this would be fun to watch if the persons in this video would actually act like a roman and a hoplite, in this case its just horrible to watch, sorry.
A hoplite would have a tougher time fighting a legionnaire due to the fact of numbers.
A hoplite was designed specifially to fight in a phalanx and not much else. A Roman Legionary also fights in groups but doesn't have a hard time fighting alone. Now if they were both in groups a Roman Legion unit will have difficulty fighting a phalanx formed hoplte unit.
@DarrenSdead Not quite, hoplites almost totally relied on their formation for fighting ability. The strength of the legions was that they were able to fight in formation and gain from others' strength, but Legionnaires were also very good fighters alone.
@andresrojas22 Well I would agree that part of the reason for the disaster at Teutorburg was due to the Germanic's superiority in individual combat. Maybe a better way of putting that would be that Romans were competent individually, but not as good as barbarians who's main focus was individual combat. That being said, compared to Hoplites the Legionnaire's individual training was superior.
the hoplite would get destroyed 1v1 with a legionare...the hoplites are ment to fight as a unit not as an individual, the legionares are used to fight as a cohort and can fight as the individual...hoplites arent ment for 1v1s
Hoplite is holding his spear with an underhand as if to throw it. They used an over hand grip to thrust. at least learn a little about them before you reenact and what not.
@TheSlimLP doesnt matter because historically rome conquered greece, the hoplite phalanxs werent very mobile and the roman legions were. The roman pila(javelins) got stuck in shields when they hit them and you couldnt pull them out so you would have to discard your shield. Try holding a formation without a shield
@DalkrisAKP read about that kind a javelin they where so weak that they bent and made it impossible to pull out during battle but i am not sure roman use them but as all people i can be wrong
Why are people comparing this to the real thing? Neither's life is at stake so they're not really fighting. They're really just poking at each other with sticks.
The hoplite's spear combat was made with the spear overhand, in order not to hurt the men behind. The lower body spear combat is a misconception taken from the phalangite phalanx, which is totaly different from the hoplite. Also, what other people said, hoplites fought in a tight formation and those side attacks weren't possible in an actual combat because a hoplites shield was made to protect half the wearer and half the man standing near him. Also, the main weapon of the hoplite was the spear.
I've always wondered if the Roman Pilum would pierce and stick in the classic bronze faced shield(the Hoplus)like they did the wooden barbarian shields?Could anybody do a test like that, please?I would but I have no money, no camera and no friends!
thats true, both roman infantry and greek hoplite derived their strenghth from their unit- the phalanx as a deadly shield wall, the roman formation as a disciplined and very durable unit.
Hoplites were militia and they were easy to train and to find but after many of the greek city states wars they were experinced but the Roman legionary is very deadly in Toe to Toe the romans in the Germanic theater were used to a one on one fight so if it came down to the fighting the Roman would win no doubt but they could loose if they were hastati or Princeapi
the hoplie and the romans both trained in unity but the roman was more equipped as he had a sword something the hoplite should also have most leagonaries also have spears for throwing and the hoplite also didnt know how to swing or stab with a spear which is to tuck it into your armpit and to push forward or to swing it like a sword over your head. the spear head gives alot of momentum and also is a ranged attack
Actually you fail. Most hoplights where citizens of the Greek city states and recieved little training. They also had to supply there own arms and armour. Only elite hoplights from the higher people in Greek society recieved alot of training. Do some research fools. Trololol
This is a silly match up. Everything about the hoplite's equipment is designed for formation fighting. The hoplon is useless in individual fighting, and the spear is always a poor choice in close quarters. The legionary equipment, on the other hand, is specifically designed for heavy infantry tactics that maximize group protection during the advance and maximize individual fighting at the moment when the formation contacts the enemy.
That is not a conbat that would ever been occurred, The one is a classic greek hoplite (a costly one also, usually they wore linothorax, not bronze) from Greco-persian or Peloponnesiac war, five century before christ, other a imperial times legionary.
Also in Julius Caesar late republic there were no LORICA SEGMENTATA no RECTANGULAR SHIELD.
When Hellenics and Latins clashed against , one was passed away long time, other was not still dressed like so.
The legionary would have won for defonate, they were better trained, better armed, and slightly more disciplined.For example, the legionary's armour, lorica segmentata and gladius were steel, whereas the average greek hoplite's armour and hoplon were made of bronze. Both the soldiers were accustomed to fighting shoulder-to-shoulder, but the romans were more advanced in almost every way compared with the old school greeks.
They are fighting so stupidly... The hoplite should be keeping distance and constantly stabbing on the parts the legionnaire isn't guarding with the shield. And the legionnaire should instantly rush towards the hoplite, because if he gets close to the hoplite, the hoplite can't be doing much as the spear is too long for close combat.
Reaching way up over the sheild to tap him... yeah, that wouldn't even dent the helmet with a real sword. But if it where a spartan warrior one on one, you have many factors. 1.. the spartan would be 10 times better trained and in better shape. 2. The spartan would knock the roman down first bash of sheidl.
I have to admit as much I have to say this Legion has the advantage. Legion is evolved version of Hoplite. Roman in early history were hoplite then upgraded to Legion.
