r u sure? how should a soldier be able to retreat behind his fellowers when they had to keep the lines tight in order to prevent the enemy from breaking into the column? also, for that system you need a deep lineup which obviously isn't the case in your spartacus example where the romans clear their deep columns in order to fight as numerous lines
@TheOneChriss I totally agree. I would give up everything for a chance to go back and be a legionnaire. Guns n' shit is bullshit compared to a sword ans shield.
@Rachenwut Ehm. Are you all right? You know that turks came too the Europe about 2000 years after the first etruscans came to etruria? Yes by their ancestors the most roman patrician families were etruscans. But not Iulii. They were decendants of kings from Alba Longa, and they were latin not etruscans. Why trusci, they called themselves Rssena or Rasna. And do you even know construction of name of the roman citizen ? (btw dont use pure capitals, its trolling)
@Rachenwut bullshit the etruscan wasnt turks! Ceasar a turk, stop lying(taqqiya) even if u are a muslim, the juli wasnt turks lol then ataturk was an american , alta was du für ein scheiss schreibts, PS: ich bin ein nachfahre der römer und trage cäsars namen(GIULIANO), ich weiss das ihr türken gerne ein teil dieser großen geschichte wärt aber das einzigste was türken und römer verbindet ist das die ottomanen 1492 ostrom(byzans/konstantinopel) zerstört haben
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani it is... download the mod europa barbarorum. its been hailed even by the creators of rtw as breathtaking. it compleatly fixes for historical accuracy.
@youpon1000 Yeah... no such thing as the American Empire... that's pretty hilarious. The US is totally patterned after Rome and they're just as brutal, if not more so. In fact I think if a Roman general were brought forward to our time and shown the kinds of weapons that are available today, plus the systematic destruction of the entire globe that we've undertaken, he'd be scared out of his mind and would beg to be sent back to his own time.
@youpon1000 I was actually agreeing with you! I think it's totally correct to call it an empire. I was laughing at the guy who said there's no such thing.
@deino117 I thing he would be amazed, by technology BUT wuold ask them if they are stupid (no ofense). Romans woudnt try too subdue afganistan for 10 years. They would kill until they submit. Maybe even perform a little genocide to show that they dont care about the life of the enemy. Thats becouse they didnt know any laws of war as are today (there were rules and traditions but, about practical things, like after the city surrenderes soldiers have right for at least one day to sack the town).
@ArcheoRexo I think a Roman who heard a modern politician applauding the death of 600,000 children (Madeleine Albright talking about Iraqi kids killed by sanctions) would call it genocide. The Romans were certainly brutal, but their brutality was practical - when it took two or three months to get an army together and ship it across the Empire, it made sense to let an invader know that though they might get several weeks to run around at first, Roman retribution was going to be unforgettable.
@wintertrees2010 Oh, i dont mean defensive actions and punitive raids, i ment conquest of cisalpine gaul, carthage, gaul and mainly dacia. And ofcourse they brutality was practical. I m saing that even if it is practical, it is useable today. No commander can say today i dont care about civilian atrocities or how brutal your pratices will be but i want helmand province secure in 2 months.
@ArcheoRexo They had moral and humanity after all. If they conquered a city, they respected their religion and tradition, they never tried to destroy anyone's religion and tradition. They brought peace and civilization, Germans, Britons...etc accepted the roman law and lifestyle because it was better than the life they had before, In fact Germans and Britons were loyal to Romans and fought for them. Romans wouldn't kill a innocent people for no reason. They only killed when necessary !!
He is right about the scene shown 1.25 onward. I walked into the movie just as this scene started. Standing on the balcony and watching them deploying with no sound other than the jingling of their equipment I wanted to leave before things got serious!
@TRekkie122 I think not. But assuming you stay true to your username, you could just fire a full spread of photon torpedos onto the battlefield. That might kill them. Maybe.
As you will no doubt be aware Spartacus is not a historically accurate film - indeed it is more fiction - but the battle scenes do show the tactics as you describe.
Is it true that the Romans had to have sexual relations with men before they marched--in order to deprive them of poisons and fatigue? Our history teacher is saying this.
@parafleet lol wtf? every army carried 'cohorts' of prostitutes to prevent the soldiers from getting to horny and raping the women of the towns they captured and to keep moral up. How does having sex with another man "deprive you of posion and fatigue"? That just makes no sense
@parafleet Your History teacher is a Fraud and possible a Faggot trying to start a Gay conversation with you all, be alert for signs...and kick him in the ass next time he brings that crap out.
@parafleet If anyone was by the Legion Conduct Code, he would be whipped and in serious trouble...The Soldiers were Professional, (that's why they excelled from others), and got payed to support their wives and children. The single ones when they have a break from duty, the first thing they often did was going to a cheap Brothel, drink and gamble. Also the Centurions made sure they had access to whores to keep the spirits up during campaigns.
@parafleet Yes, but there is a lot more Today around the World, it is one of the oldest Trades or Profession. But only the Rich Class could afford to buy them as a sign of Power, not the Soldiers. Even so, some Emperors such as Octavian Augustus banned any Homosexual and Off-Marriage "relations".
@parafleet No direct opposite. It was against the good morals and discipline. There are even a few surviving stories of sexual harasment between soldiers and each time it ended bad for those who try to seduce a felow soldier. I would like to know where he find such a "fact".
heh, those slaves were screwed. One legion is all it took for Rome to conquer most regions, one Legion per region. These slaves are confronted by TWO legions :D sucks to be them. Of course, I suppose they didn't care that they'd die.
@tzepesh20 vikings were more raiders than soldiers, also many peasants/pilgrims went on crusades and they lack the money that knights templar, professional armies and nobles had for equipment.
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani I know Urbans are real and they are the police force but they should lower the Urbans attack and defense like 1 like a town watches since thats what they are pretty much.
