I Do NOT Agree With This INSIDER Historian
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Link to the original video
• Ancient Warfare Expert...
All the good links:
Come watch me live stream on Twitch! Almost every night 9pm CST
/ metatrongemini
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize!
/ @metatronyt
I have a Patreon page with extra content!
/ themetatron
My second channel about languages
/ @metatronacademy
My third channel about gaming
/ @theprotectorate-yq7vi
My Twitter/X
x.com/pureMeta...
The Roman military's success from 500 BC to 500 AD was built on discipline, adaptability, and sophisticated tactics. The core of their fighting style centered on the legion, typically comprising 4,000-6,000 men divided into cohorts and further into centuries of 80 men each.
The signature Roman formation was the triplex acies (triple line), with troops arranged in a checkerboard pattern. The first line (hastati) would engage the enemy with pila (javelins) before closing for close combat. If they tired, they would fall back through gaps in the second line (principes), who would then take up the fight. The third line (triarii) consisted of veteran troops held in reserve for crucial moments.
Roman commanders excelled at tactical flexibility. They could quickly shift from the triplex acies to other formations like the wedge (cuneus) for breaking enemy lines, or the "tortoise" (testudo) where soldiers would lock shields for protection against missiles. The Romans also mastered the art of siege warfare, developing sophisticated engineering techniques and siege engines.
Cavalry played a supporting role, typically deployed on the flanks to protect infantry and pursue routing enemies. The Romans often recruited auxiliary cavalry from allied peoples, particularly valuing Numidian and Germanic horsemen for their specialized skills.
In battle, Roman generals emphasized maintaining order and exploiting terrain. They would typically seek high ground and ensure their flanks were protected by natural obstacles when possible. Their camps were always fortified, even for single nights, providing a secure base and fallback position.
The Romans adapted their tactics based on their opponents. Against Carthage, they developed corvus (boarding bridges) to transform naval battles into infantry engagements. Fighting Germanic tribes, they learned to avoid forest ambushes and developed techniques for open-field battles. Facing Parthian horse archers in the east, they increased their proportion of missile troops and cavalry.
One of their most effective innovations was the rotation system in combat, where tired soldiers could fall back and be replaced by fresh troops, maintaining constant pressure on the enemy. This system, combined with their superior logistics and engineering capabilities, allowed Roman armies to outlast and outmaneuver their opponents in extended campaigns.
Through these tactics, Rome was able to conquer and hold territory from Britain to Egypt, though their effectiveness gradually declined as the empire aged, particularly after 200 AD when they struggled to maintain professional army standards and faced increasingly sophisticated enemies.
#insider #historian #militaryhistory
Link to the original video
th-cam.com/video/xPGdOXstSyk/w-d-xo.html
All the good links:
Come watch me live stream on Twitch! Almost every night 9pm CST
www.twitch.tv/metatrongemini
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize!
th-cam.com/channels/IjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw.htmljoin
I have a Patreon page with extra content!
www.patreon.com/themetatron
My second channel about languages
www.youtube.com/@metatronacademy
My third channel about gaming
www.youtube.com/@TheProtectorate-yq7vi
My Twitter/X
x.com/pureMetatron
300 was an adaptation of a comic which was an adaptation of greek history
This is a time when I think it would be appropriate to react to the whole video.
Oh...oh no. Metatron and The Ditch Guy at odds?? My universe cannot support this.... this is divide by zero territory
Thats terrance howards next endeavor in evolving human thought lol@infinitesimotel
Right? I like em both too
@@Trevor_Bolin this is divided by ditches !
C'mon, who doesn't love ditch guy?
Don Ditch
Metatron, he clearly states cavalry was not a thing in this period, meaning during the period the Trojan war allegedly happened. Yes, the macedonians had cavalry, but this was almost 1'000 years later.
The Trojan war and Alexander the Great are as far apart from another - in the sense of a timespan - as a medieval knight and an actual modern tank
to be precise, he said "mounted cavalry" wasn't a thing, which is true... but "Cavalry" was, in the form of our beloved Chariots. =P (chariots, Chariot and more Chariots in the old "armed race of Chariots" xD)
Cavalry during Alexanders time is also misunderstood. People think that Cavalry in the time acted as a hammer and delivered kinetic charges into well ordered infantry. No. It didn't. I mean, I imagine it happened, rarely, because it was a terrible ideal.
The manner in which Alexanders cavalry fought, was less lancing people on the fly(unless they were lancing people who were running, or otherwise disordered), and more, ride up to spear distance of the enemy, and then use their large two handed Kontos' to fight in melee combat from the height of a horse. Then there is the fact that Alexanders cavalry was accompanied by infantry, pretty much at all times, everywhere it went. Which fits in with the idea that they rode up to about 10-20 feet away from the enemy and then stabbed at them. The accompanying infantry was there to fill in the space and protect the horsemen.
Then we also know that Alexander and the Companions fought as Dragoons. As in, they used their cavalry to ride to a position, dismounted, and then fought on foot, accompanied by their foot infantry.
Kinetic, lance down, plow into infantry blocks is more of a medieval thing, and then even then, this would have been an extremely rare, and extremely risk occurrence. Then when you consider that many of the incidents that are brought up to defend the idea that cavalry lowered lances and plowed into ordered infantry, are usually a result of something happening that broke the infantry up, and ALLOWED the cavalry to charge into them.
Perhaps the best example of this is the Battle of Kircholm. The popular conception of this battle is that Polish Winged Hussars lowered lances, charged teeth first into Swedish pike squares, and shattered them.
The problem with this popular conception is that this isn't what happened. What happened was, first, the Swedish pike squares basically had no pikes. Second, the Swedish "pike" broke their formation to allow their own retreating cavalry to retreat through their infantry. The Polish cavalry exploited this opportunity to dive into the Swedish infantry as they were opened up, to allow the Swedish cavalry to pass through.
This is a highly impressive feat IMHO, but it absolutely is not Polish Hussars lowering lances and riding over pike squares.
I think it is just misunderstanding.
Because saying it is in ”this period” will mean ancient era, which spanned from 3000BC-500AD.