Hoplites were citizen soldiers, not professional soldiers, with spartans being an exception. The average greek hoplite received only basic military training : mostly how to fight in a halanx and that's it. Only the spartans where trained in solo fighting, and even then their trained was not that great. Just look at the shield handles : they arn't in the middle of the shield normally but at the right so that the left side protects your buddie (but remains useless to you)
@hizzleyo what I'm saying is that hoplites are useless beyond their unit. They completely relied on their unit formation, and would be slaughtered if the hoplite formation broke apart on the battle field. Legionaries are much better trained, and are real soldiers, able to fight independently. To sum it up, hoplites rely completely on the whole, legionaries are able to be independent if needed. :) I used to be really into this stuff, I haven't read about it in years so sorry for any mistakes.
@bbrianmillerr actually. its the other way around. legionares are useless beyond their formation and the legion formation is hard to break through but if it is broken through, then they would get slaughtered individually. and it depends where the hoplites are from, in sparta and athens the hoplites are as professional and hardcore as you can get and are extremely powerful 1 on 1 also. and most legionares were recruited from small peasants with roman citezenship
@hizzleyo Actually Rome had the 1st professional army. Greece had levies for the most part. Athens ground army wasnt that great and Spartas was well trained but by the time Rome started invading their armies were very out of date. One on one, a professional legionary could probably beat a greek hopilite, especially in close combat seeing as thats what their gladius was made for.
@zell2929 the reason that rome was able to conquer greece was because their legions were unstoppable machines and everyone acted as a single unit. in the deadliest warrior a single roman centurion was ousted by a rajput warrior but the experts all agreed that multiple romans could have beat multiple rajputs
@hizzleyo I stopped watching that show a long time ago, especially after i learned Geroge washington was declared a better General than Napoleon...And just talking about the Greeks, Im pretty sure that in one on one combat a Legionnaire would beat a Hopilite. Like i said even the Gladius was designed for one on one combat unlike a big spear which the hopilites had
@hizzleyo Legionnaires were still trained as soldiers though. It wasn't just the formation, they had to know how to fight on their own aswell. The argument really comes down to what time period vs what time period. If it was the Height of Romes power vs the Height of the Greek cities, The romans would win. If it was the lowest vs the lowest, probably the greeks
@minigun20 thats not what i said. yes the roman legions were unstoppable and would crush greeks in any time period, but one on one they weren't too strong. they formed an efficient military machine but weren't necessarily master swordsmen. a typical legionare's training lasted only about a year and they were more focused and getting everyone to know the tactics rather than honing their skill
@bbrianmillerr well, generally speaking that's true. But the Greeks understood the value of skill at single combat. They had special teachers, called hoplomachae, who taught single combat. Socrates, who was a combat veteran, wrote of the value of skill in single combat, which became apparent according to him during the rout. As he survived the Athenian route at Delium, we should take seriously what he has to say.
@bbrianmillerr hoplites where meant to fight not just in a phalanx formation but as a group, a phalax formation was meant to be a spear and shield wall, when this was broken as you can speculate it to break many times over the hoplite solder was very well trained to fight one on one with spear, sword, even hand to hand combat, trained not only as a unit but also as individuals in ancient greek martial arts. making the hoplite one of the elite solders of its time.
That is true! But if hoplite stay one on the battle feeld and uder hoplites is dead, that doesn't meen that the last hoplite want to die too. Sorry for my bad english...
@bbrianmillerr Same can be said for a roman soldier, designed to fight in a cohort. And actually, many greek hoplites were heavy infantry without the phalanx formation.
the problem is that hoplites where fighting in groups there main tactic relied on there man next to theme but thats also the tacts of the romans so would be fun to se a group/army fight. and i also think the roman guy was a bit more trained then the hoplite
@LeeNTien ... if world conquest only where about brute force then spartan would rule now but it takes politics, being able to get other people on you side and much more and spartan didn't spend much time white politics and they don't really want help from other. in world domination then rome owns spartan I will give you that is what I am trying to say
@Davidt963 well I am not talking about the roman empire against the City Spartan that would be a short war but 2 army white same amount of soldiers there i think the spartan would have won. I am not saying that the romans where bad strategics but i think the spartans are slightly beater. ( my opinion )
@wowsebbe Im happy u share your oppinion with me, and I respect it, however, the facts are that the spartans used outdated weapons and tactics, just think about it: the romans had steel equipment whilst the spartans employed bronze weaponry
@Davidt963 a good point i haven't consider that i was only thinking abut tactics and training but ofc the equipment makes a big difference even if it is bronze or steel but if im not mistaking the Spartans also where good smiths to but still they cant compare with roman equipment
@wowsebbe the spartans were way better trained in one on one fighting than a legionnaire, just look at how they were both brought up... theres no comparison.
@ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH true that they where capable of one on one fighting but if im not mistaking after age 15-17 they traind in "group" fighting and where thought that they were only as strong as the man beside them
@wowsebbe which is true, one man can't be a bigger fighting influence in an army than the rest of the men, and that doesnt mean they're not good in one on one fighting so i'd say ahoplite from another city state like athens vs a roman legionnaire is a fair matchup whereas a seasoned spartan vs a centurion would be fair aswell
@ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH i agree on the part abut spartan vs centurion but athen hoplite vs legionary i think the legionary would win because of what davidt963 told me they are beater armed and also because Athen hoplites wasn't like the spartan ones, as im sure you know all ready, the Athen ones didn't have much training they were recruited and trained a short time and before that they could have been as pot makers or any other profession while Romans they were beater trained than most hoplites
@wowsebbe i dont want to be a smartass or anything again, but in Athen hoplites were most likely nobles or rich people, otherwise they couldnt afford their equipment, much like the knights in the middle ages, romans on the other hand after Marius were equiped uniformally by the state. also we all forget theat usually the hoplites in phalanxes werent tasked to kill the enemy, just to make em an easy target for a cavalry charge, whereas legionaries forming cohorts were offensive units
@Davidt963 That's complete bullshit. All Hoplite's in all City States were of all wealthy backgrounds. You didn't need to be wealthy to be a Hoplite. All that was required for you to be part of the Phalanx in battle is for you to have a Hoplon (The Shield) And the Spear. All their armor was up to them. You don't know shit.
@Davidt963 That's complete bullshit. All Hoplite's in all City States were of all wealthy backgrounds. You didn't need to be wealthy to be a Hoplite. All that was required for you to be part of the Phalanx in battle is for you to have a Hoplon (The Shield) And the Spear. All their armor was up to them. You don't know shit.
@Davidt963 That's complete bullshit. All Hoplite's in all City States were of all wealthy backgrounds. You didn't need to be wealthy to be a Hoplite. All that was required for you to be part of the Phalanx in battle is for you to have a Hoplon (The Shield) And the Spear. All their armor was up to them. You don't know shit.
@Davidt963 but what i have read and heard they had good formations for taking out cavalry, and when i say foot soldier i mean cheap soldier didn't know they where like knights.
@Davidt963 Maybe under Philip II, Alexander, and the Diadochi's phalangite phalanx-based system but before them Greek cavalry was typically very low in number, low in quality, and played a rather minor role in the battlefield.
Greek warfare focused on infantry, particularly on the hoplite phalanx. Their job was to hold the line and push back the enemy into breaking into a rout, usually by focusing on the wings.
Not the best demonstration of hoplite fighting. It is now understood the hoplites usually carried the spear overhand, not underhand, and carried it from halfway up the spear for control and made a faux move to trick the opponent before a high attack. This demonstration shows the guy holding it underhanded and too far to the back of the spear, thus causing him to lose it quickly. Good Roman portrayal though, despite the Greeks never fought the Augustan equipped legionaire with lorica segmentata.
@DarkFilmDirector again the overhand theory is speculation AND research has shown that the overhand was only used when two great warriors fought in single combat off the battlefield.
@Peidmonte89 It's not speculation at all. Overhand attacks with a spear has more thrusting power. And this is also single combat is it not? Using it underhanded was using during the initial phalanx push.
i think one of the main reasons legionaries beat hoplites was not so much because of the inflexibility of the phalanx, but more so because the romans would cut of the end of the spears when they got to them
@flavius717 The Hoplites had short stabbing swords as well though. BUt they werent the main weapon like the Roman gladius. THAT is what made the difference.
Problem is hoplites in phalanx were not flexible as they could not turn cos they hand guys behind em pushing them Romans were ready for movement and used these weaknesses to their advantage (sometimes they even used enemies strenght against them)
Roman legionaries could defend themselves against phalangites in anyway...A massive shields with thight formation and a important use of throwing spears which could easily harm phalanx formation...plus smart use of disciplined but rare cavalry on sides...
Roman legionary is far better than the Hoplite,a testament to this is that Macedon and greece were almost always beaten by Rome in battles,because of there use of the outdated hoplites...Roman tactics prevailed once again!Civis Romanus sum.
1. macedonians and greeks didn't use hoplites during the 200s and 100 bc's they fought as phalangites in a phalanx.
2. The Macedonians and Greeks were equipped with a 2handed 21 foot pike. Therefore they were well out of range of the Roman's swords.
3. A phalanx is actually effective against a Roman legion with proper support on the flanks to prevent Roman legionnaires from surrounding the phalanx .
@crackshack2Hoplites still fought in a phalanxe formation,yes they were Phalangites ,but the general tactics were still the same,and my proof is the battle of Pydna.The roman infantry Outflanked the phalanxes,and the phalanxe useally didn't have much support in there sides,thus,the Roman inf could easily have beaten them,this said,Macedon was also a decreasing power during this time,and Rome was rising.
I'm pretty sure that a majority fought as phalangites, while some still used the traditional hoplite way. And the reason that the Greeks didn't survive was for many reasons.
1. Bad Commanders- A Greek commander after Alexander the Great that was as good as him could only be a dream.
2. Cavalry Support of Flanks Neglected- The cavalry were put into weird positions, decreasing their potential.
lol no they didn't out flank the Romans read about the battle again. The Romans couldn't outflank the Macedonians at Pydna because they were protected by the companion cavalry! (One reason why the Macedonians lost was they never engaged). The Romans won Pydna because when they fell back on rough/high ground the Macedonians pursued and their formation lost its cohesion. The the Romans made a frontal attack and won. Not to mention Macedonians had poor leadership.
@crackshack2 I think you might be talking about the second battle of Pydna,becasue the phalanxe had to march over high ground and became broken up,then the romans took advantage of the gaps and wedged inot them...The romans won anyway,Thus marking the end of the Phalanxe as a main fighting force....
