a movie I don't ever see it being done because it's deeply harmful to archetypical narratives.
@@KroganCharra “realistic” depiction would actually look better than the mindless battle scenes in Hollywood. Rome tried to do it in season 2 (with some inaccuracies).
Plz make realistic history about the "Macedonian" Phalanx because some sources say their sarissas 3rd & 4th back rows tilted upwards protects the whole unit from arrows which doesn't make sense how thin those sarissas were
I think one underappreciated part of the Hoplite Phalanx is the psychology. The vast, VAST majority of battles throughout history were not lost by annihilation, but rout. The Phalanx psychologically minimizes the chances of that happening. The front rank soldier was surrounded by allies on both flanks and his back, which at the same time made him feel supported and made it difficult to turn and run, even if he wanted to - he'd have to drop his unwieldy spear and shove his way past his own allies, probably getting himself and his family shamed for life, if he's not outright cut down for cowardice. Warfare got somewhat more chaotic and cavalry dominated in the middle ages, but early modern warfare did something similar to the Phalanx again with their so called "pike and shot" formations, which led to infrantry dominating battles once more. Formations like the "Tercio" were very much spiritual successors of Hoplite warfare, and they were as late as the 18th century. The general idea behind the Phalanx was, in some shape or another, used over thousands and thousands of years, and only met its final death when gunpowder weapons became so effective that pure hand to hand infantry was abolished altogether.
You forgot the part where he explained that it was typically the soldiers in the BACK which ran away first. This had a psychological impact that no formation could stave off. When the man who had minutes before had another man at his back supporting him now finds the people to the back and side of him running off, no formation can hold for long.
@@ExponentMars I didn't forget that part. Nothing I said is contradicted by what you said. The men at the very back of a battle formation that does hand to hand combat are the ones who have the least reason to fear and thus run away (except when the Phalanx is being flanked, but then it's pretty much screwed regardless). By the point the men in the back ranks lose heart and run, the men in the front would have long since broken in a formation that ISN'T organized in this manner. It doesn't completely prevent the rout, no formation can do that, but it can delay it significantly, often long enough so that the opponent breaks first and you win the battle. Nothing is foolproof, but this was one distinct advantages that caused the Phalanx to spread and be widely adopted throughout the Mediterranean and beyond.
I both agree and disagree with your take. Few things have to be pointed out. Primo, infantry fighting in close phalanx-like formations never really fully disappeared and certainly was present in the Middle Ages. Descriptions of infantry fighting that way date even as early as the XI century. Secundo Pike&Shot formations have their roots in the Middle Ages they didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere in the Early Modern Era. Tertio, when it comes to the supposed chaotic nature of warfare in the Middle Ages keep in mind that cavalry also used large formations and wasn't just fighting in unorganized bands.
YES! This is why in human history, in terms of fighting, people line up. Whether with spears, swords, or muskets! Only in modern times, do we see that soldiers are likely to do better if they are split into smaller and smaller groups. Traditionally.... getting this big ball of whoop ass and keeping it from running away.... is what won.
The Roman videos were crazy good - glad you took on this. There is something more intimate about studying actual behaviours of soldiers with the tactics-equipment-culture of the period
There's an interesting Pictish stone which shows a battle scene, believed to have occurred around the mid-9th century CE, called the Aberlemno 2 stone. The middle section of the scene shows 3 men on the left, with the furthest left figure it's not obvious what he's armed with (it's likely a spear or pike held vertically), but the other two are armed with an interesting combination of weapons. One is armed with what seems to be a pike - or a long spear at least - which is weilded with both hands, and appears to have a shield strapped to his left arm. The pike is held at waist height, held out horizontally. The man in front of him is armed with a sword and shield. It is interesting to me that the infantry are arranged in such a manner, and I thought I'd mention it as I thought it might make for an interesting video.
Aberlemno Kirkyard Stone, in Aberlemno, Scotland. Spearman in that piece looks like he's holding off the incoming horseman. Found it just by googling "Pictish stone which shows a battle scene" 🙏🏾💡
Very interesting! But surely you meant AD.... not CE... People need to stop using it. It means nothing. Our years are counting from a very specific event, and it is pointless to pretend they are not...
@@daveweiss5647 CE has been used for around 400 years. It was started by Christians. The reason it was used is because AD was not accurate. Using the AD system, Jesus was born in either BCE 6 or 7 depending on which account you use. CE is the correct system, if you want to count from that very specific event. I suggest you actually read up on the history of this method of counting before you comment. Educating yourself before expressing an opinion ensures you have an opinion that is valid.
@macgonzo wrong, I am very aware of the history and context... but AD is still the correct term- people use CE to try and denigrate western civilization and the Christian origins of the system... this is actually very unscientific regardless of whatever its origins may be, because it obfuscate the reality of the reasons for the numbers themselves...
U kind of can simulate the tentative aspect with pvp if u communicate with the opponent when to press and retreat but I agree it would be cool to see the intricacies such as the fluidity of movement battle
This is not possible due to having a human of 2024 in control. In fact rome has the option to make the hoplites move more freely but they don't. Same thing with unit size and width. Everyone makes different use based on situations etc.
I love the fact that you do your own research and state your sources, instead of just repeating a wikipedia page like most history channels do. Keep it up!
@@HistoriaMilitum I really hope you will go in detail about how cavarly charges worked. I can't wrap around my head how they managed to use for example the wedge formation without suffering constants losses of the lead man.
@@mogyesz9 As far as I know, the wedge wasn't actually all that well utilized for exactly this reason, and/or not in the way movies or video games would depict it. For example, Alexander's companion cavalry used the wedge, but it was a formation for MANEUVERING the cavalry, not for enemy contact. The man at the tip of the wedge was the commander of the unit, and the point was that everyone could see him and follow his lead without any need to communicate additional orders. This made a highly mobile unit that can change direction at a moment's notice, reacting to new developments or proactively surprising the enemy. When the cavalry would commit and actually charge into the enemy line, the wedge would be dissolved.
@@KroganCharr The wadge or rather a wage-column formation was certainly used in the Middle Ages although it actually had a "flat nose", in other words, the tip of the wedge would consist of 3 to 5 riders rather than just one.
@@mogyesz9 I find it hard to see how a wedge formation could work. The Byzantine cavalry charge with a linear formation, but unlike what is depicted in movies and film, they charge slower, as in not with a gallop but with a canter. With a gallop, they will likely lose formation, but with the slower canter they can maintain a tight formation, forming a tight wall of armored animal and rider going straight at you. I can imagine how terrifying it would be if I were the charged infantry. Wedge formation doesn't look that scary in comparison
For those who are curious, there is one accurate battle depicted in a movie: Alexander's battle of Gaugamela. Sadly, it's literally the only accurate one in Hollywood history, and even the only accurate one within that same movie...
I love that someone’s finally addressing this. I want to add that most archaic hoplites tended to carry smaller shields than classical era hoplites, probably because of the scale of their conflicts and the lack of massed missile troops and true cavalry at the time. During the classical era, Italian hoplites changed in a different direction, trading the throwable spears for large bladed javelins and fighting at close range with their swords.
What’s charming and also frustrating about Ancient Greek history is how little documented information there is. Two spears were only held during Mycenaean era, phalanx literally means roller (more “rolling” happened in Hellenistic times, but still happened earlier), and the rear of the dory had a pyramid shaped point specifically designed to be planted in the ground to stop enemies on horseback. Herodotus dramatized all his records, but I find that he goes into more detail than any other writer. I am building my own aspis and you added a new theory to the purpose of the ropes, and I didn’t know they played a game of telephone before war. Cool video, I understand it’s more for the masses, but don’t be afraid to use technical terms like “linothorax” when describing linen armor.
The other side the Dori is called Styrax(Styrakas) or Savrotiras.also Dori spear was never throwned because it wasnt designed to do so and it was kinda stupid to throw your main weapon and disrespectful act of a soldier towars his family gen by generation passed armor.What was meant probably in the video was an Akontion a smaller Javelin Spear which was carried mostly by peltasts in numbers of two or more and could be thrown.Those might seam details but are not.Etymology of words can help us finding the origin and use of very objects.For example Xiphos and Kopis are two completely different things Xiphos as the word Xiphias in Hellenic means the swordfish cames for drilling.While Kopis from noun Kopto literally means cut so its for slushing.This video has some mistakes unfortunately.
Assuming there was a push contest, interlocked shields (one overlaping the one next) would be tough enough to break anyway. Because interlocking shields would lessen the front of the first rank, every rank would have to interlock shields as well to maintain formation. Each rank was pushed forward by the shields of the following rank, and so on! Picture not just a single shieldwall but successive ranks of shieldwals all packed together! Enemies would have to push a shield, held in place by the shields next to it and the bodies behind them, plus the collective pressure of several ranks of (interlocked) shields and bodies further back. In fact, holding the rope of the next shield (instead of your own shield handle), would transfer all that pressure on your wrist bone instead of your soulder; I guess it would snap pretty quickly. Appart that, those ropes were allover that shield, not just in one side. It's straightforward to assume they were put in place so that you could hang your shield somewhere, like in a wall, or a ship parapet to cover rowers, or in a weapons locker, or simply your back when on a march. But I can't thing of any fighting technique using ropes instead of handles.
You must live in Greece to speak perfectlly the language first..then hidden meanings the words will reveal you ,also to visit and study the places...after the exchibits in museum to see armors helmets etc...to get the message,and to study the modern Greek psycology also...some remains of the ancient era still existing to reveal you the passion of these men...regards from an ex museum guardian from Korinth Greece
The pyramid shaped rear end of the spear may not had been sharp enough to "slice through" but it was ideal for killing fallen enemies by cracking their armor. Fallen enemies which were still alive were still a danger since they would try to use a dagger and maim the advancing troops hence the role of the middle lines was to wipe them out. Using the back end it was more than enough to crush and break through armors.
At 12:54 That was riot police from the Netherlands, not Denmark. The police with the plexiglass transparent shields are Danish though, but the police in yellow-black uniforms with small round shields are from the Netherlands!
These videos are great! I love how you're making historical combat look realistic and so true to life. Could you do the same to heavily armored infantry knights during the high medieval period, as well as halberders and pikes in the late medieval period?