While the ditch guy could maybe have used different words.
@@TheRealRealMClovin The quote actually is "In the period where/when the poem is set"... that means the Illiad... so it actually only covers the Trojan War, not the whole ancient era.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Regarding Macedonian cavalry, when he said "in this period" he meant the Trojan war period which is theorized to have taken place in 13th or 12th century BC many many years before Phillip II of Macedon, Homer does mention chariots in the Iliad, this historian Roel Konijnendijk specializes in Ancient Hellenic history, he's really good regarding his expertise IMO.
First thing I was going to do was find out when the Trojan war was supposed to have taken place as I thought Metatron had misunderstood his comment. You did it for me. Thanks.
Yeah, Macedonian cavalry was much much later... trhough, there was mounted cavalry back from the 15th century BC, so 300 years before the troyan war... but I couldn't find the role (if they had) in the battlefield... but yes, back in those days the "Army Cavalry" were Chariots, Chariots, Chariots and Chariots xD
Yeah so the historians comments about why cavalry not being used were odd cos chariots where defenitely extensively used
@ It's not quite the same thing. Chariots weren't always used to charge into the enemy infantry. They were most often used, and I think ALWAYS used at the time of the Trojan war, to fire missiles from. So, the historian was correct. From what I can find out, it seems that the Greeks didn't employ cavalry as part of their tactics until around 500 - 400BC. And can you imagine going into war, charging at your enemy, fighting at close quarters, without stirrups to keep you balanced? At the time of the Trojan war, they were still some 500 years out from being invented, or at least something similar to what we now know as stirrups.
@@MrJpc1234 "Calvary" refers to a much more specific type of mounted fighter/warrior than you might think. By the very virtue of being mounted, this precludes chariots from being cavalry. As there is nobody riding any of the horses.
Essentially cavalry refers to soldiers who by design, fight from horseback.
Chariots in the bronze age were used in one of two ways. Either as a platform for archers, or as what a lot of people call 'battle taxis'. That is, they were used to move people around, who would then dismount and fight on foot. Somewhat like how a dragoon would fight. The Egyptians are essentially the archtype here.
There is some overlap between the use of chariots and that of true cavalry, but they really are two different things, belonging largely to two different eras (though again there is some overlap). It is also patently clear that chariots are the main thing that true cavalry developed out of.
23:00 Isn't Troy the middle of the Bronze age, like more than 1000 years before Alexander the Great?
yeah during the Bronze Age pure mounted cavalry wasn’t used, chariots were king.
Horses were too small to ride. Selective breeding made them riddler ridable later, but I'm the times of Troy they could only pull things.
@@babilon6097This is absolutely untrue. It's true that mounted cavarly wasn't common, but horse size is *not* the reason for that. There is period iconography of horses the same size as horses used in combat hundreds of years later.
What you're referring to is a single study based on a horse skeleton found dating back to the period in a completely different geographic area.
Meaning it could have just been that specific horse was smaller than normal or that particular breed of horse was smaller. Not *all* horses were smaller.
Also, for the record, a pony is a "rideable" horse. Being smaller isn't what makes a horse unsuitable for mounted warfare. If a horse can pull hundreds of pounds of chariot + people in said chariot, it can support a person on it.
Horses were not used for cavarly during the time of Troy because horses were very expensive to raise and train and were seen as a status symbol. It's why only a few people would have been mounted, like the general/king/emporer
@pacmonster066 I'll give you one thing. "Size" was an oversimplification. The important characteristics are back strength and general stamina. A horse must be strong enough to carry a rider for an extended period of time and in gallop and to do it without injury so that after some rest it is good enough for more battles.
The fact that you can get on a horse and ride it for a few minutes is not enough.
Warhorses are distinctly bigger AND have stronger bones (and are probably more muscular but we can't check it directly) and you need quite a few generations to produce such breed.
I know that a pony is not a young horse but a small breed of horse. As such "size" was a bad way to put it.
@@babilon6097 Literally none of what you said is relevant to anything because again, horses *were not smaller* during the time period. Back strength or stamina included.
A "warhorse" is any horse trained for war. You're using definitions that won't exist until the midieval ages, where there were many different classifications for types of horses used for different purposes.
The bronze age Greeks didn't use horses like they would 1000 years later but *other* civilizations did. Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indus valley civilizations have iconography of horse mounted fighters going back to that time. So again, the size of the horse was not the reason they weren't used for that purpose. You're conflating a single piece of evidence for one particular small horse breed with a sweeping justification backed on unproven information.
metatron seeing a 45 degree angle hill "eh i can ride that"
I remember thinking it was kind of steep even back as a kid when I first watched it. Still awesome scene, though.
AKA 100% grade.
Going down that hill? Hell no.
@@sudazima well I don’t know how horses work either so not gonna put it sonmuch metatron.
Perhaps Metatron shouldn't point it out then. There is no way in hell a charge would work down that hill.
1. It's very steep, horses can go down steep hills, but not at a charge and it's not easy. They would have next to no momentum at the end.
2. It's been raining heavily all night. That many horses would absolutely tear up the ground and turn it into muddy hell.
3. Let's say the horses actually do go down that hill at that speed. No doubt in my mind they would start to slip and slide in the mud.
The point about a charge through the forest, Metatron is once again incorrect. Going full gallop through a natural forest like that, can be really dangerous. No way do they maintain unit cohesion to actually have a proper charge.
Have kinda lost respect for Metatron over the last year, this just further cements it. Add his "I disagree" only to explain what the historian is already saying.
@Rykno101 The reaction videos are indeed a downgrade in the quality he usually shows, but I don't think it's bad enough to warrant a loss of respect. My advice is simply skipping them if they're not enjoyable. He still makes his old style videos. I wasn't optimistic about it when he first announced them, but they're OK for background listening during breakfast, so I ended up watching most. If anyone's to blame is TH-cam for making this a necessity to stay on top.
I think you're being a bit too disagreeable here, since you misunderstand him at many points or at least choose the worst interpretation.
Metatron is known for the lack of comprehension like that. that's why he asks to defend the shovels of salt with him. or buckets or whatever
He's being pedantic. That's part of the fun. Makes for attention grabbing content.