@crackshack2 I think it it would be interesting to see a Reformed army of Rome(Giaus marius reforms) and the Royal macedonian army with its elite Companion cavalry and Royal pikeman,That would be a great matchup since the macedonians would have a cavalry advantage and the Romans would have the INF advantage.
3. Pikes got longer and more unwieldy- 20 foot pikes are already long enough. But the later Greeks only made it longer.
4. Inability to Replace Losses- They just didn't have enough new recruits like Rome did.
5. Horrible Dudes- Those Macedonians were pretty full of themselves. At Pydna, the phalanx actually retreated the Romans, but then, they came forward and broke their continuous line. The legions came back and killed all the guys.
@DukeOfTennessee117 I was looking at some random vids and found the link to this. I'm not sure, but I think I was watching a TW vid when I saw the link.
now the conclusion is only one:no one trust you here,while everyone agree with me.So it's clear to everyone you're inventing tales.You didn't even tried to respond to what i said about spartans,because yourself realized you just said stupid things.And the "racist people who don't admit that etruscans,armenians and lydians were greeks" have a name:they're called historians.It's their work:to distinguish between real history and LIES.Now free this video from your ignorance,and get a life,muppet
DUDE STOP TALKING SHIT ARMENIANS DIDNT EVEN CAME NEAR BEING GREEKS THEY WHERE PUSSYS ON HORSES SHOOTING ARROWS OR SOLDIERS WITH A SPEAR AND A POOR WOODEN SHIELD WITH POOR MORALE!!!!! STOP TALKING SHIT YOU IDIOT! YOUR MESSING UP PEOPLES KNOWLODGE OF HISTORY YOU CUNT! IM NOT SAYING WHO ARMENIENS ARE BUT THEY DEFINITALY WERENT GREEKS YOU MORON!
oh sorry bro you sound very intelegent and i already thought i was taunting the wrong personXD sorry bro wasnt ment to react to you like that but to the 1 who was telling bullshit that armenians where greeks they where and are a pile of shit easy said anywayz
@swordangel3 ya they did and its not propaganda didnt armenia have an empire in modern day turkey azerbeijan and georgia? I think so armenia played an important role in that time didn't it?
Simply,etruscan,as well as lydians and other mediterranean civilizations,had many (mostly,but not only,commercial) relationships with greeks.That's why you can see achilles.The greek myth was well known,not only in Etruria,and not only in italy:it's just greek influence.But these relationships don't mean that Etruscans,armenians and lydians were greek.Indeed, a similar statement isn't written in a single history book.maybe you greeks know something the rest of the world doesn't know?lol
You mean Monteleone's chariot?First it's dated 530 b.c.(and not 550 b.c.).Second,it wasn't unearthed in tuscany,but in umbria(another italian region).That is one of the best examples of ETRUSCAN art.Do you know that chariots were more important for etruscans than for greeks?you know that in greece they were not much important,not even in art,but just in athletics?face it,boy,they're different cultures.The presence of achilles(it's not even certain),it's easily explained by historians(continue)
And obviously,like everyone knows,rome was built by latins,then conquered by etruscans who established the tarquinian dynasty,then chased away by romans.Dressed like greeks?the wearing style(helmets included) of the period was common to all the mediterranean era,and wasn't even greek:it developed before the same greek could even been considered a civilization.Historians interpret the etruscan dress and customs as eastern,not greek,and not even western(continues)
Etruscans were native italic(probable) or of lydian origin(less probable).According to the majority of historians,the etruscan language,that was used also by other italic peoples,wasn't even an indoeuropean language(like greek and latin).A smaller group of historians says that the etruscan language was of anatolic family(but anyway not indoeuropean,so can't be greek).As you can read etruscan language was not even of the same linguistic family of the greek,so stop talking shit
(continue) the lydians descended from the hittite populace who was living in anatolia.They were natives of that place,and not of "an area hundreds of miles away from hittites".lol,what area,give me a name.Ethiopia?muhahahah...fantasies,my friend."Etruscans were greeks who came from greece to tuscany,speaking greek dialect,it is well documented"...Where?give me the books,the titles.Not a single historians said that Etruscans,Armenians and Lydians were greek,just your pitiful propaganda
this would be fun to watch if the persons in this video would actually act like a roman and a hoplite, in this case its just horrible to watch, sorry.
MrMarcoKoers 1 hour ago
A hoplite would have a tougher time fighting a legionnaire due to the fact of numbers.
A hoplite was designed specifially to fight in a phalanx and not much else. A Roman Legionary also fights in groups but doesn't have a hard time fighting alone. Now if they were both in groups a Roman Legion unit will have difficulty fighting a phalanx formed hoplte unit.
get my point?
RebelManCam 1 day ago
wow these guys are idiots, they can't properly hold up a shield.. or swing a sword.... this is disgraceful.
ArtistikVision 2 days ago
Greeks were trained for phalanxs, but legionarres were traind to fight in tightly packed formations.
ShadowyProductions5 4 days ago
@ShadowyProductions5 romans trained in losse formation
nimbalo300 3 days ago
.. I've seen English, German, and American alike all fail terribly at exercising martial artistry. .. Or fighting.