These videos do such a good job clearing up so many questions I had about the actual details of large scale melee battles. I have always wanted to visualize these kinds of battles from a soldier’s perspective and understand both the individual perspective but also how that affects the flow of the battle at each scale as we zoom out and get a broader view of the battlefield (Old generals’ ability to do this in real time on the battlefield is incredible to me). These videos give me the pieces necessary to do that, as someone else said this feels like the most intuitive way to explain how these battles actually worked. Still with that being said I struggle to put them all together in my head and truly visualize the battle, some parts were still somewhat cloudy to me, even though I understood how that kind of warfare works a lot better now. I was shocked at how good of an analog riot police standing off against rioters/protesters was for organized, pre-firearms warfare. I was racking my brain trying to think of more situations that would be similar, specifically one that I might have more experience with so I could really visualize it. After a while I think I came up with the best one possible because it’s something most people probably have experience with and might even be a better analog than riots. It sounds so weird to say but I think dodgeball is an almost perfect way to visualize what these kinds of battles were like, especially if you make a few minor tweaks to it. I mean just consider the standard set up for a dodgeball game during gym when you were in school. I’m sure there were variations but typically I remember a few balls would be given to both sides and then a line of them would be set up at the halfway point between the ends of the court, teams would run from either end towards the center (initial charge), slow down to throw their dodge balls and/or because they were scared of getting hit or the other team getting to the unclaimed balls in the middle first (not committing to the charge opting to throw missiles/projectiles instead), quickly everyone would run out of balls and be forced to go for the fallen ones and the ones in the middle, which would expose them so quick exchanges would occur here for a second before people retreated back to their team (resuming the charge, front liners exchanging blows before tiring and breaking off back to their ranks), from here it would just be waves of people who had balls and worked up the courage running up to throw one or two while dodging and weaving, inspiring others with balls to add to the volley, before stepping back so as to not be as prominent of a target since you can only dodge for so long before getting hit, and then being replaced with another wave (waves of front liners charging and clashing with the enemy before tiring/getting wounded/pulling the wounded away from the front line and retreating back to their ranks to be replaced by the next group of front liners getting ready to charge). I feel like this is a really good way of understanding the “dynamic standoff” model which makes sense because those feel like good words to describe dodgeball. Even stuff like the kind of spacing needed between soldiers starts to become really intuitive, because just the space needed to throw and doge is quite roomy, but you also don’t want to get singled out by the opponents so you have to stay somewhat close to your teammates, and this is going to be really similar to what was done on the battlefield for nearly the same reasons. It is also similar in the way that throwing projectiles in between charges seems to be what soldiers are going to be doing most of the time in a battle and they would also probably be constantly picking up thrown javelins the same way you do in dodge ball, because they can throw back the javelins that the enemy throws at them, and if they can push their enemy back they may even end up advancing as far as they threw their own javelins at the enemy. Even stuff like taunting opponents and that causing people to attack is very congruent. The similarities start to break down when it comes to formations and the routing phase, but when it comes to the route part of battles that is a lot more intuitive at least for me, and I feel like the other incongruities can be supplemented if you imagine just a few changes. Where the similarities started getting really uncanny for me is when I imagined dodgeball but with shields of similar size used in these kinds of battles, and without the line of balls in the center of the court but instead everyone just has one or two dodge balls to begin with. The more I imagine this the more I feel like this must be the closest you can get to what these battles were like without actually being in one. You can imagine a rough, uncoordinated formation taking shape naturally, the match taking a lot longer, and this one might be a stretch but I feel like you might even see people taking a ball and using it to tag people directly with it to get around the shield being an effective strategy, essentially getting pretty close to fighting with a very short sword and shield. Really sorry to go on this long rant about dodge ball of all things but I have been trying to understand battles like these for a very long time and these videos were such a huge help for me. I just wanted to share my weird final epiphany of “ancient warfare was like deadly dodge ball with shields” and see if anyone else sees the similarities I do.
Good video, which tries to break with some of the myths regarding ancient warfare! As a former history student, i totally like this. I would love, if you could write down the sources, which you used for the video in the video description or maybe even in the timestamps. Like this, its far better to comprehend where you got the information from. Keep up the work :)
love love love your videos my man. been watching for a long time now usually over a morning coffee. tonight over a JD & Coke . keep it up you're doing an amazing job
These Battle Model videos are fascinating. I hope you do this for all ancient armies. I’d also love to see this in medieval warfare. One of the ones I truly hope that you do is Hannibal and the Carthaginians. If you already have, I apologize. I just discovered this channel.
cool and comprehensible vid ,now i've Curiosity about the battles between romans and greeks and the roman advantages on greeks in combat , i hope you make a vid about it .
Look up the Battle of Cynoscephalae here in TH-cam. There are plenty of videos outlining how the Roman Manipular formation enabled them to conquer Greece and defeat the Macedonian kings.
@@EAfirstlast you need to learn some history there buddy, before the romans, the greeks were the main power in the mediterranean especially from 500bc-300bc, around 800bc to 500bc, they spread out to southern italy, souther france and other parts of the mediterranean, they also have colonies around the black sea coast..lets not forget the romans that later dominated the mediterranean were heavily infuence by the greeks especially there building style, there religion and there culture..romans were pretty much hellenized after they conquered greece..roman emperors were fluent in greek language and greek was the language of eastern part of the empire.
@@fmoa2541 And all through that time they were challenged. That isn't dominance. The greeks never dominated the mediteranean. In large part because there is no 'Greek' empire. There's a dozen city states and a handful of larger ones all happily sinking each other's ships.
@@EAfirstlast so if they were not dominant than how come the entire mediterranean during that time was influence by there art, culture, religion and architecture, theres other forms of dominance, not just miitary dominance..the etruscans were influenced by the greeks with art and architecture, the carthiginians were influence by them in terms of military tactics, trade, art and political system, the carthiginians model its political system after sparta, the romans were influence by greek art, architecture, trade and religion..yeah there was no greek empire, but there art,architecture, religion, trade and culture influence entire mediterranean.
I have to say that these kind of videos are pure gold. I feel I learn a lot. AND please, Classical period is requested and required Video saved in my playlist
Excellent work! This video really takes a solid un-biased approach to how formation combat likely worked. More than likely there wasn't just one way for every army as each battle was ever-changing. I'm glad "pushing" was also talked about as the theory of a mass push is rather silly, it's unfortunately common for people to take the opinion of one accredited expert and use that as definite truth. I especially enjoyed how the video showed a more organic formation, one that was not just a perfect square with defined spacing or where men stood in the front and fought until dying. The only thing I am still curious about is how the Greeks performed rank rotation, modern people don't tend to think about this concept at all and view battles as suicidal.
Perhaps it was for added mass and momentum, as a heavier unit is harder to push back. It interestingly did occur more often in the classical period, but it occurred more systematically as the battle went on, spears broke, and back lines pressed forward to support the front. I doubt hoplites could have endured it for long though. It was likely just the “finishing move” which occurred at the very end of some battles, when the enemy is wavering and exhausted, so you literally shove them off the field. I cant wait to cover it in a full video!
Even when shoving, men in the front would instinctively raise their shields somewhat to protect their face and neck from thrusts and slashes. Intuitively, I could imagine the second or 3rd rank of men using the length of their spears to thrust over the heads and between the legs of the men in front of them, stabbing at the head, shoulders, lower legs and feet of the enemy. As such, it makes sense why at least the men in the front would want armor to protect areas the shield didn't cover (head and legs), or which could be targeted through a gap in the shield wall if the man beside them got wounded or shoved out of position (torso and arms).
@@HistoriaMilitumtactically, I could see close shoving being employed by a general who perceives his men as having a significant advantage in armor or striking range over his enemy. If your front few ranks were fully armored while their opponents lacked head/leg/shoulder protection, or lacked weapons with sufficient range to effectively strike beyond the first rank, it might be very effective to bind the enemy's front line in a shoving match where they would be unable to maneuver their shields, and your rear ranks could thrust over top and beneath the shield wall to strike at unprotected legs and shoulders. A shoving bind would also force the theoretically even less protected rear ranks of the enemy to move closer to brace the men in front from getting pushed over, bringing them within striking range of your men as well. Given this advantage, it's unlikely a competent enemy general would willfully engage in such a bind, instead choosing to maintain a limited spear-thrusting distance, however it eventually reach a point where they'd be pushed so far back their flanks would become vulnerable, or they'd be forced off the battlefield onto unfavorable terrain. This type of aggression seems like it would be very effective for a disciplined, well equipped army, even if the forward press was only a bluffed threat of engaging in a bind, as it would undoubtedly be very intimidating to see a well equipped, disciplined formation relentlessly marching toward you.
@@LoreTunderin If you start stabbing your sword through the legs of your comrades you are more likely to hit the two or three dudes in the front ranks or trip them then you are to hit the enemy... And stabbing overhead sounds okay from the 2nd rank, but from the third rank? You would have to be a lot taller then them to actually see what you are stabbing at and reach that far... I don't think the people in the back ranks did much except keep an eye out for gaps forming in the line to fill them or to help people that fell in the front back to their feet and attack enemies that might try to attack their downed comrade, so they waited until they were needed and then stepped in to support the front rank or take over. It is really hard for me to imagine them doing any effective fighting from the back ranks past the front rank, aside from throwing a javelin or shooting a bow, but even that is risky when everyone is moving and jostled around...
Your work my friend helps contribute to our understanding of the ancient world in a better way And without you we probably live in the world of misconceptions of popular notion
Another fascinating video!! Thanks so much for your attention to detail and thorough illustrations. I have in my possession an ancient Greek coin of Tauric Chersonesos (350BCish) which depicts a nude hoplite in a crouching defensive position. In his right hand is a spear pointed forward, and though his shield obscures his spear-hand, it's fairly clear that he's holding it in an underhand guard. Personally the "whatever suits the situation" hypothesis seems most plausible.
Not always best soldiers, usually the greatest amount of soldiers is enough. This is called oblique order. I believe the strategekois (forgot it's spelling) talks about flankers and outflankers though which is what you're talking about. It's a free read
Wow, great video, thanks! As history enthusiast, I just love this kind of content that not only entertains, but helps to get new knowledge. Separate thanks comes for including footage from dearly beloved Total War franchise. Greetings and thanks from Russia.
While I think a literal shoving match would be a very rare occurrence, I suspect the action of threatening to engage in one may have been somewhat common tactic. If you knew your soldiers were fully protected with helmets and armor covering their arms, legs, shoulders and torsos, and you also knew your enemy had little beyond their shields and possibly their helmets, you would undoubtedly look for ways to exploit those disparities to your advantage. A commander who perceived his men to have such an could hypothetically leverage it by locking up the front ranks in a shield-to-shield shoving contest, forcing the enemy's poorly protected rear ranks to come forward to brace the men in front from getting shoved over, in turn bringing them within striking range of his first few ranks of spearmen. Of course this requires sufficient discipline, armor and weaponry, however it seems likely such a disparity in unit equipment and quality would have occurred many times given the number of battles that took place in the ancient world. Obviously a competent enemy would avoid such a bind if they knew they were at a disadvantage, so it's likely they would've kept backing up to stay safe and maintain maneuverability, but eventually they'd be forced to stand their ground lest their flanks become vulnerable or they get pushed off the field onto unfavorable terrain. Even bluffing such a bind only to pull up short of the enemy could be useful, I imagine. The sight of a disciplined, well equipped force methodically marching toward you in dense formation would be intimidating to just about anyone, and would surely cause some men to falter in their resolve to stand and fight.
I think the closest you'd get to this is the use of the momentum of charging men against stationary men to shove the enemy first rank into the enemy second rank. This momentum would also probably be channeled through spears hitting men or shields, not so much shield to shield. And such a tactic would only work if the men in your front rank all hit the enemy at pretty much the exact same time, something that's actually pretty hard to do in real life.
5:06 Please bear in mind that this works best in SOLO combat, not group combat, because by holding it at this angle, your shield is now not protecting you from the man to your diagonal right opposite you. For large, group fights, it actually makes more sense to overlap deeply and hold it straight.
Really interesting take on the subject. I had always assumed that that the light infantry would stay behind the heavies and chuck their javelins over the eight ranks of hoplites in front. Instead, you have them interspersed with the hoplites, moving in and out of the formation at will. If I understand you, a three or four rank phalanx would move into contact with the foe, the front rank would form a shield wall/ jabbing line and the other ranks and lights would support it as needed. I think Total War will have to do a major redesign :). On a side note, do you really think hoplites carried javelins? I always thought that a large shield strapped to the forearm would make throwing one difficult. Anyway, good job.