@@GeorgeMartinez-g9uBeing pedantic is being like super anal about little details no one cares about. I don’t think that means this. You still make a point there though
@@GeorgeMartinez-g9u It'd be funnier if he actually had knowledge about the things he's being pedantic about. He just sounds ridiculous.
@alexog1502 eh i think he mostly does a good job. I enjoy watching alot of the videos he puts out. Not an easy gig to have. He's a normal dude trying his best.
Mrs. Metatron: It's your turn to do the dishes.
Metatron: I disagree...
As he should.
The ditch man knows his stuff
Ditch guy is always 10/10
Not necessarily but in warfare matters yes it's his expertise in that subject
well 9/10. He do get some things wrong but obviously everyone don't know everything in history.
you don't mess with the ditch guy
Roel is a good friend of mine and good friend of the channel, wonderful historian! As for his comment regarding cavalry in Troy, he would be correct. In this period chariots would have been present, but typically more like a taxi service for the elites on the battlefield, but actual shock cavalry don't really exist in the Homeric period, even into the archaic and classical most mounted forces were mounted archers. Macedonian cavalry existed, but remember that the siege of troy is thought to have taken place around 1200 bc, which is hundreds of years before.
Overall I'd say you seem to agree with him on almost everything too
Yeah this video is clickbaity. I like most of these expert reacts but the title is odd considering they mostly see eye to eye here.
@Subutai_Khan that's what I was thinking, little misleading
He is a great guy, and I agree that cavalry wouldn't really be much of a thing back in 1200 BC, however the other points Metatron disagreed with are definitely true. Roel is awesome but that doesn't mean he cannot be wrong, we're all humans after all and I definitely think sometimes he can go a tiny bit overboard, as if human beings lowkey robotic. Anyway, yes in Trojan war cavalry existing is super unlikely, Chariots are slightly more likely but Cavalry? Eh. not too possible at the time at least.
Yep, felt like Metatron says he disagree way too fast only to have the same point 5 secs later. See 15:14 mark.
One thing I think Metatron was right about, though, was the testudo formation. I was surprised to hear the historian say it was rarely done and in desperation.
Two things about horses..
1. in the LOTR scene the historian is right, that hill is too steep for the horse to run down like that, especially with all the burden he is carrying on his back. He will lose his balance and fall to his death. And if it doesnt fall the risk of breaking a leg is very high. Horses yes can walk down a steep slope. But not with that gradient and not running. But walking super slowly.
2. Horses are scared of woods/forests they know nothing about and they get extremely anxious and nervous in the proximity of one. They will not try to enter it, unless theres a clear path/trail they can walk through safely. If you ever happen to see a rider trying to force a horse to enter a wood/forest with no path/trail visible, the horse just stops moving right away. Why? Because of many reasons:
A) Dense wood eliminates the wide field of view of a horse, and not knowing what lies ahead this gets the horse anxious and nervous.
B) Risk of injury is extremely high. Roots, bushes, thorns, dense trees with no manuevrability, pointy rocks, stones, disconnected terrain, slippery terrain (wet leaves, mud) et cetera.
C) Noises inside a wood/forest gets them anxious/nervous.
D) Horses are scared of possible encounters with predators they can find there, because they know that in a dense forest with no path/trails, the second they sense a predator nearby the horses know they are already dead.. because they dont have a way to escape from there because of all the things listed in point 1 and 2.
Yes, horses can walk through a wood/forest. But as i said only if:
A) Theres a path/trail
B) They are accustomed to that that specific wood/forest because they crossed it different times before.
C) They are trained to cross woods/forests.
Well said, I was going to comment on this as well but you phrased it better than I would have. It was pretty clear that Metatron has no or extremely little experience with riding.
War horses were trained to ignore these things.
why would horses be afraid of woods? There are big animals living in the forests (like deers) and they don't have any problems running through very fast. Also most forests aren't THAT dense. The bigger issue with cavalry is that there are lots of them so they might collide with each other while trying to find a way between trees
You have obviously never heard of busting brush on horseback
You're acting like War horses aren't trained from birth essentially to ignore those fears.
Now Metatron is going to tell us he's against digging ditches as well!
Nah he is right about that
Side note, Phillip the 2nd and Alexander the Greats Macedonian Cavalry is like, over a 1,000 years after the Trojan Wars supposed time frame.
I hate Phillip II and Alexander the Great so damn much 😡
@@LockeDemosthenes2 We found an Ath*nean
Speaking as a horsewoman, I can tell you that galloping through a thickly wooded virgin forest would be the absolute height of stupidity. There are all sorts of traps hidden on a forest floor, from rabbit holes to boulders, there are obstacles like fallen trees that would cause a pile up (even if an obstacle was low enough to jump, riders didn’t jump at that time) and general unevennesses that could tip a horse (a couple of English kings died in such accidents while out hunting). The horses charging through the forest in the Gladiator film did not come to grief, without doubt, because the ground was prepared beforehand.
He made some mistakes but the actual charge down the hill was cgi. Being a horseman I can verify that charging down a step hill is a bad idea. If you must descend a hill that steep you do it slowly so on this point I believe he is correct.
You don't even need to be a horseman to realize this. We humans are perfectly capable of taking a tumble when running down a steep hill. Anyone who has ever done so can attest to the weird sense of balance you have to maintain.
You want to be at full speed. Slow canter down steep hill = fall
@ Respectfully we will just have to agree to disagree.
@@WindmillStalker
Yeah and a 1000 pound animal taking a tumble while your on its back doesn’t usually turn out so well for the human. 😅
@@johnirby8847
If you run really fast down a hill don’t you get that problem where you can’t stop when you want to?
The Flying Ditchman (Dr. Konijnendijk) was talking specifically about cavalry in the Archaic Greek period, not the Hellenic.