FEERME1225 5 days ago
@FEERME1225 LOL True
domagoj905 3 days ago
americans............
DutchTimepq 1 week ago
I want Legionnaire vs Hippie
silencia08 1 week ago
The round shield looks prettier.
TheXand19 1 week ago
Can I join yalls camp?
MrSouthernNerd 1 week ago
Armed forces of these times were trained and wasnt just 2 americans who cant handle a shield
george3021 2 weeks ago 24
@george3021 or a sword.
672hangman 1 week ago
Rome conquered Greece with arms
but Greece conquered Rome with its civilization
george3021 2 weeks ago 21
@george3021 Greece was annexed after the alliance to defeat the persians and the macedonians
watcher792 1 week ago
@watcher792 what i said was different though
george3021 1 week ago
such faggots
Synergy157 2 weeks ago
i dont think that a hoplite is useless on 1v1 they were trained 1v1 fight the even hadf their own martial art the first martial art of all times
mitsos13rev 2 weeks ago
hoplites are supposed to fight in a formation... a hoplite alone is useless...(my opinion)
MrBoobtoucher 2 weeks ago
@MrBoobtoucher so is a legionary
DarrenSdead 2 weeks ago
@DarrenSdead Not quite, hoplites almost totally relied on their formation for fighting ability. The strength of the legions was that they were able to fight in formation and gain from others' strength, but Legionnaires were also very good fighters alone.
AmericanWardog 2 weeks ago
@AmericanWardog wrong, have u forgotten teutoburg forest?
andresrojas22 2 weeks ago
@andresrojas22 Well I would agree that part of the reason for the disaster at Teutorburg was due to the Germanic's superiority in individual combat. Maybe a better way of putting that would be that Romans were competent individually, but not as good as barbarians who's main focus was individual combat. That being said, compared to Hoplites the Legionnaire's individual training was superior.
AmericanWardog 1 week ago
the hoplite would get destroyed 1v1 with a legionare...the hoplites are ment to fight as a unit not as an individual, the legionares are used to fight as a cohort and can fight as the individual...hoplites arent ment for 1v1s
WiLdBilL565 2 weeks ago
Hoplite is holding his spear with an underhand as if to throw it. They used an over hand grip to thrust. at least learn a little about them before you reenact and what not.
oreowithmilk1 2 weeks ago
The Hoplite is holding his spear wrong for fucks sakes. He would've had a much greater chance of winning if he held it like he's supposed to do.
LuciusCorneliusMacro 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In a 1v1 match a spartan would easily beat a legionair but in a 10v10 + match the legionaire would easily win
alfalfa852 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In a 1v1 match a spartan would easily beat a legionair but in a 10v10 + match the legionaire would easily win
alfalfa852 3 weeks ago
In a 1v1 match a spartan would easily beat a legionair but in a 10v10 + match the legionaire would easily win
alfalfa852 3 weeks ago
@alfalfa852 dude legionaire dont stand a chance 10v10 against spartans..learn something about spartans (no offence ) peace out
TheSlimLP 2 weeks ago
@TheSlimLP Actually, yes they could - dont get fooled by invalid facts and movies like 300!
RazorCell7 2 weeks ago
@TheSlimLP doesnt matter because historically rome conquered greece, the hoplite phalanxs werent very mobile and the roman legions were. The roman pila(javelins) got stuck in shields when they hit them and you couldnt pull them out so you would have to discard your shield. Try holding a formation without a shield
DalkrisAKP 2 weeks ago
@DalkrisAKP read about that kind a javelin they where so weak that they bent and made it impossible to pull out during battle but i am not sure roman use them but as all people i can be wrong
wowsebbe 2 weeks ago
@wowsebbe The romans invented the Pila, they were one of the (very)few factions using them. no offence
davidholland1997 2 weeks ago
Why are people comparing this to the real thing? Neither's life is at stake so they're not really fighting. They're really just poking at each other with sticks.
Shad12Dash 3 weeks ago
you guys forgot that a hoplite wears leg armor and that his shield is bigger and much heavire from then one that guy's using...
CorvusCorpseater 3 weeks ago
hoplits were better in line fight, their weapons are not designeg for 1vs1 combat, i like ancient times nice video
LiskowicStudios 3 weeks ago
The hoplite's spear combat was made with the spear overhand, in order not to hurt the men behind. The lower body spear combat is a misconception taken from the phalangite phalanx, which is totaly different from the hoplite. Also, what other people said, hoplites fought in a tight formation and those side attacks weren't possible in an actual combat because a hoplites shield was made to protect half the wearer and half the man standing near him. Also, the main weapon of the hoplite was the spear.
P3troniu 3 weeks ago
U can't compare spartans with anyone :S Spartans were Spartans !!! ultimate killers !
Bauksrb4all 3 weeks ago
дауны
VOLKONE22 3 weeks ago
Hoplites were holding their spear overhead, not as shown in the video.
tanzbaer2go 3 weeks ago
the spartans easily cream the romans
andresrojas22 3 weeks ago
I've always wondered if the Roman Pilum would pierce and stick in the classic bronze faced shield(the Hoplus)like they did the wooden barbarian shields?Could anybody do a test like that, please?I would but I have no money, no camera and no friends!