I really enjoyed the video and I think it really brings up very interesting points that are often not considered, like the way the spear was held and the fact that a phalanx(and most melee formations across history, really) would be comprised of both lighter and heavier infantry with different types of armament. BUT there are some points where I think you kind of overstate your idea of a "loose" formation in hoplite warfare, and overall exagerate your points a bit: - Equipment: Hoplite armor can't be considered "heavy armor", especially compared to later periods in history, but the compsition of this equipment (the shield specifically) does bring a cumbersome effect to a hoplite. My point is: even though 20 Kgs can't really be considered super heavy equipment, 16 Kgs in armor and a 4 Kg shield (a plausible medieval sergeant composition) is way less cumbersome than 13 Kgs in armor and a 7Kg shield (a plausible hoplite composition), and both kits are 20Kg. And the fact that they shifted from metal breastplates to linothorax doesn't mean linothorax were lighter (because, you know, metal is harder, so a typical Greek breastplate would be significantly thinner than a linothorax, and would weigh around the same). - Aspis: Again, wood is heavy because it needs to be thick in order to absorb the impact without shattering, making the (average) shield (around) 7 kilograms. That is lighter than it would be if it was made entirely of metal (which would be completely unwieldy), but it's not really light for a shield... at all. It's in the heavy side for shields of Antiquity, and it's heavier than pretty much any hand-held shield from the Medieval Period (you have the pavisse, but that was mostly deployed as a static barrier, not entirely handheld). - Spacing: you mention looser spacing being needed to "breathe and not suffer claustrophobia", and to "avoid trees, bushes and rough terrain", but these two reasons are not specific to hoplite warfare: they are universal. And there are plenty of times in history when we do know very tight formations were used, and these two factors were still applicable. So, why would claustrophobia and terrain matter so much in this context, but so little when it comes to other time periods in which tight formations were used? - What is the point of losing cohesion to charge, if no impact is going to occur? Why not march in formation untill the enemy is in reach for the spears? Trying to break the enemy moralle I suppose, but if it was common knowledge that charges usually didn't end in impact, would this really startle the enemy that much. Is it worth it to break the cohesion of you formation (even if it's not permanent) to give the enemy a little scare? I'm skeptical about this. Anyway, I feel like the Roman Combat videos were really on point, but this one seems a bit more clunky to me 🤷♂
Interesting points. I can answer about the one about charge, and my answer will be based on my memories and knowledge mainly. sorry if I can't remember many original sources. - first, you have to keep in mind that hoplites were mostly citizen soldiers, not warriors by profession, in fact there are significant differences between the way spartans (professionals) would fight and most hoplites armies would. Many parts of the way hoplites would fight were just rituals for bolstering the morale: singing chants for instance, or also making a run towards your enemy, can help dispel the fear of death before battle. Spartans would be less prone to do either of these things. - in some cases, charges are attested against persians (like in Marathon), probably with the main goal of minimizing time under enemy fire. The hoplites would regroup before actual contact with the enemy.
@HistoriaMilitium please watch Lindybeige's "The fighting method of most soldiers: one handed spear and shield". It makes way too much sense to be ignored. I think he is right on the spear grip type being underhand, held at the end of a spear for the actual advantage in range
I firmly believe that the depictions of the overhanded grip, is a result of two things. Artistic license, and the inability to draw the rotation of a shoulder. Overhanded is how you would throw a javelin. Underhanded, with your shoulder rotated so you could stab over the shield wall, is how you would actually fight. Go pick up 4 to 5 pound stick, and thrust it back and forth like a shake-weight. Tell me how efficient that is compared to picking up the same stick, and using the under handed grip style, at shoulder, or above shoulder height. With the overhand grip, you are not in an efficient position to recover. You either are going all in, with a javelin like running thrust where you don't release the spear. Or, you're moving your hand back and forth like you're giving a hand job. The underhanded position is a far more athletic position, you can recruit literally the entire body, from foot, through your legs, ass, back chest, shoulder and arm, into a quick stab.
TBF, I doubt people would hold it right at the end for 2 reasons: 1: Leverage. Holding it at the end means the spear is exponentially less wieldy since the point of balance is away from you, making carrying let alone accurate thrusting and redirecting extremely difficult. Remember, your opponent has a shield and armour, so accuracy is important, and battles can last for hours. 2: Holding the spear at different points is a vital part of spear combat since your opponent not knowing the extent of your reach makes it harder for them to know where they're safe, and how far they need to push to get inside your guard.
@@mercb3ast In the overhand grip, if you're holding the spear by about the middle and bend the elbow, you get a reasonably comfortable position. You can also point the head down towards the ground to make it even easier if there are no immediate threats. It might help to think of a spear in the overhand grip as a giant dagger with an enormous counterweight on the back. Also, obvious disclaimer that both positions are attested, both make sense in at least some contexts, and grip switching isn't terribly difficult.
An important thing about the overhand grip, is defence, the main target are the face, nec and shoulders, as everything else is basicly protected, an overhand grip allowes you to block and delfect, as if you had a giant car sweaper any blows to those areas, as well as a quick counter attack. whats also important is that you dont need or should hold the spear in the middle at the point of ballance, but behind the point of ballance, this gives you more reach and angels your spear downwards for defence, you only need to bring the tip up, while trusting, this is very easy and very hard to read. With a tapped rear ballanced spear (that existed at least in the later period) you dont need to use the trow catch / slide method t increase your reach that way.
THANK YOU FOR YOU FOR USING ILLUSTRATED ART WORK FOR YOUR VIDEOS AND NOT AI. I cannot stand all the historical content out with weird and whacky ai as illustration. Big thumbs up.
Where did you get the overhand underhand grip analysis from. Underhand has more reach and was used in group formations more, and overhand grip was better suited in close range and for dueling from what I've seen.
I do spear and shield fighting the difference in overhand and underhand grip reach is minimal. Underhand grip in formation doesn't work people behind get in the way.
Overhand has more power, more reach if you slide, and more targets, because you can go over your head to strike from your left shoulder. You can hit targets from nose to toes. Underhand gives low-line strikes to the same targets, feet, legs, that overhand can only come at from above, and allows you to hold the spear stretched out at a foe, for warding cavalry perhaps.
2:00 A danger and opportunity. They crash into a funnel, condensing them and forcing them into a ring while giving energy to be used in the engine and other things.
Very well done video, your explanations are easy to understand, and make rational sense. Instant sub, for once in a blue moon YT suggested good content!
I'm also really curious as to how they fought in a formation without poking the guy behind them when they drew their spears back to throse, or tangling the guy diagonally behind them if they tried to stab someone to their left or right. With shorter spears that might not be a problem, but how would they manage that with spears of 8 feet or longer? that problem seems to make the idea of a tight formation really hard to imagine.
You angle the spear head down slightly so the back is up you see it in artwork. Also when trusting with a spear its best to have it drawn back Reddy to trust that way you don't telegraph when you are going to trust or throw. I do spear and shield fighting in my spare time.
Very interesting, the light support infantry, which could act drag injure or dead heavier hoplite units out of the ways, back behind the line, to prevents them from being stampeded on by others.
While I may not be fully awake when I was watching this video, so I do apologies if I'm repeating what you already said HM, but for me personally I think the Greek Hoplite was more of a "jack of all trades, master of none" sort of deal, like a living Swiss army knife. The reason why is because considering just how damn rocky and mountainous Greece itself is the military minds in ancient Greece had to find a very fine line between protecting their warriors from Demeter's temper and protecting their warriors from their fellow man, and sense the legend of Troy most likely taught them that sticking to a single style of warfare is likely a death sentence, this two was a juggling act for them. My evidence. . none, this is all just stuff I duck-tapped together.
I am very much into horse and musket era wargaming, which has evolved to have detailed combat models really similar to whats described here. Some of the better rules do a great job at modelling group morale at the wave level, which is the primary factor in winning or losing the brigade sized assaults. A lot of ancients rules though stick with the rock-paper-scissors approach, with really fixed notions of weapons, armour, skirmishers. Be great to see ancients rules develop off in this tangent described in the video, modelling group behaviour above details of weapons and armour. Cool stuff
I always find it annoying how much people overplay the weight of armor in ancient and medieval warfare. I think people often tend to picture it in terms of lifting or carrying the weight in a backpack. When weight is properly distributed around your body it's much easier to stay mobile. Even modern infantryman carry quite a bit of weight between armor, weapons, and ammo yet remain relatively mobile.
I am very confident in saying that ancient hoplites, like most military soldiers past and present, had MANY formation and battle tactic options to choose from. No doubt, decisions would be made on and off the battlefield about which tactics to employ and when. "Scholars" are notorious for picking out one archaeological fact/find and applying it across the board to invalidate all other finds and theories. Then it gets repeated by books, movies, games, etc etc. Effective soldiers are highly adaptable, ask any special operations soldier.
Ive had so many discussions about how they would fight with my dad, we both love history but he did not believe when i explained him this. Throughout the ages you see this. Like the 1500/1600+ spanish formations ofc they would not reklessly charge at each other.
I feel ancient warfare was all about moral and discipline. The formations of the Greeks was expanded upon by the Macedonians whom increased the length of the spears and reduced the sizes of the shields. The phalanx of Alexander are detailed greatly. So, from this we can know alot about the Greeks methods of warfare. Firstly, as they were citizen soilders that fought for valour, plunder and the like no doubt they fought in a more comprehensive manner than being a military. Though, the Spartans were professional soilders and would have fought more like a modern military in tactics, ability and stamina. Making them much more formidable. After all, the majority of a citizens life is on tending their farms, families, daily householding and so forth. There was little time for military matters outside of training. While the Spartans were totally devoted to the disciplines and daily tasks associated with war. We see this later too with the Romans and how professional soldiers were much more formidable than there earlier citizen soldiers of the early republic. Secondly, with this in mind ancient Greeks methods of marching, fighting and war tactics would be predominantly against other greeks whom though they had considerable rivalry against still saw as equal. They may have even known other famous greek hoplites of the apossing army by name, for their renown in battle.. certainly if the Greeks when in times of peace traded and were allies, while in other times sought war among eachother.. in a land that all share the same language I imagine details of battles and victories details of which travelled far and wide. Even the use of the spear and a large shield was a focus on defence than offence. After all, as citizens soldiers they primarily went to war for the states benefit and as not being a professional military were not bound to harsh crimes for desertion like execution. Except in the case of the Spartans they were.. So, when the moral shifted it would be common for sudden routes to occur as those whom saw massive defeats occuring were prone to do. This was the case of the Spartans that fought the Thebians, and the Thebians sacred band defeated the most skilled Spartans on the right, which led to a total battlefield defeat even before any other units engaged. Likely, free greek mercilessly killing free Greeks was not a thing and there was a decorum of honour and respect among all Greeks for one another, such as gentlemanly behaviour in war. It would be therefore not a stretch to say that hoplites fought in a tight formation to maximise their chances of getting home safely, and loose formations would only benefit them in areas of rough terrain or the like. Tight formations with expressed emphasis of shoving seems a fair way to prevent unnecessary deaths as it was more a battle of pride than of mercilous warfare, no doubt Greeks saw other greeks as equals and though they had rivalries they were still Greeks. I feel a looser formation that is about manuverability doesn't make sense, as Greek citizen soldiers were not until later periods fighting to kill their opponents so much as defeat them. I feel that a tight formation where the lefts of their shields covered their comrades on their right seems quite plausible as the Romans though had looser formations predominantly used swords which required space between shields while Greeks used spears which were naturally used above the shields and the crescent space between the shields was a space for the spears to protude. They were heavily armoured and their gear weighted a great deal. Not to mention they were not accustomed to such large burdens as they were citizen soldiers. The Roman legionaries as a professional military were accustomed to large marches in full battle attire as it was their profession. But many Greek soldiers were artisans, traders, politicians, farmers, and so on not soldiers. Except the Spartans lol.. which is what made the Spartans unique. The heavily armoured units were Infront with the less armoured at back. those more accustomed to and gear for war therefore fought with experience in the front ranks of prestige while the back was for younger recruits, older man, those less able, with inquiring or less equiped. The rotating of ranks would be difficult in an environment where each man at the front was locked into the shield wall with his comrades and likely only happened if he was killed, inquired or fatigue to such a degree. but given the battles were mainly based on prestige, and didn't last more than an hour in ancient greek battles, more likely it was uncommon he retired due to fatigue alone. Such was not the case though when fighting from the Spartans as they were quite mericilous and they didn't even employ archers as they felt they were cowards.. Also, when fighting the Persians it was do or die, to save their homes, loved ones and state so naturally they fought to win and kill. But, the ferocity of battle would depend on the foe that was faced I feel. Even in the general climate, a weapon best suited for offense is a sword with it's versatility while defense is a spear with it's long range and longer point. Being also very useful against cavalry too. Of which ancient Greece didn't have much of, given they were a large mountainous delta except when fighting the barbarians of outer Greece, like the Macedonians or Scythians, Persians as they called them.. As a result I disagree with your views as many of them rely on a the concept they were professional soldiers. As a citizen soldier the aim was to maximise force in an era where few were professional soldiers, minimise casualties, for ones own personal reaons and in the Spartans case, to do their duty for the state under Spartan law.