I'm not sure why you disagree with him and then make his point. He said bows are not guns, and they were used to suppress (of course, the real counterargument would be 'guns are used to suppress as well'). That doesn't mean they aren't used to kill people...that's not a mutually exclusive claim. You even made the point...yes, the bow shot might not kill someone, but it would make them flinch, and someone else might be hurt by the ricochet. It was weird...like you were looking for something to disagree with this guy over. ETA: Look at that hill the Rohirrim were going down again. Seriously...that is WAY to steep for a cavalry charge. A single horse going down it? Yeah, I've done that, though still dangerous. But not at a charge, and not with hundreds or thousands of other riders. That's not subjective...that's an objective fact. Still cool to watch though. :)
He did say bows are meant as surpressing weapons, no they were made to kill.
Also he do get things wrong, like saying you can't move in testudo.
to be fair, I'm sure even at the time, some military tacticians would disagree among themselves on the use of archers formations, is only natural that historians could disagree on that point too.
Trained cavalry can charge down steeper slopes that civilian riders would never consider. That is part of what trained means. Also in story the Riders of Rohan were the best in the world. Also when the survival of ones nation is at stake and the lives of ones wives and children, one takes risks.
@@TheRealRealMClovinThere is video on this channel of Metatron and other reenactors even less trained than he is, actually moving in testudo. It was done whenever it was necessary to advance on archers.
@@MarkHorton-n3t also, also, also... physics exist m8.
"In this period", he is referring to the time of the Siege of Troy. The Bronze Age. 8-900 years before Macedon was anything.
It wasn't that far apart but yeah, point still stands
@@Legion_YT_ Yes it was. Whatever real life conflict the Trojan War we know occurred probably during the 13th century BC. Macedonia is a state by the Persian Wars but the famous heavy cavalry wouldn't come until Phillip II.
@@Legion_YT_it was exactly 800-900 years before the Macedonian era. 300-odd BC vs 1200-odd BC
@@davidbowen5621 oh yeah true, Macedonian cavalry was mainly during Philip the seconds time. For some reason I was thinking about Athens and Sparta which peaked earlier
@@Legion_YT_ Philip II came to power in 359 BCE. Troy, if it happened, was sometime around 1100-1200 BCE. There are upwards of 841 years there.
23:15 - Macedonian Calvery wasn't a thing until the Hellenistic era, not the Mycenean era.
it is even pre helenistic era, it's bronce era, around 1000 before Phillip and Alexander. THe form of cavalary used at that time (and it was in it's infancy) were chariots, mostly as archery platfo9rms or messangers, about around 1000BC there are mentionings of the first Horseback riders in battles, but also those were mainly archers, proper melee cavalery only formed arund 7-500 BC.
@@wolfsruhm The Trojan war is estimated to have occurred between the 13th and 12th century BC. That’s 200-300 years prior to the first horse back riders you mentioned, muppet. While chariots would have been in use, the only calvery shown in that movie didn’t use chariots.
@@insanemakaioshinI think that guy was agreeing with you, he might have had a brain fart and started his comment by stating that the Trojan war is pre helenistic (1000y before Macedonian yadayada) which is a non sequitur to your comment but hey, is the internet.
He said " in the period where this poem was set" meaning like a 1000 BCE, so no macedonians yet)))
1250, to be more precice. 1000 BCE is during the greek dark ages.
@cratorius well, I meant around 1000 but I did not write it)) the point was - no Macedonian cavalry))
What does he mean by "in this period"? My dear Metatron, as an old fan of your channel, I would not have expected a question like this to come from you. He refers to the late bronze age period. when the Trojan conflict most likely happened. And yes, at that particular point in time, mounted cavalry was not a thing, this became a thing later on, probably during the 9th-8th centuries, in the Caspian steppes or in modern-day Iran, so almost 4 centuries after the Trojan War.
I feel like Metatron has kinda been falling into more "drama" like content sadly.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
@@dhimankalita1690 Dude, spellcheck your comment before copy-pasting it everywhere xD
How dare you disagree with our Ditch Guy! He's a world treasure. Lol.
He also writes scripts for one of the big history channels, Invictus or History Marche.
Writes*
@@SerAvaros thank you, fixed it
@@jake5773 *nods in grammar nazi*
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
@@dhimankalita1690 what does that have to do with anything? I watch him couse of his history knowledge, as i do value the ditch guy for the same reason.
This video has truelly showed me the metatron doesn't know his shit and disagrees simply for the sake of being disagreeable.
Sad day.
Macedonian cavalery? You mean almost a thousand years later? What has that to do with the battle of Troy?
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
He literally states that he isn’t sure what the guy means by “in this period”. When we go back that far, period could mean different things…thus his frequent comments about being pedantic.
@@jimmyfrench4722 It should be clear that he means the late bronze age, or the bronze age in general.
@ “should be clear” means not made clear means assumption; thus, a statement like “he may be right based on what he means by, ‘in this period’” would be a correct statement; but if you’re just trying to find something to complain about, assumptions & refusal to accept accounting for your assumptions are apparently good enough for you.
@@jimmyfrench4722 I mean, ´´just trying to find something to complain about´´ isnt that what metatron and you are doing? Reacting to the movie troy, seeing a cavalry and saying it is unrealistic, why would you even consider ´´he might mean also a thousand years later and if so he would be wrong´´?
Against plate armoured opponents in general, I am with Mr Ditch here on the role of arrows (partially). Massed arrows against plate armoured knights is unlikely to find many gaps themselves although could do, but many of the arrow shafts will be shattering and exploding. The shear amount of splinters flying everywhere will be terrifying with people trying to further protect their eyes. So it would work to suppress them. Although here they also have large gaps in armour where they are uncovered.
Incorrect for one key reason-unless all plate-armored opponents belong to the MOST upper class of their society in this specific formation of men, the thickness and quality of plate armor varied significantly. Multiple test videos demonstrate this, showing that arrows can, in some cases, penetrate plate armor, especially when it isn't modern high-carbon steel of exceptionally high quality. Also long arching volleys are not entirely historically accurate. A lot of the shooting could be quite on a horizontal plane, which once again increases power and penetration of bodkin tipped arrows. Sometimes archers were also really well armored (to a degree) and would come close enough, such as 50-100 yards and straight up shoot men in formation DIRECTLY.. Now that is dangerous.