MrReded69 3 weeks ago
@MrReded69 it would, of course
Davidt963 3 weeks ago
history proves who won, but I like that the stopped when he got hit in the foot because they were all about that way back then
leftwinger84 4 weeks ago
thats true, both roman infantry and greek hoplite derived their strenghth from their unit- the phalanx as a deadly shield wall, the roman formation as a disciplined and very durable unit.
PewPewPlasmagun 4 weeks ago
is it the first time the 2 of them do this cuse they are extreamly bad
Dregowz 4 weeks ago
SO FCKING FAIL JESUS GUYS GET A LIFE
TheZomaro 1 month ago
@TheZomaro I never really liked it when people go "GET A LIFE" define "Life"
longsolid9 4 weeks ago
@longsolid9 Life is having a well living body to occupy being able to move well no i meamn like you Are NOT DEAD THAT IS LIFE
MMJcreations 1 week ago
Hoplites were militia and they were easy to train and to find but after many of the greek city states wars they were experinced but the Roman legionary is very deadly in Toe to Toe the romans in the Germanic theater were used to a one on one fight so if it came down to the fighting the Roman would win no doubt but they could loose if they were hastati or Princeapi
Macedonfreak 1 month ago
larp???
skallisippe 1 month ago
the hoplie and the romans both trained in unity but the roman was more equipped as he had a sword something the hoplite should also have most leagonaries also have spears for throwing and the hoplite also didnt know how to swing or stab with a spear which is to tuck it into your armpit and to push forward or to swing it like a sword over your head. the spear head gives alot of momentum and also is a ranged attack
kevinlimwangli123 1 month ago
Actually you fail. Most hoplights where citizens of the Greek city states and recieved little training. They also had to supply there own arms and armour. Only elite hoplights from the higher people in Greek society recieved alot of training. Do some research fools. Trololol
hazman232 1 month ago
nerds
dbswotjrwkd 1 month ago
Loving the Antanae in the background
TEZARADOSOS 1 month ago
This is such a pussy demonstration. What the hell were you doing with the spear?
Xenaisthebusiness 1 month ago
VIRGIN VERSUS VIRGIN
WHO WILL WIN?
ThechosenDemon 1 month ago
@ThechosenDemon The most obvious virigin is one with a lame name like "Thechosendeamon"
lazerBAR 1 month ago
This is a silly match up. Everything about the hoplite's equipment is designed for formation fighting. The hoplon is useless in individual fighting, and the spear is always a poor choice in close quarters. The legionary equipment, on the other hand, is specifically designed for heavy infantry tactics that maximize group protection during the advance and maximize individual fighting at the moment when the formation contacts the enemy.
AdNeeb 1 month ago
93 haters got run over by a phalanx.
TheJumpandbounce 1 month ago
both legionaries and hoplites worked in a cohort or phalanx(respectively) though the legionares were trained as well in 1 on 1 combat
to be honest, this match up doesn't make too much sense
xxdomoxxkunxx 2 months ago
@xxdomoxxkunxx You're right in every way.
TheJumpandbounce 1 month ago
As a history graduate and an italian:
That is not a conbat that would ever been occurred, The one is a classic greek hoplite (a costly one also, usually they wore linothorax, not bronze) from Greco-persian or Peloponnesiac war, five century before christ, other a imperial times legionary.
Also in Julius Caesar late republic there were no LORICA SEGMENTATA no RECTANGULAR SHIELD.
When Hellenics and Latins clashed against , one was passed away long time, other was not still dressed like so.
Marcellogo 2 months ago
The legionary would have won for defonate, they were better trained, better armed, and slightly more disciplined.For example, the legionary's armour, lorica segmentata and gladius were steel, whereas the average greek hoplite's armour and hoplon were made of bronze. Both the soldiers were accustomed to fighting shoulder-to-shoulder, but the romans were more advanced in almost every way compared with the old school greeks.
LegionaryLegate 2 months ago
fags
ricolikepal 2 months ago
That's just a greek swordsman, not hoplite
RhivayHasBeenFired 2 months ago
Roman "wear down" strategy would absolutely destroy a phalanx of Hoplites.
minigun20 2 months ago
Legionaire has too large shield for his complexion. He could have hastate's shield for better effectiveness.
Commientator 2 months ago
They are fighting so stupidly... The hoplite should be keeping distance and constantly stabbing on the parts the legionnaire isn't guarding with the shield. And the legionnaire should instantly rush towards the hoplite, because if he gets close to the hoplite, the hoplite can't be doing much as the spear is too long for close combat.
siististikuul 2 months ago
in history when rome defeated/occupied greece, many greece soldiers simply took up roman arms and transferred armies.
braydenpresber 2 months ago
Reaching way up over the sheild to tap him... yeah, that wouldn't even dent the helmet with a real sword. But if it where a spartan warrior one on one, you have many factors. 1.. the spartan would be 10 times better trained and in better shape. 2. The spartan would knock the roman down first bash of sheidl.
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
not to mention that spartans were made of steel
etiquettefiend 2 months ago
roma had better tactics in real combat roma was more advanced greece was on the decline
ARC1313 2 months ago
the guy who personate the hoplite must be a loser... A real hoplite can kill a legionnary in seconds
xaronakas 2 months ago
I have to admit as much I have to say this Legion has the advantage. Legion is evolved version of Hoplite. Roman in early history were hoplite then upgraded to Legion.