Excellent points about citizen soldiers being highly influenced by the morale and support of their comrades, as well as their likely apprehension toward cutting down their fellow countrymen whom they may have known or traded with in the past. It makes sense that such an army would prefer dense formations that maximized protection and unit cohesion to lessen the possibility of a route, and that they put staked more value on making sure everyone made it home rather than maximizing their offensive capacity.
Aspides frequently had bronze rim reinforcing along with hide or linen. Aspis just means shield, and there were a bunch of different sizes and kinds, and though the bronze layer on the front seems to have been incredibly rare, reinforcing the edge with a layer of hide and a bronze rim is shown in depictions frequently. This would go a long way in protecting the shield against the use of both the kopis and the xyphos, which would definitely be used if a spear broke or the engagement DID get into really close-quarters combat. I am no metallurgist, but I would wager that bronze would be made using less tin, and thus softer, than if someone could afford a full sheet on their shield, and that is why we so rarely find these rims anywhere near intact, but we do find fragments of them with shields. I've never been a fan of the "hoplites had Xcm between them". That just...doesn't make sense in the real world. Far more likely, hoplites had close order, loose order, and "don't bother maintaining ranks" order after an enemy broke. This also explains why both underhand and overhand would be used; they serve different purposes. 90cm seems a bit large for a close-order formation, but too close for loose-order. I would guess more in the range of 70-80cm, with loose order being more like 90-110cm. The underhanded grip would certainly be better for attacking fleeing enemies. I also think it makes sense for the first row to use underhanded grip, and the rest to go overhanded, so an enemy has at least 4 enemies on a solid front to worry about, only in the first rank. As to the pushing, I believe that it was both the normal "they pushed y units back" as they give ground, as well I think when a gap occurred, say 2 men are downed and two others attempt to flee, an actual push would be made to try to break into the ranks of the enemy. This is how Romans did it, it is how Angles and Saxons, how Danes and Norse did it, and it is how the Chinese did it way on the other side of Eurasia. If a gap opens, you DO try to push it, and actually physically push your way, along with some buddies, into that gap. But if it doesn't work, you back off, and I think this is likely where a significant portion of the fatalities in Greek warfare occurred, at least in the Archaic period. I think THAT is what "othismos" refers to, that push into a gap that is the ATTEMPT to end a battle. Got to admit, I almost stopped watching when you started with Hanson, glad I stuck with it. God I hate that guy.
Mmm, there is something “odd” about the aspis: the grips are offset, so a much larger portion of the shield sticks out to the left side of the man wielding it. Any idea as to why? This seems to not fit well with the “shield at an angle” discourse.
I never quite really understood the debate about overhand and underhand. You can switch from under to over quite easily, and with the help of your shield/left hand the other way around too. Overhand is maybe a bit shorter initially, but you're also stabbing down, which allows you to use gravity for force. And once you connect you can actually thrust further than without connecting. And underhand is obviously more rangey and more testey.
Great video. I am new to the channel so im sorry to ask but, is there any video about how Alexander the Great's army fought? If its not i would suggest it honestly. I am really curious what heppened when the battle started. Being forced to charge at those Sarisa's would probably be a nightmare and a massive hit to morale of the enemy army
Tyrtaeus also mentioned initial charges where spears pierced shields, so there may have been battles where leaders called plays like in American football hoping to catch their enemies off guard with an aggressive play.
I mostly agree with this model. But it does bring to mind a question: modern subunits are almost all combined arms. We see skirmishers here, but wouldn't we then expect to see small cavalry detachments spread behind the line, or axemen, etc? Wouldn't we see combined arms 'brigades'?
this whole misconception that armies would charge at each other at full speed is great for the movies but this is much more to how it must have went down. that explains why battles would last a whole day or sometimes several days with intermediate periods of rest. great work.
Don't really care about the charging misconceptions. The true worse part about Hollywood battle scenes is how it descends into chaotic duels. People think that's cool but it's extremely unimmersive
@@adambrande that part too. good call
@@adambrandeyeah and then when we see the Scots or the Japs do it, it would be even more impactful.
(Scots = highland charge & Japs = banzai charge)
@@adambrandeWell the charging misconceptions are how they end up in those duels in the first place
@@adambrande The charging is just as "unimmersive" since I know it wasn't at all like that. I kinda care about gross misconceptions being put into movies. I understand they are meant to entertain, which they do, but historical movies often claim to be (cough* Braveheart), seem to be (by doing other parts of it very accurately) but even more often, are interpreted by the viewer as accurate.
Then people "learn" the wrong things and we're no longer ignorant about a topic, but even worse; misinformed. I fell for SO MANY false things, watching movies that looked well researched or with an authentic feel. I hated when I found out I had learned bullshit, and I had in some case TAUGHT that bullshit to others. You get my jist, right? I'm a war history enthusiast and I love teaching about it. When I watch war movies with people, I like to explain some of the things, then these inaccuracies come up, and they're like "that is so dumb, war is so dumb." and I have to re-educate them and undo the misinformation they're being fed. I remember my mom exclaiming how war was dumb when watching the two sides clash like MANIACS in Braveheart. "That's SO not how it happened, mom." "Then how did it happen then? Why is the movie showing it this way?" Sigh.
I remember her asking "How did they know who was on their side?" as the same movie showed the whole army break into unsupported individual duels, alllll mixed up in a crowd of men of both sides. "Again, mom. Wasn't even close to looking like that." Damage control again. Without my guidance, my mom would ABSOLUTELY believe that Braveheart's insane battle scenes are a decent representation of historical battles. She would anti-learned history. As a history enthusiast, I hate that.
Basically, it's not the worst thimngs for movies to be historically inaccurate, but it's sometimes irresponsible, in a broad educational sense, since millions of people watch some of these movies and think they learn from them.
I feel like this is the most intuitive way to explain how battles were fought.
Sort of, he made some assumptions that seems to disregard the context faced by the soldier themselves which could dramatically influence how they fought.
For example, the typical Greek hoplite was a citizen soldier, meaning they were a farmer or a fisherman or politician first and a soldier second, so it's unlikely every man in a unit had the same level of combat skill, discipline, desire to kill, or resolve to resist running away in fear during the heat of battle.
There's also the missing context of what those early battles between Greek city states were actually fought over. These armies weren't really trying to destroy each other outright so much as make the other side concede, as these battles usually occurred to resolve disputes over things like who got to farm a particularly good area of land, or who got to fish a specific area, or who got to determine the path and collect tax on certain trade routes, etc.. These were largely battles between farmers from the same country who all spoke the same language, and who likely would have been trading and intermingling with each other in the days before the battle. They didn't really want to kill their opponents, they just wanted them to give up and go home.
As such, it makes sense that a citizen army of part time soldiers whose biggest concern is making sure everyone makes it home, and who don't really wish death upon their enemy, would choose to use a tight formation that focuses on defense, unit cohesion and maximizing unit morale and comradery, as it gives everyone the best chance of making it home and keeps everyone in good spirits, reducing the likelihood of men losing their nerve, and making it hard for them to run away even if they do, as they would have to push through their comrades to get away.
For armies fighting an existential threat to their homeland and loved ones, or for professionals like the Spartans who trained religiously and enslaved their enemies, a looser formation that requires more discipline to maintain but maximizes maneuverability and offensive capacity makes sense.
@@LoreTunderin I disagree with your assertion that they didn't actually want to kill each other. These city states were clearly very nationalistic, with the citizens feeling a very strong identity to their respective state. Any dispute with another state would be seen as a grave offense against their honor and dignity as a people. It is very escalatory to assemble an army and march on another state over a small dispute, so even a seemingly small issue could easily turn into a violent, vehement conflict. And when the soldier faces off against another soldier with deadly weapons, and they see one of their comrades fall at the hands of an enemy soldier, they will certainly develop the resolve to aim to kill the enemy, if they didn't already before the battle. They did spend a long time screaming at each other and yelling insults before the battle, remember? The two sides hate each other's guts no matter how silly the initial dispute seems.
@@ExponentMars battles over honor were fairly rare in the period addressed in this video, becoming more common in the Classical period. Casualty rates were typically between 3 and 10 percent for the winners and losers respectively on average, with the numbers being inflated by disproportionately large outliers of one or two battles. In the early period referred to here, the vast majority of battles were individual actions lasting hours at most between city states over arable land, pasture land, fishing rights, etc.
@@LoreTunderinhoplites weren't just your average farmer or peasant, they had enough money to equip and train themselves
@@LoreTunderinno the denser the formation the more discopline cohision and Training is needed, at least if you wanna do any manuvering and not just do a static shield wall.
Our medival sources and xenophon, comander of the March of 10 000 talk in dept about how hard it is to maitain formation, cohision when manuvering a dense phalanx (of untrained).
Please do a video on how different types of cavalries were actually used in battles. We all know they had the advantage of mobility and were best flanking troops but how did the charge/skirmish actually take place on a minute-to-minute basis ? How was the communication done ? How did the troops managed to not enter a state of chaos & rampage ? What did the horses and the soldiers do after they made first contact with the enemy ? How long did the troops stay in contact (melee/ranged) with the enemy ? What would be the course of action of a cavalry commander/soldier from the start of a battle till the end of it ? [for any (specific) culture/civilization] ?
There are so many questions that are not properly answered anywhere, would love to see many videos on this topic, specially for distinct cavalry types. Thank you for your efforts.
Cheers!!!
Excellent proposition. That would be a very topic, both for the Greek and Roman armies. And respect for your generous donation.
This was also my next topic that immediately came to mind because it seems like it’s the next step in changing the state of the battlefield but it obviously wasn’t used every time or immediately even when it was available so just as with infantry warfare the ins and outs are not obvious to me.
Cavalry is indeed very interesting. For large parts it was a separate battle. The nobility having their private duel, where they tried to capture each other for ransom. A video would highly exciting.