@FsimulatorX I agree with you but iirc 'cohort urbanae' were actually still a 'military' unit, and tho they were police as u say, they were like SWAT. They would have had standard legionary training and it was intended that their presence was a counter-balance of the praetorians, whose political influence was growing very strong. 'praetorian cohorts' didnt quite exist either, but praetorians were more bodyguards or a retinue. so perhaps to make their stats like a town watch's is a bit much :P
their greatest general ? well take your pick over 4 centuries , SCIPIO AFRICANUS defeated hannibal and conquered north africa , LUCIUS LUCULLUS victor of tigranocerta and overran the near east , AGRICOLA in britain , CEASAR in gaul , TRAJAN in eastern europe , POMPEY in greece and egypt , the list is endless
man to man fighting they are recognised as the greatest infantary soldiers of all time , they were super fit ( made to carry heavy loads for many miles and swim with heavy equipment ) and train non stop all their lives , also their sword the famous GLADIUS ( otherwise known as the spanish short sword ) was perfect for close quater fighting , some people go on about battles that they lost , but the number of battles that they won is countless their empire lasted for four centuries
@wexfordboyful yes exactly and also when they started to lose battles (very few times if we think about CENTURIES of wars) Rome was already fading. As a pretty celebre historian said time ago "Rome died of old age not cause of a fatal wound" Many people go braggin about the vikings, the celts, the gauls... the reality is that Rome was the best and most efficient war machine of the ancient western world. Perhaps the only comparison possible to make would be with the japanese army of that age
@OmegaDarkful i think you are referring to the HAN DYNASTY ( 202 BCE---- 220AD ) the 2nd imperial dynasty of ancient CHINA , it is true that at this period in world history their was TWO super powers on earth , but the HAN EMPIRE from southern mongolia in the north down to the china south coast was a continuous land empire with HAN conquest over other chinese people , the ROMAN EMPIRE invented colonies with roman governors and roman soldiers controlling land on different continents.
@wexfordboyful well actually Rome was founded in 753 BC (became a republic in 509 BC), and Byzantine didn't fall untill 1348 AD. If you ask me that's significantly longer than four centuries =]
@RectumPilum i was refering to the IMPERATUM ,most historians consider the IMPERATUM to have lasted four centuries, the very long period you mention covers the entire roman civilization, = REPUBLIC, IMPERATUM, WESTERN and EASTERN ( byzantine ) empires, the roman soldiers that fought for BYZANTIUM were not the all conquering LEGIONS that fought for CEASAR and AUGUSTUS
Well, when Roman empires ended, it did not kill many of the things the Romans used off,
did you notice many of today's houses similar to roman times and even soldiers and policemen all over the world today used roman military tactics even with police's riot squads.
Many tribes after fall of Rome decide to use such tactics and building tactics,etc after learning from Roman prisoners and civilians who joined them and over the centuries they still learned to use tactic even today.
@DavBlc7 Sorry. Its directli opposite. "Barbarians" didnt use roman tactic, roman became to use barbarian. It is called barbarisation of the army. And policmen, (riot squads) dont use roman tactics but saxon shieldwall. Army, as far as i can tell modern infatry is based on small units tactics, basicly just skirmishing with enemy, direct oposite of roman shock tactic based on bloodshed and gore. Houses, hmm, if you live in roman like house than good for you. I m not poor but i cant affored it.
@Dinoenthusiastguy Old religious films in particular are monstrosities.... there's a film about Jesus where all the Romans are wearing hoplite helmets with big points on the top and are wearing entirely scale armor.
@14GloryofRome14 Not just Christian films like Ben Hur and The Robe, but just about every Roman movie from that time period. Either they didn't care about it then or they just didn't know. But at least in this clip the tactics are right; in newer films like Gladiator, it shows all the Romans and Germans spread out and all fighting one-on-one.
@Dinoenthusiastguy I think most likely it's that they didn't care. I'm pretty sure that they had access to reliefs and texts describing Roman equipment. Not as sophisticated as the knowledge we have right now, but enough to make something resembling an accurate Roman legionnaire.
@Dinoenthusiastguy In defense of Gladiator: I always assumed that that first battle was a really nasty, awful bloodbath. After all, they were destroying the last Germanic stronghold, you'd expect the barbarians to fight hard-it being their last stand and all. Therefore, I think you saw one-on-one fighting simply because unit cohesion had broken down by the end of the battle.
@Halo4Lyf I don't think so. When the Roman legion was fighting man-to-man, it was complete disaster. In the later empire the Romans lost many battles because discipline was dropping and they would break formation. The Romans would be reforming the line every so often, and line relief ensured that it was always fresh troops on the front line.
@tzepesh20 Concerning the crusades, sure there were a large concentration of well armed and armored men, that's because many of Europe's nobles from across the continent heeded the cause,yet the reality is that the majority of the forces were still of the lower class and were not knights nor rich and were simply armed with what they can afford, a serf or peasant of the lower class will not be able to afford plate, nor get a training one might get as legionair of Rome, that is simply the reality.
@tzepesh20 You should really read the old books and manuscripts with diagrams that came out of that era and come to grips with reality. I'm sure there are as many types of weapons in that era as there was in any, but so what? Barbarians don't have peasants Vikings didn't, as don't the Gallics of Gaul whom also had a reputation of being great warriors, but so what, what's your point? The Byzantine Empire was the eastern leftover of the Roman Empire and even then so lost most of their prowess.
@tzepesh20 Elite armies are a fantasy and yes medieval armies consisted mostly of peasants, this is a fact, weather you wanna believe it or not is your problem, at any rate 14th - 16th century standard were similar to early medieval armies consisting of mostly conscripts with chainmal/breastplate (if could afford), a poleaxe or a spear and a backup blade, nobles as I've said consisted less than 1 percent of the population and not all nobles were warriors.
@tzepesh20 Basic medieval infantry were practically minimally trained peasants with basic gear such as padded leather and spears (if they were lucky), the elite part with all the fancy gear (nobles) were less than 1 percent of the population. Medieval cavalry would be potent, but it's not something the Romans had not handled before Parthians, various Gallic tribes, Sarmatians and the likes, so there forth would be well versed in dealing with them.