Yes, incredibly durable plate armor existed, and even lower-quality versions were still effective. However, it's incorrect to assume that an archer with a 120-160 lb draw weight couldn’t penetrate weak spots. Soldiers in formation aren’t dodging or zig-zagging-they're more idle type of targets that are advancing like a unit. While bodkin tips tend to glance off curved surfaces, a direct hit on average or lower-quality armor has a real chance of penetrating up to 1-3 inches-not deep, but still significant enough for internal bleeding and to cause organ damage.
Many modern tests use high-quality steel, whereas historical armor quality varied depending on the era, the intended wearer, and even the country of origin. This is why Tod's Workshop and Dash Rendar are awesome for these tests ngl. Even Dequitem mentions how his armors are at the upper echelon of quality, so well made that you cannot even dent them much with a polehammer strike.. NOW THAT IS AN EXPENSIVE ARMOR SET, but most men at arms didn't have the most expensive, the finest quality armor set.
Would you like me to cite some source of archers killing knights with arrows? (also, the 'volley' thing is not entirely real, Archers often shot at will when their commanders allowed them to loose arrows. They didn't wait together and then shoot a volley like some musketeer line xD, they often just kept peppering targets)
Yes and like metatron stated medieval experienced archers were really keen and good to find gaps then add that to elves with "super human powers" like better eyes and can see incredibly long distances.
@@BattlerEvil These were rare exceptions. Armor stopped arrows. Otherwise people wouldn't bother wearing it.
@@majungasaurusaaaa This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Mailshirts didn't stop arrows. People still wore them.
Gambesons didn't stop arrows. People still wore them.
@majungasaurusaaaa even knights in plate armor still has shields to fight against other knights especially if those knights with shields are using maces and or warhammer and other weaponry such as polearms and poleaxes.
Dr. Ditch: "Yeah, Testudo kinda sucks"
Metatron: "...and I took that personally"
Yes, yes I did!
23:20 If I'm not mistaken, Macedonian Cavalry appear nearly a thousand years after the Trojan War? The Trojan War took place at the end of the Bronze Age. I was under the impression that mounted cavalry only appeared well after the Bronze Age Collapse.
@metatron your comment comparing Alexander's army to Troy is wrong. The historian was talking about the time of the Illiad ( which is what the film Troy is based) which was set approximately 1000 years before Alexander was leading his Companion cavalry.
No Macedonian cavalry. It's the era of the chariot.
One of the few times that I am more on the historian's side.
This guy (Roel) is the "dig more ditches" guy.
I like ditch guy
How could the Roman disagree with the ditch digger guy? Roman legions dug ditches everyday!
Sorry, but you're way off on this one.
He stated that cavalry didn't really exist in the period of the Trojan Wars.
That's absolutely true.
the Assyrians have entered the chat
He did a full review on Troy in a separate video. He mentions that cavalry was used later by the Greeks, especially during Alexander’s time. According to him, cavalry wasn’t really a thing during the Trojan War.
Troy is in the bronze age metatron
I really like that guy. He does sort of generalize it a bit but that's more cause he's talking to a general audience.
Metatron you are not an expert and yet you disagree with a guy who is absolutely right and sometimes you misunderstand him.
10:35 no this hill always looked waaaay too steep to me even when I watched it as a kid. Still very epic scene.
And looks to be covered in something like gravel, which probably wouldn't help the horses not slip much.
Unless the horses are cantering, it should be kind of fine. I'd be more worried about the riders falling off if they're not careful. If they're galloping downhill, they can generate enough speed to be relatively fine due to momentum of the speed they're going and the traction they gain from it. Wild horses in Russia will gallop downhill that are just as worse, and these animals understand as long as they go full speed they'll come down okay. This is not like a mountain goat, but more because an animal with hooves like that having good traction.
So again, I'd worry more about the riders falling off on accident, or some small unsuspected rock in the way causing a horse to trip rather than it being too steep. Then again, the riders of rohan in its fantasy setting are possibly the finest equestrians, so although the hill if a bit steep for a cavalry formation, with the way it was shot at them galloping it really didn't make me feel 'off' about it.
However if they were cantering at a slow pace downhill? Oh no they'd roll, they'd fall and slide down sideways on their bellies and casualties would be enormous.
You should watch "The Man From Snowy River." Or at least look up Tim Burlinson's famous downhill scene.
I always thought "I wouldn't want to be in front of that. The horses have nowhere else to go but tumbling on top of me if I don't keep moving forward."
Macedonian cavalry came 1000 years later
I'm with the ditch-guy on this one.
03:30 - Roel made a complete video about "300".
And in this video he talked about the lack of armor (among tons of other things) as well.
I can highly recommend his take on the movie.
From what I've heard other historians say, the testudo was almost exclusively used during sieges, for battlefield situations, other types of less fancy shield wall formations (2 or 3 shields in height if my memory serves me right) work just as well while also maintaining a little bit more mobility. Unless missiles are coming from the top (which could happen but would be relatively rare) you have almost no reason to have more than a couple of ranks using their shield to make a shield wall. They will block the shots for the ranks behind them anyways.
Also, I do think the hill from hell's deep is borderline impossibly steep to be charging from. Even on foot I'd be moving down slowly.
On 14:55, I feel what Mr Roel was suggesting is a light jog instead of a full sprint. That way, the soldiers can curb their fear with Adrenaline while also maintaining formation
Mr. "DITCHES" Himself! I do agree with him, though. The most effective pre-modern defense was a wall and a ditch (bonus points if the ditch is filled with water). Movies don't show it simply because it would be boring to watch an actual siege.
Not a historian myself so I don't know what the sources would tell but galloping downhill especially if it gets somewhat steep is a very, very bad idea... and if there's such an amount of horses, one of them tripping could trigger a massive snowball of horses.
When it comes to galloping through brush and wooden areas it'd depend a lot but in the Gladiator scene it seemed like the horses were kind of spread apart so you'd probably have a good view of what's directly in front of you and most importantly, the horse would have a good view of what's in front of him, you can jump logs easy on them... they just have to be able to see them.