@@drallcom3ehhh, not really. That mostly only happened if and when two cavalry formations intercepted each other on their way to charge the infantry. At least with heavy cavalry, their main objectives were generally either charge and break enemy infantry, flank them and do the previous, or protect their infantry from enemy cavalry doing it. (or any formation trying to flank. They also had a large part in preventing the use of artillery by charging the crews.
I yearn for the day when an ancient battle is realistically recreated in a movie or simulation… I hope these videos create some demand for it! 🤞
Please, make a realistic cavalry video. Not just horses and swords, but other types, like elephants, chariots and mounted archers. And let some sources in description PLEASE!
I think part of the problem is that Hollywood favors excitement over accuracy. Look at that charge in Troy - outright suicidal, but it looked great! Hollywood also loves to have their heroes break ranks and dive right into the thick of the enemy lines, which in reality would just get you hacked to pieces from all sides, but in movies it serves to distinguish the characters who matter from the faceless mooks.
@@KroganCharrYes this is the crux of it. It's not about knowing what's realistic or not, it's about humans innate desire for hero worship. Depicting an ancient battle realisticly leaves little to no room for individual feats of heroism or storytelling, a very bleak affair.
It would be a bunch of men awkwardly shuffling around out of the enemies weapon range, mixed with brief periods of intense violence that end in some poor men getting caught out and cut down in an inglorious fashion.
The followup to that would be one side breaking and the other side massacring them in small isolated groups for as long as possible.
If modern audiences saw that, they'd immediately support the looser of that battle just beacause the way it was won and the pursuit that ensued would seem incredibly villanous to most people.
Unless the realistic battle depiction is used to set up the antagonist faction in the beginning of a movie I don't ever see it being done because it's deeply harmful to archetypical narratives.
@@KroganCharra “realistic” depiction would actually look better than the mindless battle scenes in Hollywood. Rome tried to do it in season 2 (with some inaccuracies).
Plz make realistic history about the "Macedonian" Phalanx because some sources say their sarissas 3rd & 4th back rows tilted upwards protects the whole unit from arrows which doesn't make sense how thin those sarissas were
I think one underappreciated part of the Hoplite Phalanx is the psychology. The vast, VAST majority of battles throughout history were not lost by annihilation, but rout. The Phalanx psychologically minimizes the chances of that happening. The front rank soldier was surrounded by allies on both flanks and his back, which at the same time made him feel supported and made it difficult to turn and run, even if he wanted to - he'd have to drop his unwieldy spear and shove his way past his own allies, probably getting himself and his family shamed for life, if he's not outright cut down for cowardice.
Warfare got somewhat more chaotic and cavalry dominated in the middle ages, but early modern warfare did something similar to the Phalanx again with their so called "pike and shot" formations, which led to infrantry dominating battles once more. Formations like the "Tercio" were very much spiritual successors of Hoplite warfare, and they were as late as the 18th century. The general idea behind the Phalanx was, in some shape or another, used over thousands and thousands of years, and only met its final death when gunpowder weapons became so effective that pure hand to hand infantry was abolished altogether.
You forgot the part where he explained that it was typically the soldiers in the BACK which ran away first. This had a psychological impact that no formation could stave off. When the man who had minutes before had another man at his back supporting him now finds the people to the back and side of him running off, no formation can hold for long.
@@ExponentMars I didn't forget that part. Nothing I said is contradicted by what you said.
The men at the very back of a battle formation that does hand to hand combat are the ones who have the least reason to fear and thus run away (except when the Phalanx is being flanked, but then it's pretty much screwed regardless). By the point the men in the back ranks lose heart and run, the men in the front would have long since broken in a formation that ISN'T organized in this manner. It doesn't completely prevent the rout, no formation can do that, but it can delay it significantly, often long enough so that the opponent breaks first and you win the battle.
Nothing is foolproof, but this was one distinct advantages that caused the Phalanx to spread and be widely adopted throughout the Mediterranean and beyond.
I both agree and disagree with your take. Few things have to be pointed out. Primo, infantry fighting in close phalanx-like formations never really fully disappeared and certainly was present in the Middle Ages. Descriptions of infantry fighting that way date even as early as the XI century.
Secundo Pike&Shot formations have their roots in the Middle Ages they didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere in the Early Modern Era.
Tertio, when it comes to the supposed chaotic nature of warfare in the Middle Ages keep in mind that cavalry also used large formations and wasn't just fighting in unorganized bands.
YES! This is why in human history, in terms of fighting, people line up. Whether with spears, swords, or muskets! Only in modern times, do we see that soldiers are likely to do better if they are split into smaller and smaller groups. Traditionally.... getting this big ball of whoop ass and keeping it from running away.... is what won.
Yes.
The Roman videos were crazy good - glad you took on this. There is something more intimate about studying actual behaviours of soldiers with the tactics-equipment-culture of the period
There's an interesting Pictish stone which shows a battle scene, believed to have occurred around the mid-9th century CE, called the Aberlemno 2 stone. The middle section of the scene shows 3 men on the left, with the furthest left figure it's not obvious what he's armed with (it's likely a spear or pike held vertically), but the other two are armed with an interesting combination of weapons. One is armed with what seems to be a pike - or a long spear at least - which is weilded with both hands, and appears to have a shield strapped to his left arm. The pike is held at waist height, held out horizontally. The man in front of him is armed with a sword and shield.
It is interesting to me that the infantry are arranged in such a manner, and I thought I'd mention it as I thought it might make for an interesting video.
It's interesting that you PICTED that one.
Aberlemno Kirkyard Stone, in Aberlemno, Scotland. Spearman in that piece looks like he's holding off the incoming horseman. Found it just by googling "Pictish stone which shows a battle scene" 🙏🏾💡
Very interesting! But surely you meant AD.... not CE... People need to stop using it. It means nothing. Our years are counting from a very specific event, and it is pointless to pretend they are not...
@@daveweiss5647 CE has been used for around 400 years. It was started by Christians. The reason it was used is because AD was not accurate. Using the AD system, Jesus was born in either BCE 6 or 7 depending on which account you use. CE is the correct system, if you want to count from that very specific event. I suggest you actually read up on the history of this method of counting before you comment. Educating yourself before expressing an opinion ensures you have an opinion that is valid.
@macgonzo wrong, I am very aware of the history and context... but AD is still the correct term- people use CE to try and denigrate western civilization and the Christian origins of the system... this is actually very unscientific regardless of whatever its origins may be, because it obfuscate the reality of the reasons for the numbers themselves...
Historical total war could make a resurgence if they started making battles super detailed like this.
U kind of can simulate the tentative aspect with pvp if u communicate with the opponent when to press and retreat but I agree it would be cool to see the intricacies such as the fluidity of movement battle
Historical total war could make a resurgence if they started making good games again
This is not possible due to having a human of 2024 in control. In fact rome has the option to make the hoplites move more freely but they don't. Same thing with unit size and width. Everyone makes different use based on situations etc.
This channel deserves to become the benchmark of ancient warfare knowledge amongst learning institutions. Great job again!!!
I love the fact that you do your own research and state your sources, instead of just repeating a wikipedia page like most history channels do. Keep it up!
Can you do a video for the cavalry vs cavalry warfare too?
Yes, I think that will be the next video in this series.
@@HistoriaMilitum I really hope you will go in detail about how cavarly charges worked. I can't wrap around my head how they managed to use for example the wedge formation without suffering constants losses of the lead man.
@@mogyesz9 As far as I know, the wedge wasn't actually all that well utilized for exactly this reason, and/or not in the way movies or video games would depict it. For example, Alexander's companion cavalry used the wedge, but it was a formation for MANEUVERING the cavalry, not for enemy contact. The man at the tip of the wedge was the commander of the unit, and the point was that everyone could see him and follow his lead without any need to communicate additional orders. This made a highly mobile unit that can change direction at a moment's notice, reacting to new developments or proactively surprising the enemy. When the cavalry would commit and actually charge into the enemy line, the wedge would be dissolved.
@@KroganCharr The wadge or rather a wage-column formation was certainly used in the Middle Ages although it actually had a "flat nose", in other words, the tip of the wedge would consist of 3 to 5 riders rather than just one.
@@mogyesz9 I find it hard to see how a wedge formation could work. The Byzantine cavalry charge with a linear formation, but unlike what is depicted in movies and film, they charge slower, as in not with a gallop but with a canter. With a gallop, they will likely lose formation, but with the slower canter they can maintain a tight formation, forming a tight wall of armored animal and rider going straight at you. I can imagine how terrifying it would be if I were the charged infantry. Wedge formation doesn't look that scary in comparison
PLEASE keep this goldmine of a series going! I’d love if you overviewed Native American, ancient Asian, and medieval tactics as well!
For those who are curious, there is one accurate battle depicted in a movie: Alexander's battle of Gaugamela. Sadly, it's literally the only accurate one in Hollywood history, and even the only accurate one within that same movie...
I love that someone’s finally addressing this. I want to add that most archaic hoplites tended to carry smaller shields than classical era hoplites, probably because of the scale of their conflicts and the lack of massed missile troops and true cavalry at the time.
During the classical era, Italian hoplites changed in a different direction, trading the throwable spears for large bladed javelins and fighting at close range with their swords.
Really well nuanced, believable examination of the fighting style. I think that sums up the battles of the times very well, personally.
What’s charming and also frustrating about Ancient Greek history is how little documented information there is. Two spears were only held during Mycenaean era, phalanx literally means roller (more “rolling” happened in Hellenistic times, but still happened earlier), and the rear of the dory had a pyramid shaped point specifically designed to be planted in the ground to stop enemies on horseback. Herodotus dramatized all his records, but I find that he goes into more detail than any other writer. I am building my own aspis and you added a new theory to the purpose of the ropes, and I didn’t know they played a game of telephone before war. Cool video, I understand it’s more for the masses, but don’t be afraid to use technical terms like “linothorax” when describing linen armor.
The other side the Dori is called Styrax(Styrakas) or Savrotiras.also Dori spear was never throwned because it wasnt designed to do so and it was kinda stupid to throw your main weapon and disrespectful act of a soldier towars his family gen by generation passed armor.What was meant probably in the video was an Akontion a smaller Javelin Spear which was carried mostly by peltasts in numbers of two or more and could be thrown.Those might seam details but are not.Etymology of words can help us finding the origin and use of very objects.For example Xiphos and Kopis are two completely different things Xiphos as the word Xiphias in Hellenic means the swordfish cames for drilling.While Kopis from noun Kopto literally means cut so its for slushing.This video has some mistakes unfortunately.
Assuming there was a push contest, interlocked shields (one overlaping the one next) would be tough enough to break anyway. Because interlocking shields would lessen the front of the first rank, every rank would have to interlock shields as well to maintain formation. Each rank was pushed forward by the shields of the following rank, and so on! Picture not just a single shieldwall but successive ranks of shieldwals all packed together! Enemies would have to push a shield, held in place by the shields next to it and the bodies behind them, plus the collective pressure of several ranks of (interlocked) shields and bodies further back. In fact, holding the rope of the next shield (instead of your own shield handle), would transfer all that pressure on your wrist bone instead of your soulder; I guess it would snap pretty quickly. Appart that, those ropes were allover that shield, not just in one side. It's straightforward to assume they were put in place so that you could hang your shield somewhere, like in a wall, or a ship parapet to cover rowers, or in a weapons locker, or simply your back when on a march. But I can't thing of any fighting technique using ropes instead of handles.