@tzepesh20 Medieval armaments consisted of mostly spears and chainmail armor similar to what a Roman Legion would have countered in Gaul during Cesar's campaign, knights consisted of less than 10 percent of medieval military strength, therefor the Romans at their prime would still be superior in warfare with their standardization of superior arms.
this is how war should be fought now adays... really shows whos better at battle, training n better soldier or warrior overall... im not taking away anything from our armys, im just saying... its very easy to hide behind a rock quietly n suddenly pop up n start shooting at an unsuspecting adversary. wars like these would save innocent lives, lives in general and lots and lots of money. not tryin to offend anyone, i kw how ppl always taking everything personally, but its true.
@3197040 The casualties would be tremendous. Have u ever lost a loved one in the military? Imagine losing your whole family. Plus, how will it show whose better when one army has 100k and the other has 10k.
@ultramarine1234 YEA!!!! Romans rock , but now a days we have things called bombs and guns and tanks and so on and now we fight how everyone else should defeat a army in a week thats how we do it.
Nice video, thank you. All I ever ask from a movie, or show about the legions would be for someone to actual, and yes I know it would be cg, but actually show the proper deployment and use of the heavy and light pilum, pre physical sword engagement.
I am only waiting when that crap show "ultimate warrior" will pit Marines(USA Military) vs Roman Legionaire(Ancient one :P) ............well , Marines will slaughter them with machine guns etc......but let be honest ....US Military immediately throw away modern weapons and receive Swords and Shields , and i am pretty sure Roman Empire will win 10/10 times.
Nice. That Kubrick footage is amazing - I have to watch that movie. (I assume the Romans we see lining up here got creamed anyway...)
The whistle Vorenus uses in the Rome TV series is conjectural, isn't it? Wouldn't a lowly centurion be listening for trumpet calls from the bigwigs rather than choosing his own moment to engage?
great vid.helps explain a lot in plain english. on the history channel an english college professor claimed that when u considered the size and sophistication of the roman army at its height,it was UNMATCHED until NEPOLEON???
This is about the legions in the Late Roman Republic. The first 'emperor' Augustus put in reforms, and so did many of his descendants.
Also, by the late Roman Empire, a large deal (say 90% or more) of all roman soldiers were from the people they'd call Barbarians: many Germanic tribes living near the borders were hired by the romans, and many others were allowed to live on Roman soil in exchange for military service.
Given a Roman training and Roman officers (although one of the later emperors had given every inhabitant of the Roman empire full citizenship, so 'Roman' meant everything from a Spaniard to a North-African to a Parthian.), they largely fought as they were expected to, however being adapted to Guerilla-style warfare.
Also, many of their 'barbarian' enemies at the end, had the same quality of equipment, knew the same tactics,...
awesome...no wonder they were so powerful..discipline and good tactics...the only reason the Roman Empire fell was because of incapable leaders...not because the legions couldnt face any threat.
@dominusetdeus060644 the roman empire accually fell for a number of reasons, not just incapable leaders, thay also had a bad economy which mad only very rich men or very poor men. another reason is that the roman nobles started buy off all of the farm land from the farmers, so there was little to no food to support the empire.
You are wrong there ;) . The practice of Latifundia, nobles buying farming lands from small farmers and putting slaves to work there, started in the 1st century BC and became the main source of food to the Empire by the 2nd century AD. In fact, they gave lots of food: their productivity was never matched until the !!! 19th century !!! That's just 200 years ago! This did however destabilize their society, as thousands homeless people lived in Rome, living from state handouts...
@12punisher12 accually, the noblemen that baught the land were useing it for any reason they saw fit. while some of the land went to personal farms (and i stress "personal"), it usually went to horse breeding because chariot races were imensely popular to the romans. other ways they used the land they baught was for large estates. thats why the grasius brothers (sorry, if i spelled the name wrong) protested to the senate.
I think the psychological effect of seeing this kind of manoeuvre underway must have been very unnerving to pretty much any opposing force, except maybe another legion. Another factor was the fact that they did all this in silence. Any enemy would know they were up against real professionals.
Various commentators (Josephus no doubt among them) said the Roman soldiers were more afraid of their own officers than they were of the enemy. Maybe that's the real secret??
@deino117 Sure it was... Brutus killed one of his own sons cause abbandoned the first roman line to confront in duel an enemy (and won). Discipline above all and none of the enemies Roma had knew the meaning of this word
@Nomis095 Yes you are both right. Partly, latifundia were a problem form their beginning becouse their existence destroyed middle class which was base of roman conscripts(but as well they usualy didnt produce wheat for food but there will something more profitable). But that was changed by Marian reform, profesialization of the army. The reasons for the fall were many. Yes there was economical crisis, but crucial factor was epidemics that wiped out quater of the empire. Real pain.
@ArcheoRexo Economic issues, plague, and the increased recruitment of barbarians ainto the army and reliance on barabarian mercenaries. By the time of Attila the Hun, Rome was dependent on allied troops and mercenaries to back up the legions.
Also, there was a large Middle class of traders, people working in the administration, priests, etc,... and normal people doing anything you'd expect: pottery, shops, cooking, brewing, shepherding, metal production, woodcutting...
The really poor without land or any belongings were given free food everyday by the state.
great vid... lots of speculation about the roman army's tactics.. i would love to have a time machine.. it must have been awsome.
MedManTheBrave 1 week ago
r u sure? how should a soldier be able to retreat behind his fellowers when they had to keep the lines tight in order to prevent the enemy from breaking into the column? also, for that system you need a deep lineup which obviously isn't the case in your spartacus example where the romans clear their deep columns in order to fight as numerous lines
weldorn 2 weeks ago
I wish warfare was still the same as it were back then. Guns, nukes, airplanes and all of that just rewins it.
TheOneChriss 2 weeks ago
@TheOneChriss I totally agree. I would give up everything for a chance to go back and be a legionnaire. Guns n' shit is bullshit compared to a sword ans shield.
jonnacdo 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans were elite people. What turks were? the worst version of mongolian or better say the worst form of human being!!
Maverickrad 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THATS A FACT ACCEPT IT:
ROMANS WERE TÜRK
ETRÜSK=TRUSCI=TÜRK= ANTIK NAME FOR TÜRK!
CÄSAR WAS A ETRUSCIAN TÜRK!