Come on metatron. 23:13 when he says “this period” I’m sure we’re all certain he means the period of the Trojan war. Not hundreds to a thousand years later.
It's 2025, and people still think 300 was trying to be a documentary,....
I think the ditch guy knows that 300 is heavily fictionalized. He was reacting to it as a historical telling because (a) he was asked to by the producers; and (b) it serves as a teaching counterpoint to segue into how it really happened. That’s why these kind of videos exist - to teach a bit of history in an entertaining manner by reacting to popular blockbusters.
Next you’ll say it’s 2025 and people still think the Battle of Helms Deep is trying to be a documentary….
@Shuddho1980 no, good sir, the Battle of Helm's Deep is different because it is 100% fictional, and no one would argue over that.
I've seen the ditch dude complaining about 300 in like, 2 videos already. Either he is doing what the producers asking, or he is completely ignorant of the fact that the movie is based off of a graphic novel, like Metatron said.
23:10 Macedonian cavalry, sure. But doesn't Troy take place much, much earlier. Before the Bronze Age Collapse
Not sure why you disagreed with points that made sense in general. Like Cavalry attacking downhill while in a forest. Did this happen historically? Yes. Was it a rare occurrence? Yes. Would you try your best to avoid said tactic if given the opportunity? Yes. So ditch guy was correct.
Same thing is true for the comments about arrow fire. They were mainly used as suppressive fire. Sure some arrows found the spot but most didn’t and the arrow fire for armoured troops has always been about suppressive fire to slow them down and limit their movement while they take small amounts of casualties.
Not going to mention the whole Bronze Age/Trojan cavalry comments as many people have already explained why the ditch guy is also correct in his statement.
Just seems like you’re disagreeing for the sake of it.
When he says "in this period" he is referring to the setting of Iliad. That was a thousand years before Alexander's time.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
There are a couple of points where I agree with the expert:
- you would never let cavalry in a forest, there would be a lot of leaves, branches, holes(hidden by leaves and dirt), a horse would be terrible there. Even when hiking you would avoid going thru a forest in a straight line and prefer a trail because the chances of slipping is really high, especially after a rain.
- I believe that no cavalry refers to the Bronze Age, there are no mounted troops only chariots.
I have approx. 11 years of experience in horse riding (just regular riding, so not in armor) and I agree with the historian. I love that charging scene in LotR but that slope is way too steep for the cavalry to charge. In reality you'd go down a slope like that slowly and diagonally (to reduce the steepness) - and trying to lay back as much as possible to reduce the weight on the front legs of the horse. Warhorses can be 500-800 kg (plus the rider), and when traversing such a slope most of that weight is on 2 legs (for some short time only on 1) instead of 4, so galloping down would pose a very high risk of injury to the horse (especially with the riders laying forward for the charge, so their weight is also mostly on the front legs of the horses). They can break their ankles (or maybe other part of the leg) or at least trip and fell over, crushing their riders and tripping the other horses behind them. The majority of the horses would surely trip - so yes, everybody would've died in that scene and the orks won in "reality".
I agree with the historian on the Gladiator cavalry charge too. Sure, you can traverse that forest, no problem, but not at that speed. The problem is not the level of thickness of that forest (though, in my opinion, this is more than enough to make it impossible to stay in formation), it's that trees have roots - many of which stick out from the ground. It's dark and the horses are galloping, so they have 0 chance to avoid all of the roots - and at that speed it is really not easy to recover from tripping. So lot of them would fall, potentially crushing their riders and getting injured themselves.
I rode a horse exactly once more than 30 years ago. Riding it down a sandy hill that was nowhere near as steep was the sketchiest moment of the ride, even according to the experienced people in the group.
@@immikeurnot that's a brave thing to do with someone on their 1st ride. The sandy ground can make it very slippery for the horse, so in that case I probably would've asked you to get off and walk down with the horse, for your safety. But, otherwise, I hope that you enjoyed the experience in overall.
But…. It’s the ditch guy….. I like the ditch guy
We all do.... We all do.
Something a lot of people don't have these days is experience around horses. Even a moderately sized horse can be very intimidating when up close. A purpose bred warhorse in armor... I can easily understand how a bunch of them running at you would cause you to waver.
I grew up near a field that had 2 retired farm horses. It was like having two prime Arnold Schwarzeneggers injected with liquid Ronnie Coleman strolling around. it was intimidating, especially as a small kid.
Roel would be correct about a hill that steep. physics would make doing that for one lone horse problematic but maybe possible, but a tight formation like this all doing it at the same time would be probably disastrous. one miss step of a horse would cause a snowball effect that could take down half of them.
Metatron: Disagrees on a few point (mostly incorrectly)
Clickbait title mode: Activated!
Macedonian cavalry is a thing during the time the siege of troy is set? I'm sorry, what on earth are you talking about? haha, this one was a real bad take.
I mean I usually love your takes, but you were quite a bit off on a lot of things in this video it seems. Cant get em all correct I suppose.
I'm with the Roel Digaditch guy, superb historian. You've made quite a few mistakes in here Metatron.
It was quite possible for 9th century Vikings to take a 13th century castle. As Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis showed in the 1950s film The Vikings 😂
It's also possible for King Arthur to assault a 14th century castle but the local constabulary prevented him from capturing it.
@@celston51 Yes, well, I'm sure the French would have something to say about that!
5:08 the old man didn't go for a sniper shot per se; he just couldn't keep holding the arrow back because it's a fricking bow and he's an old man. He loosed the arrow by accident and happened to kill one of the orcs. This is how the battle starts because then the orcs charge because they're now under attack and the occupants of Helms Deep have to think quick because of this one old guy having to hold an arrow at full draw for ages for literally no reason
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Ditch guy is 100% correct on everything
@20:40 ... "They did film it".... Yeah and they probably had people clearing the ground of every branch and rock ahead of time, for days
Even for the charge of the Rohirrim, which was on an open plane, they checked every single square meter for rabbit holes before filming because they didn't want horses breaking their legs.