You must live in Greece to speak perfectlly the language first..then hidden meanings the words will reveal you ,also to visit and study the places...after the exchibits in museum to see armors helmets etc...to get the message,and to study the modern Greek psycology also...some remains of the ancient era still existing to reveal you the passion of these men...regards from an ex museum guardian from Korinth Greece
The pyramid shaped rear end of the spear may not had been sharp enough to "slice through" but it was ideal for killing fallen enemies by cracking their armor. Fallen enemies which were still alive were still a danger since they would try to use a dagger and maim the advancing troops hence the role of the middle lines was to wipe them out. Using the back end it was more than enough to crush and break through armors.
The back end point of the spear was called the 'lizard sticker'. They used it to kill enemies who got underneath the shield wall.
At 12:54 That was riot police from the Netherlands, not Denmark. The police with the plexiglass transparent shields are Danish though, but the police in yellow-black uniforms with small round shields are from the Netherlands!
These videos are great! I love how you're making historical combat look realistic and so true to life. Could you do the same to heavily armored infantry knights during the high medieval period, as well as halberders and pikes in the late medieval period?
Thank you! If the sources allow it, we would love to move to the medieval period as well, perhaps after Macedonian and cavalry combat.
These videos do such a good job clearing up so many questions I had about the actual details of large scale melee battles. I have always wanted to visualize these kinds of battles from a soldier’s perspective and understand both the individual perspective but also how that affects the flow of the battle at each scale as we zoom out and get a broader view of the battlefield (Old generals’ ability to do this in real time on the battlefield is incredible to me). These videos give me the pieces necessary to do that, as someone else said this feels like the most intuitive way to explain how these battles actually worked. Still with that being said I struggle to put them all together in my head and truly visualize the battle, some parts were still somewhat cloudy to me, even though I understood how that kind of warfare works a lot better now.
I was shocked at how good of an analog riot police standing off against rioters/protesters was for organized, pre-firearms warfare. I was racking my brain trying to think of more situations that would be similar, specifically one that I might have more experience with so I could really visualize it. After a while I think I came up with the best one possible because it’s something most people probably have experience with and might even be a better analog than riots. It sounds so weird to say but I think dodgeball is an almost perfect way to visualize what these kinds of battles were like, especially if you make a few minor tweaks to it.
I mean just consider the standard set up for a dodgeball game during gym when you were in school. I’m sure there were variations but typically I remember a few balls would be given to both sides and then a line of them would be set up at the halfway point between the ends of the court, teams would run from either end towards the center (initial charge), slow down to throw their dodge balls and/or because they were scared of getting hit or the other team getting to the unclaimed balls in the middle first (not committing to the charge opting to throw missiles/projectiles instead), quickly everyone would run out of balls and be forced to go for the fallen ones and the ones in the middle, which would expose them so quick exchanges would occur here for a second before people retreated back to their team (resuming the charge, front liners exchanging blows before tiring and breaking off back to their ranks), from here it would just be waves of people who had balls and worked up the courage running up to throw one or two while dodging and weaving, inspiring others with balls to add to the volley, before stepping back so as to not be as prominent of a target since you can only dodge for so long before getting hit, and then being replaced with another wave (waves of front liners charging and clashing with the enemy before tiring/getting wounded/pulling the wounded away from the front line and retreating back to their ranks to be replaced by the next group of front liners getting ready to charge). I feel like this is a really good way of understanding the “dynamic standoff” model which makes sense because those feel like good words to describe dodgeball.
Even stuff like the kind of spacing needed between soldiers starts to become really intuitive, because just the space needed to throw and doge is quite roomy, but you also don’t want to get singled out by the opponents so you have to stay somewhat close to your teammates, and this is going to be really similar to what was done on the battlefield for nearly the same reasons. It is also similar in the way that throwing projectiles in between charges seems to be what soldiers are going to be doing most of the time in a battle and they would also probably be constantly picking up thrown javelins the same way you do in dodge ball, because they can throw back the javelins that the enemy throws at them, and if they can push their enemy back they may even end up advancing as far as they threw their own javelins at the enemy. Even stuff like taunting opponents and that causing people to attack is very congruent. The similarities start to break down when it comes to formations and the routing phase, but when it comes to the route part of battles that is a lot more intuitive at least for me, and I feel like the other incongruities can be supplemented if you imagine just a few changes.
Where the similarities started getting really uncanny for me is when I imagined dodgeball but with shields of similar size used in these kinds of battles, and without the line of balls in the center of the court but instead everyone just has one or two dodge balls to begin with. The more I imagine this the more I feel like this must be the closest you can get to what these battles were like without actually being in one. You can imagine a rough, uncoordinated formation taking shape naturally, the match taking a lot longer, and this one might be a stretch but I feel like you might even see people taking a ball and using it to tag people directly with it to get around the shield being an effective strategy, essentially getting pretty close to fighting with a very short sword and shield.
Really sorry to go on this long rant about dodge ball of all things but I have been trying to understand battles like these for a very long time and these videos were such a huge help for me. I just wanted to share my weird final epiphany of “ancient warfare was like deadly dodge ball with shields” and see if anyone else sees the similarities I do.
Man.. This is brillant. Thank you
Good video, which tries to break with some of the myths regarding ancient warfare! As a former history student, i totally like this. I would love, if you could write down the sources, which you used for the video in the video description or maybe even in the timestamps.
Like this, its far better to comprehend where you got the information from. Keep up the work :)
Thank you! We are still compiling the sources. I will add then to the description soon.
These videos of the battle models are so good. Thank you for this top quality content.
Fantastic video, and great person for knowledge. Paul is one of my favorite sources of knowledge and a good friend. Well done!
love love love your videos my man. been watching for a long time now usually over a morning coffee. tonight over a JD & Coke . keep it up you're doing an amazing job
Thank you for your interest and support! :)
These Battle Model videos are fascinating. I hope you do this for all ancient armies. I’d also love to see this in medieval warfare. One of the ones I truly hope that you do is Hannibal and the Carthaginians. If you already have, I apologize. I just discovered this channel.
cool and comprehensible vid ,now i've Curiosity about the battles between romans and greeks and the roman advantages on greeks in combat , i hope you make a vid about it .
Look up the Battle of Cynoscephalae here in TH-cam. There are plenty of videos outlining how the Roman Manipular formation enabled them to conquer Greece and defeat the Macedonian kings.
surely i will
This explains the Greek dominance of the Mediterranean so much.
The never really did.
@@EAfirstlastHow so?
@@EAfirstlast you need to learn some history there buddy, before the romans, the greeks were the main power in the mediterranean especially from 500bc-300bc, around 800bc to 500bc, they spread out to southern italy, souther france and other parts of the mediterranean, they also have colonies around the black sea coast..lets not forget the romans that later dominated the mediterranean were heavily infuence by the greeks especially there building style, there religion and there culture..romans were pretty much hellenized after they conquered greece..roman emperors were fluent in greek language and greek was the language of eastern part of the empire.
@@fmoa2541 And all through that time they were challenged. That isn't dominance. The greeks never dominated the mediteranean. In large part because there is no 'Greek' empire. There's a dozen city states and a handful of larger ones all happily sinking each other's ships.
@@EAfirstlast so if they were not dominant than how come the entire mediterranean during that time was influence by there art, culture, religion and architecture, theres other forms of dominance, not just miitary dominance..the etruscans were influenced by the greeks with art and architecture, the carthiginians were influence by them in terms of military tactics, trade, art and political system, the carthiginians model its political system after sparta, the romans were influence by greek art, architecture, trade and religion..yeah there was no greek empire, but there art,architecture, religion, trade and culture influence entire mediterranean.
YESSS!!! another video!
once again great work, loving this series
I have to say that these kind of videos are pure gold. I feel I learn a lot.
AND please, Classical period is requested and required
Video saved in my playlist
Excellent work! This video really takes a solid un-biased approach to how formation combat likely worked. More than likely there wasn't just one way for every army as each battle was ever-changing. I'm glad "pushing" was also talked about as the theory of a mass push is rather silly, it's unfortunately common for people to take the opinion of one accredited expert and use that as definite truth. I especially enjoyed how the video showed a more organic formation, one that was not just a perfect square with defined spacing or where men stood in the front and fought until dying. The only thing I am still curious about is how the Greeks performed rank rotation, modern people don't tend to think about this concept at all and view battles as suicidal.
Really interesting video, always excited to see an upload from this channel. Always entertains
If it was all about shoving, why would you bother with so much armor to tire you out in the first place?
Perhaps it was for added mass and momentum, as a heavier unit is harder to push back. It interestingly did occur more often in the classical period, but it occurred more systematically as the battle went on, spears broke, and back lines pressed forward to support the front. I doubt hoplites could have endured it for long though. It was likely just the “finishing move” which occurred at the very end of some battles, when the enemy is wavering and exhausted, so you literally shove them off the field. I cant wait to cover it in a full video!
You'd probably be in for a very bad surprise if only your army showed up unarmoured
Even when shoving, men in the front would instinctively raise their shields somewhat to protect their face and neck from thrusts and slashes. Intuitively, I could imagine the second or 3rd rank of men using the length of their spears to thrust over the heads and between the legs of the men in front of them, stabbing at the head, shoulders, lower legs and feet of the enemy. As such, it makes sense why at least the men in the front would want armor to protect areas the shield didn't cover (head and legs), or which could be targeted through a gap in the shield wall if the man beside them got wounded or shoved out of position (torso and arms).
@@HistoriaMilitumtactically, I could see close shoving being employed by a general who perceives his men as having a significant advantage in armor or striking range over his enemy. If your front few ranks were fully armored while their opponents lacked head/leg/shoulder protection, or lacked weapons with sufficient range to effectively strike beyond the first rank, it might be very effective to bind the enemy's front line in a shoving match where they would be unable to maneuver their shields, and your rear ranks could thrust over top and beneath the shield wall to strike at unprotected legs and shoulders. A shoving bind would also force the theoretically even less protected rear ranks of the enemy to move closer to brace the men in front from getting pushed over, bringing them within striking range of your men as well. Given this advantage, it's unlikely a competent enemy general would willfully engage in such a bind, instead choosing to maintain a limited spear-thrusting distance, however it eventually reach a point where they'd be pushed so far back their flanks would become vulnerable, or they'd be forced off the battlefield onto unfavorable terrain. This type of aggression seems like it would be very effective for a disciplined, well equipped army, even if the forward press was only a bluffed threat of engaging in a bind, as it would undoubtedly be very intimidating to see a well equipped, disciplined formation relentlessly marching toward you.
@@LoreTunderin If you start stabbing your sword through the legs of your comrades you are more likely to hit the two or three dudes in the front ranks or trip them then you are to hit the enemy... And stabbing overhead sounds okay from the 2nd rank, but from the third rank? You would have to be a lot taller then them to actually see what you are stabbing at and reach that far...
I don't think the people in the back ranks did much except keep an eye out for gaps forming in the line to fill them or to help people that fell in the front back to their feet and attack enemies that might try to attack their downed comrade, so they waited until they were needed and then stepped in to support the front rank or take over. It is really hard for me to imagine them doing any effective fighting from the back ranks past the front rank, aside from throwing a javelin or shooting a bow, but even that is risky when everyone is moving and jostled around...