LoneMyth 2 months ago
The Greek Doesnt Use His Shield....
JoeJoeGummyBear 2 months ago 2
oh and a holite had to have knemides to protect his feet, this guy doesn't.
Sotospithisful 2 months ago
Hoplites were citizen soldiers, not professional soldiers, with spartans being an exception. The average greek hoplite received only basic military training : mostly how to fight in a halanx and that's it. Only the spartans where trained in solo fighting, and even then their trained was not that great. Just look at the shield handles : they arn't in the middle of the shield normally but at the right so that the left side protects your buddie (but remains useless to you)
Sotospithisful 2 months ago
hoplites were more team fight formation romans were working more individual
alexthehistorian 2 months ago
Haha " cellphone rang"
ASTORM85 2 months ago
i think thay should try it with real armor and swords lol they would have not been to fast has they are now
xBRUTALx1000 2 months ago
the hoplites fought in a phalanx, and were never meant to fight as individuals
bbrianmillerr 2 months ago 60
@bbrianmillerr the romans fought in legions, but they could ALSO fight as individuals :D
cseijifja 2 months ago
@bbrianmillerr actually legionares fought in legions and weren't meant for one on one.
hizzleyo 2 months ago
@hizzleyo what I'm saying is that hoplites are useless beyond their unit. They completely relied on their unit formation, and would be slaughtered if the hoplite formation broke apart on the battle field. Legionaries are much better trained, and are real soldiers, able to fight independently. To sum it up, hoplites rely completely on the whole, legionaries are able to be independent if needed. :) I used to be really into this stuff, I haven't read about it in years so sorry for any mistakes.
bbrianmillerr 2 months ago
@bbrianmillerr actually. its the other way around. legionares are useless beyond their formation and the legion formation is hard to break through but if it is broken through, then they would get slaughtered individually. and it depends where the hoplites are from, in sparta and athens the hoplites are as professional and hardcore as you can get and are extremely powerful 1 on 1 also. and most legionares were recruited from small peasants with roman citezenship
hizzleyo 2 months ago
@hizzleyo Actually Rome had the 1st professional army. Greece had levies for the most part. Athens ground army wasnt that great and Spartas was well trained but by the time Rome started invading their armies were very out of date. One on one, a professional legionary could probably beat a greek hopilite, especially in close combat seeing as thats what their gladius was made for.
zell2929 2 months ago
@zell2929 the reason that rome was able to conquer greece was because their legions were unstoppable machines and everyone acted as a single unit. in the deadliest warrior a single roman centurion was ousted by a rajput warrior but the experts all agreed that multiple romans could have beat multiple rajputs
hizzleyo 2 months ago
@hizzleyo I stopped watching that show a long time ago, especially after i learned Geroge washington was declared a better General than Napoleon...And just talking about the Greeks, Im pretty sure that in one on one combat a Legionnaire would beat a Hopilite. Like i said even the Gladius was designed for one on one combat unlike a big spear which the hopilites had
zell2929 2 months ago
@hizzleyo Legionnaires were still trained as soldiers though. It wasn't just the formation, they had to know how to fight on their own aswell. The argument really comes down to what time period vs what time period. If it was the Height of Romes power vs the Height of the Greek cities, The romans would win. If it was the lowest vs the lowest, probably the greeks
minigun20 2 months ago
@minigun20 thats not what i said. yes the roman legions were unstoppable and would crush greeks in any time period, but one on one they weren't too strong. they formed an efficient military machine but weren't necessarily master swordsmen. a typical legionare's training lasted only about a year and they were more focused and getting everyone to know the tactics rather than honing their skill
hizzleyo 2 months ago
@bbrianmillerr well, generally speaking that's true. But the Greeks understood the value of skill at single combat. They had special teachers, called hoplomachae, who taught single combat. Socrates, who was a combat veteran, wrote of the value of skill in single combat, which became apparent according to him during the rout. As he survived the Athenian route at Delium, we should take seriously what he has to say.
haffoc 1 month ago
@bbrianmillerr what if the phalanx broke, which probably happend alot.
MELegion1 1 month ago
@MELegion1 if that happened they were fffffffuuuuuuuuuu
bbrianmillerr 1 month ago
@MELegion1 It didn't, Hoplites in a phalanx were extremely strong.
zenmen55 1 month ago
@zenmen55 Yes it happend, that's why Romans conquered Greece lol
MrAllanDelon 1 month ago
@bbrianmillerr hoplites where meant to fight not just in a phalanx formation but as a group, a phalax formation was meant to be a spear and shield wall, when this was broken as you can speculate it to break many times over the hoplite solder was very well trained to fight one on one with spear, sword, even hand to hand combat, trained not only as a unit but also as individuals in ancient greek martial arts. making the hoplite one of the elite solders of its time.
OliverOReye 1 month ago
@bbrianmillerr both of em didn't fight as individuals
blaquehawq 1 month ago
That is true! But if hoplite stay one on the battle feeld and uder hoplites is dead, that doesn't meen that the last hoplite want to die too. Sorry for my bad english...
ni4enepridumal 1 month ago
@bbrianmillerr so were the legionaries
GladiatorShield 4 weeks ago
@bbrianmillerr yes but in the heat of battle many fought individually, war becomes very ugly you see...