The ditch guy is the best. I think you misunderstood him sometimes and especially with the steep hill in LotR. As someone who rode horses i can assure you, that that is near impossibility let alone with an entire army. Please watch the beginning of the charge and the formation of the cavallery again (not in the clips presented) and it will get very clear that he is correct on that one
He is actually an expert on ancient Greek warfare and Sparta specifically, really recommend you to react to him answering the most googled questions about Sparta on HistoryHit.
@@sapsaniy703 I surely will thanks!
@@metatronyt Will you publish a video addressing the comments on your misunderstandings in this video?
23:11 In this period means the bronze age when the legend of Troy took place. And in that time there was no cavalry as it is depicted in the movie, rich people used carriages pulled by horses that were a little bit bigger than ponies
10:18 The hill is WAAAAY too steep. When I saw it the first time it felt like complete lunacy lol.
Yea, its like 45° 😮 for how magnificent the battle was I think they should have lowered the angle, it looks unneccessarily unrealistic. Still the best movie ever tho ❤
When Gandalf and the Rohirrim charge the orcs at dawn, the orcs are not just blinded but also take physical damage from sunlight.
Aren’t the UrukHai bred to resist the sun better? Not that they particularly enjoy it ofc
@@Daidalos69 They are, but if I recall correctly, Saruman's army is not all Uruk-Hai, there are a lot of regular orcs. they did after all attack at night.
I have great respect for you sir, but this is totally click bate. Your statement about how Macedonian cavalry is a thing in the time of the Trojan war is almost 1000 years off. And sometimes I think you make statements for entertainment.
Horses hate going downhill on slopes worse than 25 degrees or more(roughly). You gotta zig-zag down the slope to help avoid breaking a leg or tumbling.
That cavalry charge was absolute cinema, but impossible without causing an equine avalanche.
I agreed more with the historian than metatron in this video
For Troy he means the Bronze Age or around 1,200 BC.
That said they absolutely did ride horses and used chariots quite liberally in warfare.
Yes but as "taxi" just pick warior up to the battelfiel. And horses were rarher small.
@ that’s too pedantic… Nowhere did I say they were used like cavalry, but to say that people didn’t ride horses or that horses were to valuable to use in warfare is just blatantly false.
@@Benevolent_Fafnirbut the term “mounted cavalry” which is what Roel used, has a very specific connotation in military history. It specifically means cavalrymen actively fighting from horseback. Not the mere riding of horses for transportation in a battlefield, and not chariots. He was reacting to a scene where Ajax was seemingly brutalising a mounted trojan warrior(s). Not sure if the movie intended to show mounted cavalry or just soldiers using horses to move from place (a) to place (b) and got caught by Ajax, but the historian was merely using it as a teaching moment; and he is not wrong.
5:20 the old man didn't try and snipe anyone. He just couldn't hold on anymore and just lost the grip of the string. Thwack... So yes the entire enemy army front is WELL within all the archers' reach...
I think he's actually right about the testudo but he worded it wrong. The Testudo was a formation meant to move up to a fortification under heavy from defenders and it works wonderfuly at that but if your enemy isn't an actual fixed emplacement you're wasting a lot of effort covering your sides and being really compact instead of spreading your formation out more, soldiers can use their shields to cover their front and high angles without it being an actual testudo and still be reasonably protected, probably better than in Testudo if soldiers make up a less dense target. And having more width and spacing in a formation is going to be very important when you make contact, even if the troops can rearrange very quickly, it's just an extra complication to add to a difficult enough situation.
That’s right. In ancient combat (and generally speaking), armies tried to make their line as wide as possible and speed and manuverability were more important for captains and generals than stray casualty from missile fire. In this battle, the germanic army were firing missiles but there was also a vast infantry army awaiting the romans. Approaching them in a testudo makes it much easier for the enemy to flank them or otherwise out-manoeuver them. Typically, Roman armies would counter missile fire like this by keeping the infantry back and using their own auxiliary forces (skirmishers/ velites) to have ranged fight, so to speak.
I find it interesting that Metatron is answering comments where people agrees with him, and ignore all the comments about Troy and macedonian cavalery. This was a wake up call for me, his claim that he is only interested in the truth was just a sham.
I think in a general sense he's right that cavalry by and large did not want to run through woodlands etc where possible. Where you have cavalry advantage you are wise to seek open plains etc as a battlefield like he went on to say
Calvary riding through woods is like Armour advancing through built-up areas... just a bad situation all round.
Edit: braveheart is my fav movie (maybe you can tell) because 6 yo me didn't really care for historical accuracy
The Dutch Ditch guy
English heavy cavalry got tricked numerous times by big spears during the first war of Scottish independence (I think battle of loughdon hill and bannockburn)
*Bannockburn
Of course, I'll edit it. My only excuse is that I was walking home after kickboxing so I was tired 😂 Bannockburn is the more famous of the two also@leonrussell9607
Yt deleted my previous reply, anyways thank you! I've edited it @leonrussell9607
I think cavalry in that period was very much an exception rather than the rule. Macedonians and Persians were probably the first to use it in history, which is understandable because stirrups weren't invented yet.
Ok, we need to talk about bows.
120 pounds, is 120 pounds.
A horn recurved bow that is 3 feet across that is drawn at 120 pounds, is the same as a 6-7 foot tall longbow that draws at 120 pounds. It takes the same effort to pull and hold that weight.
Now, the LENGTH of the draw can impart more energy into the projectile as it is released. This is why crossbows have much higher draw tensions than bows do, to achieve the same sort of kinetic energy.
We're talking physics now, but, arrows and bolts have mass. It takes time to accelerate the arrow and bolt up to the maximum speed. The longer the draw of the bow or xbow that is delivering its kinetic energy to the arrow or bolt, the more energy is put into that bolt or arrow. So, a steppe bow that is strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw of say 24 inches compared to a longbow strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw length of 32 inches, well the longbow will fire an arrow with more energy because it has more time and distance to put that 120 pounds of draw into the projectile.
The draw is EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGH.
I feel like movie makers see people shooting compound bows and think all bows can be held at full draw like that, not knowing about let-off.
draw distance being further exactly means it takes more energy to draw it too... Why would that be different from the energy imparted on the arrow?