Your work my friend helps contribute to our understanding of the ancient world in a better way
And without you we probably live in the world of misconceptions of popular notion
Another fascinating video!! Thanks so much for your attention to detail and thorough illustrations. I have in my possession an ancient Greek coin of Tauric Chersonesos (350BCish) which depicts a nude hoplite in a crouching defensive position. In his right hand is a spear pointed forward, and though his shield obscures his spear-hand, it's fairly clear that he's holding it in an underhand guard. Personally the "whatever suits the situation" hypothesis seems most plausible.
The 2 fighting armies would put their best soldiers on the right flank which often led to a counterclockwise movement of the battle.
IIRC the Romans actually subverted this on occasion just to catch their enemy off guard.
Not always best soldiers, usually the greatest amount of soldiers is enough. This is called oblique order. I believe the strategekois (forgot it's spelling) talks about flankers and outflankers though which is what you're talking about. It's a free read
@@KroganCharr I believe it was Thebes that did the opposite when they faced the Spartans
Wow, great video, thanks! As history enthusiast, I just love this kind of content that not only entertains, but helps to get new knowledge. Separate thanks comes for including footage from dearly beloved Total War franchise. Greetings and thanks from Russia.
We really need such a great content for generic pike phalanxes - I am waiting for that with very high expectations, set by this videos!
This is my favorite history channel ever and it's always a good day when you uploads! Never thought colored geometric shapes would be so interesting
Thank you for your praise and support, it really makes the effort worth it!
Great Video as always!
This makes me think how good were the Romans that beat these tactics. Excellent video 👌
While I think a literal shoving match would be a very rare occurrence, I suspect the action of threatening to engage in one may have been somewhat common tactic.
If you knew your soldiers were fully protected with helmets and armor covering their arms, legs, shoulders and torsos, and you also knew your enemy had little beyond their shields and possibly their helmets, you would undoubtedly look for ways to exploit those disparities to your advantage.
A commander who perceived his men to have such an could hypothetically leverage it by locking up the front ranks in a shield-to-shield shoving contest, forcing the enemy's poorly protected rear ranks to come forward to brace the men in front from getting shoved over, in turn bringing them within striking range of his first few ranks of spearmen. Of course this requires sufficient discipline, armor and weaponry, however it seems likely such a disparity in unit equipment and quality would have occurred many times given the number of battles that took place in the ancient world.
Obviously a competent enemy would avoid such a bind if they knew they were at a disadvantage, so it's likely they would've kept backing up to stay safe and maintain maneuverability, but eventually they'd be forced to stand their ground lest their flanks become vulnerable or they get pushed off the field onto unfavorable terrain.
Even bluffing such a bind only to pull up short of the enemy could be useful, I imagine. The sight of a disciplined, well equipped force methodically marching toward you in dense formation would be intimidating to just about anyone, and would surely cause some men to falter in their resolve to stand and fight.
Sounds good in theory. But getting a full army (of likely mixed ability, experience and equipment) to do this mid-battle is something else entirely.
@@Azog150 just hit the hotkey, you gotta set those up beforehand, duh
I think the closest you'd get to this is the use of the momentum of charging men against stationary men to shove the enemy first rank into the enemy second rank.
This momentum would also probably be channeled through spears hitting men or shields, not so much shield to shield.
And such a tactic would only work if the men in your front rank all hit the enemy at pretty much the exact same time, something that's actually pretty hard to do in real life.
Can you do one for Classical Greece as well? Like the Peloponnesian War? Just discovered your channel and I‘m obsessed!
I am glad you enjoy our content! We are currently writing the script for Greek classical warfare. It should be out in the coming months!
5:06 Please bear in mind that this works best in SOLO combat, not group combat, because by holding it at this angle, your shield is now not protecting you from the man to your diagonal right opposite you. For large, group fights, it actually makes more sense to overlap deeply and hold it straight.
Really interesting take on the subject. I had always assumed that that the light infantry would stay behind the heavies and chuck their javelins over the eight ranks of hoplites in front. Instead, you have them interspersed with the hoplites, moving in and out of the formation at will. If I understand you, a three or four rank phalanx would move into contact with the foe, the front rank would form a shield wall/ jabbing line and the other ranks and lights would support it as needed. I think Total War will have to do a major redesign :). On a side note, do you really think hoplites carried javelins? I always thought that a large shield strapped to the forearm would make throwing one difficult. Anyway, good job.
Great video, i also never believed that Hoplites did push eachother, since one side can easily quickly retreat and the other will fall to the ground
Best video on the subject I've seen to date
Well done! Thank you for this
i love this kind of videos. It would be amazing to show the viking and saxon shieldwall formation working.
You have answered lifelong questions there
I really enjoyed the video and I think it really brings up very interesting points that are often not considered, like the way the spear was held and the fact that a phalanx(and most melee formations across history, really) would be comprised of both lighter and heavier infantry with different types of armament. BUT there are some points where I think you kind of overstate your idea of a "loose" formation in hoplite warfare, and overall exagerate your points a bit:
- Equipment: Hoplite armor can't be considered "heavy armor", especially compared to later periods in history, but the compsition of this equipment (the shield specifically) does bring a cumbersome effect to a hoplite. My point is: even though 20 Kgs can't really be considered super heavy equipment, 16 Kgs in armor and a 4 Kg shield (a plausible medieval sergeant composition) is way less cumbersome than 13 Kgs in armor and a 7Kg shield (a plausible hoplite composition), and both kits are 20Kg.
And the fact that they shifted from metal breastplates to linothorax doesn't mean linothorax were lighter (because, you know, metal is harder, so a typical Greek breastplate would be significantly thinner than a linothorax, and would weigh around the same).
- Aspis: Again, wood is heavy because it needs to be thick in order to absorb the impact without shattering, making the (average) shield (around) 7 kilograms. That is lighter than it would be if it was made entirely of metal (which would be completely unwieldy), but it's not really light for a shield... at all. It's in the heavy side for shields of Antiquity, and it's heavier than pretty much any hand-held shield from the Medieval Period (you have the pavisse, but that was mostly deployed as a static barrier, not entirely handheld).
- Spacing: you mention looser spacing being needed to "breathe and not suffer claustrophobia", and to "avoid trees, bushes and rough terrain", but these two reasons are not specific to hoplite warfare: they are universal. And there are plenty of times in history when we do know very tight formations were used, and these two factors were still applicable. So, why would claustrophobia and terrain matter so much in this context, but so little when it comes to other time periods in which tight formations were used?
- What is the point of losing cohesion to charge, if no impact is going to occur? Why not march in formation untill the enemy is in reach for the spears? Trying to break the enemy moralle I suppose, but if it was common knowledge that charges usually didn't end in impact, would this really startle the enemy that much. Is it worth it to break the cohesion of you formation (even if it's not permanent) to give the enemy a little scare? I'm skeptical about this.
Anyway, I feel like the Roman Combat videos were really on point, but this one seems a bit more clunky to me 🤷♂
Interesting points. I can answer about the one about charge, and my answer will be based on my memories and knowledge mainly. sorry if I can't remember many original sources.
- first, you have to keep in mind that hoplites were mostly citizen soldiers, not warriors by profession, in fact there are significant differences between the way spartans (professionals) would fight and most hoplites armies would. Many parts of the way hoplites would fight were just rituals for bolstering the morale: singing chants for instance, or also making a run towards your enemy, can help dispel the fear of death before battle. Spartans would be less prone to do either of these things.
- in some cases, charges are attested against persians (like in Marathon), probably with the main goal of minimizing time under enemy fire. The hoplites would regroup before actual contact with the enemy.
Total War music in the background makes it even better
These are the videos I CRAVE!!
Great work! Thanks for sharing
Fantastic video again. Congrats.
@HistoriaMilitium please watch Lindybeige's "The fighting method of most soldiers: one handed spear and shield". It makes way too much sense to be ignored. I think he is right on the spear grip type being underhand, held at the end of a spear for the actual advantage in range
Lindy does not use the one handed spear properly. Unfortunately that video is not really useful. See my comments under his video.
I firmly believe that the depictions of the overhanded grip, is a result of two things. Artistic license, and the inability to draw the rotation of a shoulder. Overhanded is how you would throw a javelin. Underhanded, with your shoulder rotated so you could stab over the shield wall, is how you would actually fight.
Go pick up 4 to 5 pound stick, and thrust it back and forth like a shake-weight. Tell me how efficient that is compared to picking up the same stick, and using the under handed grip style, at shoulder, or above shoulder height.
With the overhand grip, you are not in an efficient position to recover. You either are going all in, with a javelin like running thrust where you don't release the spear. Or, you're moving your hand back and forth like you're giving a hand job. The underhanded position is a far more athletic position, you can recruit literally the entire body, from foot, through your legs, ass, back chest, shoulder and arm, into a quick stab.
TBF, I doubt people would hold it right at the end for 2 reasons:
1: Leverage. Holding it at the end means the spear is exponentially less wieldy since the point of balance is away from you, making carrying let alone accurate thrusting and redirecting extremely difficult. Remember, your opponent has a shield and armour, so accuracy is important, and battles can last for hours.
2: Holding the spear at different points is a vital part of spear combat since your opponent not knowing the extent of your reach makes it harder for them to know where they're safe, and how far they need to push to get inside your guard.
@@mercb3ast In the overhand grip, if you're holding the spear by about the middle and bend the elbow, you get a reasonably comfortable position. You can also point the head down towards the ground to make it even easier if there are no immediate threats.
It might help to think of a spear in the overhand grip as a giant dagger with an enormous counterweight on the back.
Also, obvious disclaimer that both positions are attested, both make sense in at least some contexts, and grip switching isn't terribly difficult.
That was really great, thank you.
An important thing about the overhand grip, is defence, the main target are the face, nec and shoulders, as everything else is basicly protected, an overhand grip allowes you to block and delfect, as if you had a giant car sweaper any blows to those areas, as well as a quick counter attack.
whats also important is that you dont need or should hold the spear in the middle at the point of ballance, but behind the point of ballance, this gives you more reach and angels your spear downwards for defence, you only need to bring the tip up, while trusting, this is very easy and very hard to read. With a tapped rear ballanced spear (that existed at least in the later period) you dont need to use the trow catch / slide method t increase your reach that way.
THANK YOU FOR YOU FOR USING ILLUSTRATED ART WORK FOR YOUR VIDEOS AND NOT AI. I cannot stand all the historical content out with weird and whacky ai as illustration. Big thumbs up.
Where did you get the overhand underhand grip analysis from. Underhand has more reach and was used in group formations more, and overhand grip was better suited in close range and for dueling from what I've seen.
I do spear and shield fighting the difference in overhand and underhand grip reach is minimal. Underhand grip in formation doesn't work people behind get in the way.
Overhand has more power, more reach if you slide, and more targets, because you can go over your head to strike from your left shoulder. You can hit targets from nose to toes.
Underhand gives low-line strikes to the same targets, feet, legs, that overhand can only come at from above, and allows you to hold the spear stretched out at a foe, for warding cavalry perhaps.
An excellent and informative video. 😊
The point of a charge was mostly to test the enemy and see if the enemy would lose morale and run just from the sight of said charge.
2:00 A danger and opportunity. They crash into a funnel, condensing them and forcing them into a ring while giving energy to be used in the engine and other things.
Very well done video, your explanations are easy to understand, and make rational sense. Instant sub, for once in a blue moon YT suggested good content!
The ropes could be for carrying the shield around outside of battle
That's a pretty good idea
5:45 It's also possible that small groups held the ropes of each other shields across the formation 3-4 man groups but maintaining the formation.
Great video!
Thanks for this video ! 😊
Excellent video
Excellent work!