LIKE THE WHOLE HOUSE OF THE JULII
EVERYONE WITH THE NAME JULIUS IN ROMAN HISTORY IS A DIRECT TÜRK NOBLE!
Rachenwut 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ROMANS WERE TÜRK
ETRÜSK=TRUSCI=TÜRK= ANTIK NAME FOR TÜRK!
CÄSAR WAS A ETRUSCIAN TÜRK!
LIKE THE WHOLE HOUSE OF THE JULII
EVERYONE WITH THE NAME JULIUS IN ROMAN HISTORY IS A DIRECT TÜRK NOBLE!
Rachenwut 3 weeks ago
pop-ulus , the people who live in the near of river po
its türkish: po: name of the river, ulus: means on türkish people, nation!
Rachenwut 3 weeks ago
Their line relief system is really clever
agentkingbadupadup 1 month ago
Their relief system is really clever
agentkingbadupadup 1 month ago
woah footage from 71BC
Ellis307 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ROMANS WERE TÜRK
ETRÜSK=TRUSCI=TÜRK= ANTIK NAME FOR TÜRK!
CÄSAR WAS A ETRUSCIAN TÜRK!
LIKE THE WHOLE HOUSE OF THE JULII
EVERYONE WITH THE NAME JULIUS IN ROMAN HISTORY IS A DIRECT TÜRK NOBLE!
Rachenwut 1 month ago
@Rachenwut Ehm. Are you all right? You know that turks came too the Europe about 2000 years after the first etruscans came to etruria? Yes by their ancestors the most roman patrician families were etruscans. But not Iulii. They were decendants of kings from Alba Longa, and they were latin not etruscans. Why trusci, they called themselves Rssena or Rasna. And do you even know construction of name of the roman citizen ? (btw dont use pure capitals, its trolling)
ArcheoRexo 1 month ago
@Rachenwut Fail.
SlipSloop 1 month ago
@Rachenwut bullshit the etruscan wasnt turks! Ceasar a turk, stop lying(taqqiya) even if u are a muslim, the juli wasnt turks lol then ataturk was an american , alta was du für ein scheiss schreibts, PS: ich bin ein nachfahre der römer und trage cäsars namen(GIULIANO), ich weiss das ihr türken gerne ein teil dieser großen geschichte wärt aber das einzigste was türken und römer verbindet ist das die ottomanen 1492 ostrom(byzans/konstantinopel) zerstört haben
Smokey672000 1 month ago
@Rachenwut i dunno if i should pity, laugh, or cry at your great sense of knowledge.
ShadowVampireFTW 3 weeks ago
"if you care to pause and count"
lol that'd take ages
n3rdbear 1 month ago
Which History was that at the end?
TrueYears 2 months ago
Is it normal for a legionare to have a silver helmet with black armor and sword????
killshotreviews 2 months ago
@killshotreviews equipment apperenace was by no means standardized in terms of colors and varied greatly.
Ascensiam 2 months ago
really good and informative video dude.
Jaiyeson 3 months ago 19
@Jaiyeson spartacus
joelie80 1 week ago
Interesting it's called a contubernium, since that's a term for the slave marriage.
ffiinnrroodd 3 months ago
Thumbs up if you got here from Reddit: Rome Sweet Rome. ;o)
BikerBabeDK 3 months ago
@muglosx Thanks!!
Josiahaha 3 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani it is... download the mod europa barbarorum. its been hailed even by the creators of rtw as breathtaking. it compleatly fixes for historical accuracy.
pkendall19 3 months ago
Roman Empire = Predecessor of the American Empire
youpon1000 3 months ago
@youpon1000
No such thing as the "American Empire"
goodfellainc 3 months ago
@goodfellainc hahaha... sure
youpon1000 3 months ago
@youpon1000 Yeah... no such thing as the American Empire... that's pretty hilarious. The US is totally patterned after Rome and they're just as brutal, if not more so. In fact I think if a Roman general were brought forward to our time and shown the kinds of weapons that are available today, plus the systematic destruction of the entire globe that we've undertaken, he'd be scared out of his mind and would beg to be sent back to his own time.
deino117 3 months ago
@deino117 ok I admit.. calling it the American Empire might be a little extreme because after all it is a republic..
But if you compare the behaviors of both nations they often end up similar givin the 2000 year technology gap
youpon1000 3 months ago
@youpon1000 I was actually agreeing with you! I think it's totally correct to call it an empire. I was laughing at the guy who said there's no such thing.
deino117 3 months ago
@deino117 well yeah, but to someone who doesn't know anything it might seem strange..
youpon1000 3 months ago
@deino117 well well well...
but I guess the concept might be confusing to someone that dose not understand anything
youpon1000 3 months ago
@deino117 I thing he would be amazed, by technology BUT wuold ask them if they are stupid (no ofense). Romans woudnt try too subdue afganistan for 10 years. They would kill until they submit. Maybe even perform a little genocide to show that they dont care about the life of the enemy. Thats becouse they didnt know any laws of war as are today (there were rules and traditions but, about practical things, like after the city surrenderes soldiers have right for at least one day to sack the town).
ArcheoRexo 3 months ago
@ArcheoRexo I think a Roman who heard a modern politician applauding the death of 600,000 children (Madeleine Albright talking about Iraqi kids killed by sanctions) would call it genocide. The Romans were certainly brutal, but their brutality was practical - when it took two or three months to get an army together and ship it across the Empire, it made sense to let an invader know that though they might get several weeks to run around at first, Roman retribution was going to be unforgettable.
wintertrees2010 3 months ago
@wintertrees2010 Oh, i dont mean defensive actions and punitive raids, i ment conquest of cisalpine gaul, carthage, gaul and mainly dacia. And ofcourse they brutality was practical. I m saing that even if it is practical, it is useable today. No commander can say today i dont care about civilian atrocities or how brutal your pratices will be but i want helmand province secure in 2 months.