@immikeurnot i agree with this, however I think part of the issue is that those bows are probably 30 pounds if that and no one on that set has ever even seen a 120 lb long bow loosed let alone tried to do it themselves.
I love your videos, but you've been increasingly "mouth-smacky". I hope you can dial that habit back, or I'm going to struggle to watch more of your videos.
at 15:0 Metatron says he dissagrees with infantry charging what about the highland charge, the irish charge, and the celtic charges
Hilarious that people are still criticizing 300 for "historical inaccuracy". They've been whining about since it first came out. The movie is obviously not meant to be an accurate historical drama. It's meant to have a very artistic, stylistic, and cinematic tone of a historical event.
Which is precisely why he isn't criticising it as such, he's rating the historical accuracy & if things could realistically work like that. You can do that with pretty much any piece of fictional media, scores are then of course low, but it's not criticism per se.
@Annielee825 I mean in this situation it's kind of the same thing, right? My point still stands. What's the point in rating it on historical accuracy when historical accuracy was hardly the intention?
@Neckromorph He's not trashing it as a bad movie, though, or anything. He's analysing movies that centre around a historical event or use seemingly historical tactics - you can hardly deny that's the origin of 300, no matter the creative intention. He doesn't whine about the movie, just takes it as an oppourtunity to share his insights. If we go by authenticity, nobody would be allowed to talk about anything, because guess what - those works are still fictional, no matter how high a rating you'd give it.
Plus I think it actually adds to media literacy, a skill people need more than ever but that isn't exactly taught. You wouldn't believe how many people out there watch a historical drama & think they just learned historical facts... It's terrifying, especially when it's not just about, idk, pretty regency clothing, but godd*mn Na*is...
I love metatron but he is being really pedantic here, like he purposefully wants to disagree with him
@@joshybobie11 pedantic is my middle name.
"they did film it and the horses didn't break their legs". yes, because before filming they cleared a path where the horses could ride through without obsticles. they did the same in lord of the rings for the ride of the rohirrim.
16:36 When he says "They clear the walls", I don't think he means that Scorpios actually destroy the wall but can shoot off defenders from a great distance. Which of course would make any archer anxious to stick is head out.
Love your stuff, but I think you sometimes overestimate the efficiency that ancient warriors can execute maneuvers or tactics at. "Professionals" even today struggle at basic tactics in war. A select elite can execute these things consistently. But your average rank and file would struggle much more with complex tactics and maneuvers.
7:13 Not sure if I agree that archers from the medieval period actually took precise shots at gaps in between armour in the middle of battle. Id imagine that they'd probably just try to keep distance and shoot as much as possible to put some extra pressure on enemy formations. They're definitely skilled, especially english longbowmen since most compete in tournaments when not at war but I don't think they're hawkeye level good lmao
"I Do NOT Agree" then proceeds to agree with most of what's being said.
Yeah, the usual clickbait.
Bows were mostly for harassment, disruption and demoralization. Killing and wounding were just icing on the cake. If they could kill effectively then no hand to hand combat would be required. Just sit at the distance and keep emptying your quiver and you win? That's not how it works. Only shock can decide a battle.
"Greeks and Macedonians spears were extremely long"
Cleopatra: That's what she said
spear in the pants
During bronze age Greece cavalry wasn't really a thing outside of chariots, which were more like a battlefield Uber for heroes (at least that's how Homer describes them and Caesar describes British chariots being used similarly many centuries later). Something interesting about Homer's description of the battles in The Iliad is that a vast majority of the kill scenes are done with thrown spears. Riding a chariot into battle throwing javelins, dismounting to bolster a section of the line and remounting to move around the battlefield, chasing down fleeing enemies, killing enemy champions, and breaking weak sections of the enemy line paints a very dynamic picture of a bronze age battle.
In this case… I’m Switzerland
Thanks!
I think Roel was forgetting that for LOTR, Uruk Hai have NO fear; saying that arrows are meant to keep their heads down - yeah that may happen when shooting at some men or dwarves, but an Uruk Hai does not give a F
Right, right, right... that's actually excellent! I disagree!
I can't imagine mounted horses with heavy knights on top to be able to: 1 RUN downhill on gravel... 2 In formation... 3 In the dark... (cause if the sun is behind the mountain, situation is not "just before the dawn"...)... 4 On a specific "non steep" 35° slope. I agree it is not steep for Alpine skiing, I disagree that someone from the riders will survive to feel the rising sun.
At Marathon, Athenians ran a charge to Persians at last distance to avoid the arrow shower.
Metatron: "I do NOT agree"
Comment section: "That's simply because you're wrong and here's 50 reasons why you're wrong"
Yeah people take the words disagree as an insult. They clearly have never set foot in academia. Disagreeing is a good thing.
@@metatronyt don’t know where people get the idea of disagreeing with someone turning to ”oh they must hate the person” comes from.
I have to disagree with your assessment about archers and precision. 99% of archery combat was volley fire, not precision aimed shots. Lines of archers fired volleys... which you could NOT aim specifically at a target. Aiming was only done in clusters - you aimed to make sure your arrow hit the mass of bodies. There was no way for masses of archers to aim for gaps, the head etc... any hit on infantry was random. The archer would only aim enough to hit the enormous mass of bodies infront of them... and when you're firing hundreds of arrows, it's a wall of wood and metal that will kill something eventually... Aiming was meaningless.
Small unit combat would certainly have to aim.... but most combat was mass warfare of hundreds of men or thousands of men.. not 10 or 20 men against 10 or 20 men.
The same was true for early firearms. You didn't aim a musket in warfare between armies. You didn't need to. You aimed the musket at the wall of men infront of you and fired. Your musket ball would probably hit someone. Aiming was pointless, you just needed to aim well enough to hit the wall of people, nothing more.
I could watch videos like this for hours tbh. Metatron vs The Ditch Guy, two knowledgable, sympathetic, smart and pedantic history experts "clashing" is just awesome to witness. More of this please. :)
Bold move to contradict THE DITCH MAN himself!
Metatron has no business judging Roel on anything, this was a big mistake. Metatron where's you're ditch, where is it!