Great video.
I'm also really curious as to how they fought in a formation without poking the guy behind them when they drew their spears back to throse, or tangling the guy diagonally behind them if they tried to stab someone to their left or right. With shorter spears that might not be a problem, but how would they manage that with spears of 8 feet or longer? that problem seems to make the idea of a tight formation really hard to imagine.
You angle the spear head down slightly so the back is up you see it in artwork. Also when trusting with a spear its best to have it drawn back Reddy to trust that way you don't telegraph when you are going to trust or throw. I do spear and shield fighting in my spare time.
1:18 Winning Thermopylae?
Very interesting, the light support infantry, which could act drag injure or dead heavier hoplite units out of the ways, back behind the line, to prevents them from being stampeded on by others.
While I may not be fully awake when I was watching this video, so I do apologies if I'm repeating what you already said HM, but for me personally I think the Greek Hoplite was more of a "jack of all trades, master of none" sort of deal, like a living Swiss army knife. The reason why is because considering just how damn rocky and mountainous Greece itself is the military minds in ancient Greece had to find a very fine line between protecting their warriors from Demeter's temper and protecting their warriors from their fellow man, and sense the legend of Troy most likely taught them that sticking to a single style of warfare is likely a death sentence, this two was a juggling act for them. My evidence. . none, this is all just stuff I duck-tapped together.
I am very much into horse and musket era wargaming, which has evolved to have detailed combat models really similar to whats described here. Some of the better rules do a great job at modelling group morale at the wave level, which is the primary factor in winning or losing the brigade sized assaults.
A lot of ancients rules though stick with the rock-paper-scissors approach, with really fixed notions of weapons, armour, skirmishers.
Be great to see ancients rules develop off in this tangent described in the video, modelling group behaviour above details of weapons and armour.
Cool stuff
I'm not sure I share your conclusion that the pushing in dense formation was not a thing, but still a great and insightful video.
It is sad we can only speculate how it looked like, it is really interesting topic and I would love to see tactics they used
PERFECT TIMING FOR MY FINAL IN ENGLISH!!!
I always find it annoying how much people overplay the weight of armor in ancient and medieval warfare. I think people often tend to picture it in terms of lifting or carrying the weight in a backpack. When weight is properly distributed around your body it's much easier to stay mobile. Even modern infantryman carry quite a bit of weight between armor, weapons, and ammo yet remain relatively mobile.
What a great video
I am very confident in saying that ancient hoplites, like most military soldiers past and present, had MANY formation and battle tactic options to choose from. No doubt, decisions would be made on and off the battlefield about which tactics to employ and when. "Scholars" are notorious for picking out one archaeological fact/find and applying it across the board to invalidate all other finds and theories. Then it gets repeated by books, movies, games, etc etc. Effective soldiers are highly adaptable, ask any special operations soldier.
Quick question. After a spear trust, when they pulled it back in, was there a danger into hitting someone at your back?
Ive had so many discussions about how they would fight with my dad, we both love history but he did not believe when i explained him this.
Throughout the ages you see this. Like the 1500/1600+ spanish formations ofc they would not reklessly charge at each other.
Very informative video
Nice video. Very well done.
No one has mentioned the fact that the roped grip around the inside of the rim of the shield enabled different grips when in combat.
I feel ancient warfare was all about moral and discipline.
The formations of the Greeks was expanded upon by the Macedonians whom increased the length of the spears and reduced the sizes of the shields.
The phalanx of Alexander are detailed greatly. So, from this we can know alot about the Greeks methods of warfare.
Firstly, as they were citizen soilders that fought for valour, plunder and the like no doubt they fought in a more comprehensive manner than being a military.
Though, the Spartans were professional soilders and would have fought more like a modern military in tactics, ability and stamina. Making them much more formidable.
After all, the majority of a citizens life is on tending their farms, families, daily householding and so forth. There was little time for military matters outside of training. While the Spartans were totally devoted to the disciplines and daily tasks associated with war. We see this later too with the Romans and how professional soldiers were much more formidable than there earlier citizen soldiers of the early republic.
Secondly, with this in mind ancient Greeks methods of marching, fighting and war tactics would be predominantly against other greeks whom though they had considerable rivalry against still saw as equal. They may have even known other famous greek hoplites of the apossing army by name, for their renown in battle.. certainly if the Greeks when in times of peace traded and were allies, while in other times sought war among eachother.. in a land that all share the same language I imagine details of battles and victories details of which travelled far and wide.
Even the use of the spear and a large shield was a focus on defence than offence. After all, as citizens soldiers they primarily went to war for the states benefit and as not being a professional military were not bound to harsh crimes for desertion like execution. Except in the case of the Spartans they were..
So, when the moral shifted it would be common for sudden routes to occur as those whom saw massive defeats occuring were prone to do.
This was the case of the Spartans that fought the Thebians, and the Thebians sacred band defeated the most skilled Spartans on the right, which led to a total battlefield defeat even before any other units engaged.
Likely, free greek mercilessly killing free Greeks was not a thing and there was a decorum of honour and respect among all Greeks for one another, such as gentlemanly behaviour in war.
It would be therefore not a stretch to say that hoplites fought in a tight formation to maximise their chances of getting home safely, and loose formations would only benefit them in areas of rough terrain or the like.
Tight formations with expressed emphasis of shoving seems a fair way to prevent unnecessary deaths as it was more a battle of pride than of mercilous warfare, no doubt Greeks saw other greeks as equals and though they had rivalries they were still Greeks.
I feel a looser formation that is about manuverability doesn't make sense, as Greek citizen soldiers were not until later periods fighting to kill their opponents so much as defeat them.
I feel that a tight formation where the lefts of their shields covered their comrades on their right seems quite plausible as the Romans though had looser formations predominantly used swords which required space between shields while Greeks used spears which were naturally used above the shields and the crescent space between the shields was a space for the spears to protude.
They were heavily armoured and their gear weighted a great deal. Not to mention they were not accustomed to such large burdens as they were citizen soldiers.
The Roman legionaries as a professional military were accustomed to large marches in full battle attire as it was their profession. But many Greek soldiers were artisans, traders, politicians, farmers, and so on not soldiers. Except the Spartans lol.. which is what made the Spartans unique.
The heavily armoured units were Infront with the less armoured at back. those more accustomed to and gear for war therefore fought with experience in the front ranks of prestige while the back was for younger recruits, older man, those less able, with inquiring or less equiped. The rotating of ranks would be difficult in an environment where each man at the front was locked into the shield wall with his comrades and likely only happened if he was killed, inquired or fatigue to such a degree. but given the battles were mainly based on prestige, and didn't last more than an hour in ancient greek battles, more likely it was uncommon he retired due to fatigue alone.
Such was not the case though when fighting from the Spartans as they were quite mericilous and they didn't even employ archers as they felt they were cowards..
Also, when fighting the Persians it was do or die, to save their homes, loved ones and state so naturally they fought to win and kill.
But, the ferocity of battle would depend on the foe that was faced I feel. Even in the general climate, a weapon best suited for offense is a sword with it's versatility while defense is a spear with it's long range and longer point. Being also very useful against cavalry too. Of which ancient Greece didn't have much of, given they were a large mountainous delta except when fighting the barbarians of outer Greece, like the Macedonians or Scythians, Persians as they called them..
As a result I disagree with your views as many of them rely on a the concept they were professional soldiers. As a citizen soldier the aim was to maximise force in an era where few were professional soldiers, minimise casualties, for ones own personal reaons and in the Spartans case, to do their duty for the state under Spartan law.
Excellent points about citizen soldiers being highly influenced by the morale and support of their comrades, as well as their likely apprehension toward cutting down their fellow countrymen whom they may have known or traded with in the past. It makes sense that such an army would prefer dense formations that maximized protection and unit cohesion to lessen the possibility of a route, and that they put staked more value on making sure everyone made it home rather than maximizing their offensive capacity.
Very interesting!
Aspides frequently had bronze rim reinforcing along with hide or linen. Aspis just means shield, and there were a bunch of different sizes and kinds, and though the bronze layer on the front seems to have been incredibly rare, reinforcing the edge with a layer of hide and a bronze rim is shown in depictions frequently. This would go a long way in protecting the shield against the use of both the kopis and the xyphos, which would definitely be used if a spear broke or the engagement DID get into really close-quarters combat. I am no metallurgist, but I would wager that bronze would be made using less tin, and thus softer, than if someone could afford a full sheet on their shield, and that is why we so rarely find these rims anywhere near intact, but we do find fragments of them with shields.
I've never been a fan of the "hoplites had Xcm between them". That just...doesn't make sense in the real world. Far more likely, hoplites had close order, loose order, and "don't bother maintaining ranks" order after an enemy broke. This also explains why both underhand and overhand would be used; they serve different purposes. 90cm seems a bit large for a close-order formation, but too close for loose-order. I would guess more in the range of 70-80cm, with loose order being more like 90-110cm. The underhanded grip would certainly be better for attacking fleeing enemies.
I also think it makes sense for the first row to use underhanded grip, and the rest to go overhanded, so an enemy has at least 4 enemies on a solid front to worry about, only in the first rank.
As to the pushing, I believe that it was both the normal "they pushed y units back" as they give ground, as well I think when a gap occurred, say 2 men are downed and two others attempt to flee, an actual push would be made to try to break into the ranks of the enemy. This is how Romans did it, it is how Angles and Saxons, how Danes and Norse did it, and it is how the Chinese did it way on the other side of Eurasia. If a gap opens, you DO try to push it, and actually physically push your way, along with some buddies, into that gap. But if it doesn't work, you back off, and I think this is likely where a significant portion of the fatalities in Greek warfare occurred, at least in the Archaic period. I think THAT is what "othismos" refers to, that push into a gap that is the ATTEMPT to end a battle.
Got to admit, I almost stopped watching when you started with Hanson, glad I stuck with it. God I hate that guy.
Very interesting video, thanks you
Makes a lot of sense. And is very similar to Dan Carlin's take on how such battles were fought (on his Hardcore History podcast).
Mmm, there is something “odd” about the aspis: the grips are offset, so a much larger portion of the shield sticks out to the left side of the man wielding it.
Any idea as to why? This seems to not fit well with the “shield at an angle” discourse.
I never quite really understood the debate about overhand and underhand. You can switch from under to over quite easily, and with the help of your shield/left hand the other way around too.
Overhand is maybe a bit shorter initially, but you're also stabbing down, which allows you to use gravity for force. And once you connect you can actually thrust further than without connecting.
And underhand is obviously more rangey and more testey.
Quickly, Alfred, the tomes of lore must be filled with knowledge!
I can’t wait for a video about conbat during the macedonian age😍
What do you use for the in person battles?
Great video. I am new to the channel so im sorry to ask but, is there any video about how Alexander the Great's army fought? If its not i would suggest it honestly. I am really curious what heppened when the battle started. Being forced to charge at those Sarisa's would probably be a nightmare and a massive hit to morale of the enemy army
wonderful explanation !!!
Tyrtaeus also mentioned initial charges where spears pierced shields, so there may have been battles where leaders called plays like in American football hoping to catch their enemies off guard with an aggressive play.
I mostly agree with this model. But it does bring to mind a question: modern subunits are almost all combined arms.
We see skirmishers here, but wouldn't we then expect to see small cavalry detachments spread behind the line, or axemen, etc?
Wouldn't we see combined arms 'brigades'?
In the archaic period cavalry wasn’t really a thing for the Greeks