ArcheoRexo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcheoRexo They had moral and humanity after all. If they conquered a city, they respected their religion and tradition, they never tried to destroy anyone's religion and tradition. They brought peace and civilization, Germans, Britons...etc accepted the roman law and lifestyle because it was better than the life they had before, In fact Germans and Britons were loyal to Romans and fought for them. Romans wouldn't kill a innocent people for no reason. They only killed when necessary !!
Maverickrad 2 weeks ago
hly crap
sniperdude5236 4 months ago
what is the movie called from the last clip?
Josiahaha 4 months ago 13
@Josiahaha Its from the HBO Series called "Rome" Which takes place at 52 BC
Muglosx 3 months ago
@Josiahaha its not a movie its a Tv series called Rome, here is the first episode for it
megavideo. com/?d=3DWWG2JN
USAPropaganda 3 months ago
@Josiahaha It is from episode i, season one of HBO's ROME mini-series.
Aulus1 3 months ago
@Josiahaha HBO's Rome
TheTechnograph 3 months ago
@Josiahaha
Its from the BBC series Rome. (Season 1, ep. 1)
Wraaaul 2 months ago
@Josiahaha - The series "Rome" by hbo
thorshammer25 2 months ago
@Josiahaha HBO serious "Rome" two seasons. both very good :D
FoGGeRdk 2 months ago
@Josiahaha
Rome HBO Series. Awesome series!
2purple79 3 weeks ago
@Josiahaha I think it's from the series "Rome". Not sure if this has been answered yet or not but just making sure!
LewisB776 1 week ago
Comment removed
dragdev 6 days ago
Could this volume possibly be mastered any lower?
Joeblow591988 4 months ago
honestly, if I were fighting against Rome...I'd just give up and kill myself.
Darkfire9189 5 months ago
To bad that Romans didnt see the advantages of cavalry when used in combat
p3ro83 5 months ago in playlist Roman Legions (218BC-453AD)
He is right about the scene shown 1.25 onward. I walked into the movie just as this scene started. Standing on the balcony and watching them deploying with no sound other than the jingling of their equipment I wanted to leave before things got serious!
freebeerfordworkers 5 months ago
I'm a history major in college. I found this very interesting!
phillyfanatic25 5 months ago
thanx man... nice info
orientalflux 5 months ago
me my friend and a 50Cal. and ashit ton of amo... i think i can take em :D
TRekkie122 5 months ago
@TRekkie122 no you can not.
Darkfire9189 5 months ago
@Darkfire9189 lol can 2
TRekkie122 5 months ago
@TRekkie122 I think not. But assuming you stay true to your username, you could just fire a full spread of photon torpedos onto the battlefield. That might kill them. Maybe.
ChoolyBuzkill 4 months ago
@ChoolyBuzkill hhahaha, i made this account along time ago lol, and nah, its now about BattleStar :3 HAHAH jk
TRekkie122 4 months ago
What movie was it that show the line relief scale?
WilsonYu343 6 months ago
@WilsonYu343 It wasn't a movie. It was from a great series called "Rome" by HBO.
solidsnake1447 6 months ago
@solidsnake1447 You're probably a conservative.
zipsrule 5 months ago
Thank you for posting...I know a LOT about first and second world wars but this is some fresh new historical info! thanks again!!!
ww298kscope 6 months ago
Excellent presentation made very clear.
As you will no doubt be aware Spartacus is not a historically accurate film - indeed it is more fiction - but the battle scenes do show the tactics as you describe.
alanheath 6 months ago
Very informative. Great work!
WCdragoninja 6 months ago
Beautifull video. Thankyou very much... Bravo.
Sigan371 6 months ago
nice
Metal4Si 6 months ago
Very very good video. Used this for help with research for an article I wrote. Need more people like you on youtube!
nathonas 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stream`'"It,"'Now,".
ＷＷＷ.ＭＯＶＩＥＳＯＮＬＩＮＥＮＯＷ.ＴＫ
Copy'.,&.``Paste.`,
leanear21Br 6 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani
Hehe what I meant was that when you ended turn it took forever. Might not be lagg but still annoying :O
But that was on my old computer... the computer I have now I kind of a monster computer so maybe I should try EB again ^^.
PoppingSanta 6 months ago
@PoppingSanta loading delays (different from lag) depends solely on the pc. thats not a mistake by the game developpers.
AlexTSilver 6 months ago
Is it true that the Romans had to have sexual relations with men before they marched--in order to deprive them of poisons and fatigue? Our history teacher is saying this.
parafleet 6 months ago
@parafleet lol wtf? every army carried 'cohorts' of prostitutes to prevent the soldiers from getting to horny and raping the women of the towns they captured and to keep moral up. How does having sex with another man "deprive you of posion and fatigue"? That just makes no sense
AlexTSilver 6 months ago
@AlexTSilver I know, I know--this is ridiculous. That is why I have questioned it (away from the classroom).
parafleet 6 months ago
@parafleet Your History teacher is a Fraud and possible a Faggot trying to start a Gay conversation with you all, be alert for signs...and kick him in the ass next time he brings that crap out.
AlessioScipioDePalma 5 months ago
@AlessioScipioDePalma Then Roman soldiers weren't gay? OMG.
parafleet 5 months ago
@parafleet If anyone was by the Legion Conduct Code, he would be whipped and in serious trouble...The Soldiers were Professional, (that's why they excelled from others), and got payed to support their wives and children. The single ones when they have a break from duty, the first thing they often did was going to a cheap Brothel, drink and gamble. Also the Centurions made sure they had access to whores to keep the spirits up during campaigns.
AlessioScipioDePalma 5 months ago
@AlessioScipioDePalma Were there any stalions, or male prostitutes?
parafleet 5 months ago
@parafleet Yes, but there is a lot more Today around the World, it is one of the oldest Trades or Profession. But only the Rich Class could afford to buy them as a sign of Power, not the Soldiers. Even so, some Emperors such as Octavian Augustus banned any Homosexual and Off-Marriage "relations".
AlessioScipioDePalma 5 months ago
@parafleet No direct opposite. It was against the good morals and discipline. There are even a few surviving stories of sexual harasment between soldiers and each time it ended bad for those who try to seduce a felow soldier. I would like to know where he find such a "fact".
ArcheoRexo 3 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani
Let's hope that Rome 2 Total War will be a little more like the mods eh? :D
The problem with EB was that it was laggy as hell :O
I like Roma Surrectum II, even tho it crashes before I've even finnished the first battle against Hannibal I like it ^^.
(I've seen campaign videos of it here on youtube so I know how it plays out)
PoppingSanta 6 months ago
thums up if you are descended of romans.
FEBsentapua 6 months ago
Rome doesn't have a legion it has many
haldir2100 7 months ago
heh, those slaves were screwed. One legion is all it took for Rome to conquer most regions, one Legion per region. These slaves are confronted by TWO legions :D sucks to be them. Of course, I suppose they didn't care that they'd die.
midgetydeath 7 months ago
@tzepesh20 cataphracts were heavier than any roman cavalry i don't know if they had horse shoes though
zerker12568901 7 months ago
@tzepesh20 vikings were more raiders than soldiers, also many peasants/pilgrims went on crusades and they lack the money that knights templar, professional armies and nobles had for equipment.
zerker12568901 7 months ago
1:16 -- I’ve never really thought of the visual impact that Roman discipline would have had on their enemies. It’s a good point, nice video man.
ziiik0 7 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani also there is another mode for RTW called SPQR mode
FsimulatorX 7 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani I know Urbans are real and they are the police force but they should lower the Urbans attack and defense like 1 like a town watches since thats what they are pretty much.
FsimulatorX 7 months ago
@FsimulatorX I agree with you but iirc 'cohort urbanae' were actually still a 'military' unit, and tho they were police as u say, they were like SWAT. They would have had standard legionary training and it was intended that their presence was a counter-balance of the praetorians, whose political influence was growing very strong. 'praetorian cohorts' didnt quite exist either, but praetorians were more bodyguards or a retinue. so perhaps to make their stats like a town watch's is a bit much :P
asdfrewqnc 7 months ago
@ConsvrgoTitanvRomani yep and the most annoying thing is urban cohort in campain. messes up the whole game
FsimulatorX 7 months ago
their greatest general ? well take your pick over 4 centuries , SCIPIO AFRICANUS defeated hannibal and conquered north africa , LUCIUS LUCULLUS victor of tigranocerta and overran the near east , AGRICOLA in britain , CEASAR in gaul , TRAJAN in eastern europe , POMPEY in greece and egypt , the list is endless
wexfordboyful 7 months ago
man to man fighting they are recognised as the greatest infantary soldiers of all time , they were super fit ( made to carry heavy loads for many miles and swim with heavy equipment ) and train non stop all their lives , also their sword the famous GLADIUS ( otherwise known as the spanish short sword ) was perfect for close quater fighting , some people go on about battles that they lost , but the number of battles that they won is countless their empire lasted for four centuries
wexfordboyful 7 months ago
@wexfordboyful yes exactly and also when they started to lose battles (very few times if we think about CENTURIES of wars) Rome was already fading. As a pretty celebre historian said time ago "Rome died of old age not cause of a fatal wound" Many people go braggin about the vikings, the celts, the gauls... the reality is that Rome was the best and most efficient war machine of the ancient western world. Perhaps the only comparison possible to make would be with the japanese army of that age
OmegaDarkful 7 months ago
@wexfordboyful ...but they were on the other side of the globe...
OmegaDarkful 7 months ago
@OmegaDarkful i think you are referring to the HAN DYNASTY ( 202 BCE---- 220AD ) the 2nd imperial dynasty of ancient CHINA , it is true that at this period in world history their was TWO super powers on earth , but the HAN EMPIRE from southern mongolia in the north down to the china south coast was a continuous land empire with HAN conquest over other chinese people , the ROMAN EMPIRE invented colonies with roman governors and roman soldiers controlling land on different continents.
wexfordboyful 7 months ago
@wexfordboyful well actually Rome was founded in 753 BC (became a republic in 509 BC), and Byzantine didn't fall untill 1348 AD. If you ask me that's significantly longer than four centuries =]
RectumPilum 7 months ago
@RectumPilum i was refering to the IMPERATUM ,most historians consider the IMPERATUM to have lasted four centuries, the very long period you mention covers the entire roman civilization, = REPUBLIC, IMPERATUM, WESTERN and EASTERN ( byzantine ) empires, the roman soldiers that fought for BYZANTIUM were not the all conquering LEGIONS that fought for CEASAR and AUGUSTUS
wexfordboyful 7 months ago
Well, when Roman empires ended, it did not kill many of the things the Romans used off,
did you notice many of today's houses similar to roman times and even soldiers and policemen all over the world today used roman military tactics even with police's riot squads.
Many tribes after fall of Rome decide to use such tactics and building tactics,etc after learning from Roman prisoners and civilians who joined them and over the centuries they still learned to use tactic even today.
DavBlc7 7 months ago
@DavBlc7 Sorry. Its directli opposite. "Barbarians" didnt use roman tactic, roman became to use barbarian. It is called barbarisation of the army. And policmen, (riot squads) dont use roman tactics but saxon shieldwall. Army, as far as i can tell modern infatry is based on small units tactics, basicly just skirmishing with enemy, direct oposite of roman shock tactic based on bloodshed and gore. Houses, hmm, if you live in roman like house than good for you. I m not poor but i cant affored it.
ArcheoRexo 3 months ago
I had no idea Stanley Kubrick got it so wrong.
smoothcriminal7033 8 months ago
Bravo... best video and description ive seen in my research! 10/10 keep it up :D
20MoonIan 8 months ago
Thank you for this video! Very informative and enlightening. Which movie is the second clip?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
Pretty inaccurate to show a late Republican legion wearing the Galea helmet, but good display of formations nonetheless.
14GloryofRome14 8 months ago
@14GloryofRome14 Yes, the old Roman films weren't known for their accuracy. I've seen some films were they even use spears and long slashing swords!
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy Old religious films in particular are monstrosities.... there's a film about Jesus where all the Romans are wearing hoplite helmets with big points on the top and are wearing entirely scale armor.
14GloryofRome14 8 months ago
@14GloryofRome14 Not just Christian films like Ben Hur and The Robe, but just about every Roman movie from that time period. Either they didn't care about it then or they just didn't know. But at least in this clip the tactics are right; in newer films like Gladiator, it shows all the Romans and Germans spread out and all fighting one-on-one.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy I think most likely it's that they didn't care. I'm pretty sure that they had access to reliefs and texts describing Roman equipment. Not as sophisticated as the knowledge we have right now, but enough to make something resembling an accurate Roman legionnaire.
14GloryofRome14 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy In defense of Gladiator: I always assumed that that first battle was a really nasty, awful bloodbath. After all, they were destroying the last Germanic stronghold, you'd expect the barbarians to fight hard-it being their last stand and all. Therefore, I think you saw one-on-one fighting simply because unit cohesion had broken down by the end of the battle.
Halo4Lyf 7 months ago
@Halo4Lyf I don't think so. When the Roman legion was fighting man-to-man, it was complete disaster. In the later empire the Romans lost many battles because discipline was dropping and they would break formation. The Romans would be reforming the line every so often, and line relief ensured that it was always fresh troops on the front line.
Dinoenthusiastguy 7 months ago
My dream have always been to join the Roman army.
Soldiertothedead 8 months ago
@tzepesh20 Concerning the crusades, sure there were a large concentration of well armed and armored men, that's because many of Europe's nobles from across the continent heeded the cause,yet the reality is that the majority of the forces were still of the lower class and were not knights nor rich and were simply armed with what they can afford, a serf or peasant of the lower class will not be able to afford plate, nor get a training one might get as legionair of Rome, that is simply the reality.
adobo777 9 months ago
@tzepesh20 You should really read the old books and manuscripts with diagrams that came out of that era and come to grips with reality. I'm sure there are as many types of weapons in that era as there was in any, but so what? Barbarians don't have peasants Vikings didn't, as don't the Gallics of Gaul whom also had a reputation of being great warriors, but so what, what's your point? The Byzantine Empire was the eastern leftover of the Roman Empire and even then so lost most of their prowess.
adobo777 9 months ago
@tzepesh20 Elite armies are a fantasy and yes medieval armies consisted mostly of peasants, this is a fact, weather you wanna believe it or not is your problem, at any rate 14th - 16th century standard were similar to early medieval armies consisting of mostly conscripts with chainmal/breastplate (if could afford), a poleaxe or a spear and a backup blade, nobles as I've said consisted less than 1 percent of the population and not all nobles were warriors.
adobo777 9 months ago
@tzepesh20 Basic medieval infantry were practically minimally trained peasants with basic gear such as padded leather and spears (if they were lucky), the elite part with all the fancy gear (nobles) were less than 1 percent of the population. Medieval cavalry would be potent, but it's not something the Romans had not handled before Parthians, various Gallic tribes, Sarmatians and the likes, so there forth would be well versed in dealing with them.
adobo777 9 months ago
Comment removed
SWCaptainREX 9 months ago
Man with real people...not with computers. I want a time machine. Sorry for my bad english i'm a young german^^
SWCaptainREX 9 months ago
@tzepesh20 Medieval armaments consisted of mostly spears and chainmail armor similar to what a Roman Legion would have countered in Gaul during Cesar's campaign, knights consisted of less than 10 percent of medieval military strength, therefor the Romans at their prime would still be superior in warfare with their standardization of superior arms.
adobo777 9 months ago
i got a nuke. so fuck your legions. i go we all go.
KOLIN25 9 months ago
@andyhuangit The comanders was mounted as well...
FaakedLillebror 9 months ago
this is how war should be fought now adays... really shows whos better at battle, training n better soldier or warrior overall... im not taking away anything from our armys, im just saying... its very easy to hide behind a rock quietly n suddenly pop up n start shooting at an unsuspecting adversary. wars like these would save innocent lives, lives in general and lots and lots of money. not tryin to offend anyone, i kw how ppl always taking everything personally, but its true.
3197040 9 months ago
@3197040 The casualties would be tremendous. Have u ever lost a loved one in the military? Imagine losing your whole family. Plus, how will it show whose better when one army has 100k and the other has 10k.
EDScool12345 8 months ago
Now Americans that's how you fight.
ultramarine1234 9 months ago
@ultramarine1234 YEA!!!! Romans rock , but now a days we have things called bombs and guns and tanks and so on and now we fight how everyone else should defeat a army in a week thats how we do it.
dekota94 9 months ago
I was born 2000 years too late : (
GillsFan91 10 months ago 144
@GillsFan91
You are not the only one.
StellandBlood 8 months ago
@GillsFan91 Yeah, I’m sure you’d feel right at home in some Gaelic ditch having a sword thrust through your chest. lololol :D
ziiik0 7 months ago
@GillsFan91 me too damn!
sweAndreasFilm 7 months ago
Comment removed
WTFOVER1901 5 months ago
@WTFOVER1901 there were narcotics as opium poppy was well known in the ancient world
if it was used as an anesthetic during battlefield surgery is another issue.
also does anyone know what the movie is for the demo of roman troop rotations?
Funkopotomis 5 months ago
@GillsFan91 Actually: 2211 years to late and i was 4 month to late to say that to you ::P
Tyrkia123 5 months ago
@GillsFan91 Just join the roit police. They still use these techiques today.
ronnieboy3 5 months ago
@GillsFan91 you want to be stabbed by a sword and trampled to death? :)
topperheartramada 5 months ago
Comment removed
CMLaneLV 4 months ago
Comment removed
CMLaneLV 4 months ago
@CMLaneLV WTF are you on about chief.
GillsFan91 4 months ago
@GillsFan91 dont worry mate, it is easy to find christians to throw to the pit, just get some lions and you will be just fine :D
QuantumProphet 4 months ago
Thanx Thanx Thanx! Very nice!
TeachMePlz100 10 months ago
Was marian reforms of the roman army just a quick fix ?
Sum8070 10 months ago
@Sum8070 Absolutely not. The Marian Reforms basically inspired the way the legion would work for hundreds of years.
14GloryofRome14 9 months ago
Nice video, thank you. All I ever ask from a movie, or show about the legions would be for someone to actual, and yes I know it would be cg, but actually show the proper deployment and use of the heavy and light pilum, pre physical sword engagement.
1126thmp 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i wanna see this movie again in webmovietube
santinasiford05 11 months ago
Allium sativum (garlic) was believed to make soldiers courageous.
Hail SPQR
Grimkrieg 11 months ago
nice vid
Richthofen100 11 months ago
I am only waiting when that crap show "ultimate warrior" will pit Marines(USA Military) vs Roman Legionaire(Ancient one :P) ............well , Marines will slaughter them with machine guns etc......but let be honest ....US Military immediately throw away modern weapons and receive Swords and Shields , and i am pretty sure Roman Empire will win 10/10 times.
Vykuk123 11 months ago
4:00 what is the movie called
PebBleishRock 11 months ago
@PebBleishRock HBO Rome
HawkeyesMKV 11 months ago
This vid is awesome =) Thanks, your'e a great commentator.
ClipEvent96 1 year ago 2
Nice. That Kubrick footage is amazing - I have to watch that movie. (I assume the Romans we see lining up here got creamed anyway...)
The whistle Vorenus uses in the Rome TV series is conjectural, isn't it? Wouldn't a lowly centurion be listening for trumpet calls from the bigwigs rather than choosing his own moment to engage?
deino117 1 year ago
@deino117 Ceasar put a lot of trust in his Centurians
pob3000tb 11 months ago
ROMANS 1 : 0 BARBARIANS
LLit11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Russian ladies online meet them now gettop5.info
susymullicanchf 1 year ago
huhu hat jemand Laune mit mir zu chatten bin wieder alleine und eingeödet
sweetgirl32ful 1 year ago
great vid.helps explain a lot in plain english. on the history channel an english college professor claimed that when u considered the size and sophistication of the roman army at its height,it was UNMATCHED until NEPOLEON???
diagreen 1 year ago
@dominusetdeus060644
This is about the legions in the Late Roman Republic. The first 'emperor' Augustus put in reforms, and so did many of his descendants.
Also, by the late Roman Empire, a large deal (say 90% or more) of all roman soldiers were from the people they'd call Barbarians: many Germanic tribes living near the borders were hired by the romans, and many others were allowed to live on Roman soil in exchange for military service.
12punisher12 1 year ago
Given a Roman training and Roman officers (although one of the later emperors had given every inhabitant of the Roman empire full citizenship, so 'Roman' meant everything from a Spaniard to a North-African to a Parthian.), they largely fought as they were expected to, however being adapted to Guerilla-style warfare.
Also, many of their 'barbarian' enemies at the end, had the same quality of equipment, knew the same tactics,...
12punisher12 1 year ago
a Roman legion consisted of 4.600 to 6.000 men
petrusm87 1 year ago
What movie is 4:00 taken from?
EDrixX 1 year ago
@EDrixX The serie Rome from HBO (my fav)
dealhit 1 year ago
my god that is alot of extras
rumpastumpa 1 year ago
Good vid
BowofRama10 1 year ago
awesome...no wonder they were so powerful..discipline and good tactics...the only reason the Roman Empire fell was because of incapable leaders...not because the legions couldnt face any threat.
dominusetdeus060644 1 year ago
@dominusetdeus060644 the roman empire accually fell for a number of reasons, not just incapable leaders, thay also had a bad economy which mad only very rich men or very poor men. another reason is that the roman nobles started buy off all of the farm land from the farmers, so there was little to no food to support the empire.
Nomis095 1 year ago
@Nomis095
You are wrong there ;) . The practice of Latifundia, nobles buying farming lands from small farmers and putting slaves to work there, started in the 1st century BC and became the main source of food to the Empire by the 2nd century AD. In fact, they gave lots of food: their productivity was never matched until the !!! 19th century !!! That's just 200 years ago! This did however destabilize their society, as thousands homeless people lived in Rome, living from state handouts...
12punisher12 1 year ago
@12punisher12 accually, the noblemen that baught the land were useing it for any reason they saw fit. while some of the land went to personal farms (and i stress "personal"), it usually went to horse breeding because chariot races were imensely popular to the romans. other ways they used the land they baught was for large estates. thats why the grasius brothers (sorry, if i spelled the name wrong) protested to the senate.
Nomis095 1 year ago
@Nomis095 Gracchus, I think.
deino117 11 months ago
I think the psychological effect of seeing this kind of manoeuvre underway must have been very unnerving to pretty much any opposing force, except maybe another legion. Another factor was the fact that they did all this in silence. Any enemy would know they were up against real professionals.
Various commentators (Josephus no doubt among them) said the Roman soldiers were more afraid of their own officers than they were of the enemy. Maybe that's the real secret??
deino117 11 months ago
@deino117 Sure it was... Brutus killed one of his own sons cause abbandoned the first roman line to confront in duel an enemy (and won). Discipline above all and none of the enemies Roma had knew the meaning of this word
OmegaDarkful 10 months ago
@OmegaDarkful agred whith only one exeption: the greeks
aloupas123 7 months ago
@Nomis095 Yes you are both right. Partly, latifundia were a problem form their beginning becouse their existence destroyed middle class which was base of roman conscripts(but as well they usualy didnt produce wheat for food but there will something more profitable). But that was changed by Marian reform, profesialization of the army. The reasons for the fall were many. Yes there was economical crisis, but crucial factor was epidemics that wiped out quater of the empire. Real pain.
ArcheoRexo 3 months ago
@ArcheoRexo Economic issues, plague, and the increased recruitment of barbarians ainto the army and reliance on barabarian mercenaries. By the time of Attila the Hun, Rome was dependent on allied troops and mercenaries to back up the legions.
bgdancer100 3 months ago
@bgdancer100 BULL!
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 2 months ago
@Nomis095
Also, there was a large Middle class of traders, people working in the administration, priests, etc,... and normal people doing anything you'd expect: pottery, shops, cooking, brewing, shepherding, metal production, woodcutting...
The really poor without land or any belongings were given free food everyday by the state.
12punisher12 1 year ago
nice vid
Keikboi 1 year ago