RomanLegioXx 4 weeks ago
@bbrianmillerr Same can be said for a roman soldier, designed to fight in a cohort. And actually, many greek hoplites were heavy infantry without the phalanx formation.
MitchofSmeg 3 weeks ago
@bbrianmillerr As were legionaries, most "civilized" armies did focus on formations and discipline instead of individual fighting skills.
Carljoakimmm 3 weeks ago
the problem is that hoplites where fighting in groups there main tactic relied on there man next to theme but thats also the tacts of the romans so would be fun to se a group/army fight. and i also think the roman guy was a bit more trained then the hoplite
wowsebbe 3 months ago 31
@wowsebbe The Romans were better trained than all the other ancient armies anyway
MMJcreations 1 month ago
@MMJcreations LOL! spartan men where trind from age 7 there professions where warriors and roman solider guessing 6-12 moth training
wowsebbe 1 month ago
@wowsebbe And who ruled the world? =]
LeeNTien 1 month ago
@LeeNTien ... if world conquest only where about brute force then spartan would rule now but it takes politics, being able to get other people on you side and much more and spartan didn't spend much time white politics and they don't really want help from other. in world domination then rome owns spartan I will give you that is what I am trying to say
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago
@wowsebbe yet they were no match for the legions
Davidt963 3 weeks ago
@Davidt963 well I am not talking about the roman empire against the City Spartan that would be a short war but 2 army white same amount of soldiers there i think the spartan would have won. I am not saying that the romans where bad strategics but i think the spartans are slightly beater. ( my opinion )
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago
@wowsebbe Im happy u share your oppinion with me, and I respect it, however, the facts are that the spartans used outdated weapons and tactics, just think about it: the romans had steel equipment whilst the spartans employed bronze weaponry
Davidt963 3 weeks ago
@Davidt963 a good point i haven't consider that i was only thinking abut tactics and training but ofc the equipment makes a big difference even if it is bronze or steel but if im not mistaking the Spartans also where good smiths to but still they cant compare with roman equipment
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago
@wowsebbe and then we have the spartans...
ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH 3 weeks ago
@ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH i dont know what your trying to say but sure man spartans is what I am talking about
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago
@wowsebbe the spartans were way better trained in one on one fighting than a legionnaire, just look at how they were both brought up... theres no comparison.
ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH 3 weeks ago
@ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH true that they where capable of one on one fighting but if im not mistaking after age 15-17 they traind in "group" fighting and where thought that they were only as strong as the man beside them
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago
@wowsebbe which is true, one man can't be a bigger fighting influence in an army than the rest of the men, and that doesnt mean they're not good in one on one fighting so i'd say ahoplite from another city state like athens vs a roman legionnaire is a fair matchup whereas a seasoned spartan vs a centurion would be fair aswell
ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH 3 weeks ago
@ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH i agree on the part abut spartan vs centurion but athen hoplite vs legionary i think the legionary would win because of what davidt963 told me they are beater armed and also because Athen hoplites wasn't like the spartan ones, as im sure you know all ready, the Athen ones didn't have much training they were recruited and trained a short time and before that they could have been as pot makers or any other profession while Romans they were beater trained than most hoplites
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@wowsebbe i think that too :)
ROFLWAFFLEAUTHORITAH 3 weeks ago
@wowsebbe i dont want to be a smartass or anything again, but in Athen hoplites were most likely nobles or rich people, otherwise they couldnt afford their equipment, much like the knights in the middle ages, romans on the other hand after Marius were equiped uniformally by the state. also we all forget theat usually the hoplites in phalanxes werent tasked to kill the enemy, just to make em an easy target for a cavalry charge, whereas legionaries forming cohorts were offensive units
Davidt963 3 weeks ago
@Davidt963 That's complete bullshit. All Hoplite's in all City States were of all wealthy backgrounds. You didn't need to be wealthy to be a Hoplite. All that was required for you to be part of the Phalanx in battle is for you to have a Hoplon (The Shield) And the Spear. All their armor was up to them. You don't know shit.
EddoMundo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Davidt963 That's complete bullshit. All Hoplite's in all City States were of all wealthy backgrounds. You didn't need to be wealthy to be a Hoplite. All that was required for you to be part of the Phalanx in battle is for you to have a Hoplon (The Shield) And the Spear. All their armor was up to them. You don't know shit.
EddoMundo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Davidt963 That's complete bullshit. All Hoplite's in all City States were of all wealthy backgrounds. You didn't need to be wealthy to be a Hoplite. All that was required for you to be part of the Phalanx in battle is for you to have a Hoplon (The Shield) And the Spear. All their armor was up to them. You don't know shit.
EddoMundo 3 weeks ago
@Davidt963 ok good to know i though that the hoplites was like the foot soldiers. but i did know that they where good against cavalry.
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago
@wowsebbe they were foot soldiers, but they werent tasked with killing they had to corner the enemy, so the cavarly could kill them
Davidt963 3 weeks ago
@Davidt963 but what i have read and heard they had good formations for taking out cavalry, and when i say foot soldier i mean cheap soldier didn't know they where like knights.
wowsebbe 3 weeks ago
@Davidt963 Maybe under Philip II, Alexander, and the Diadochi's phalangite phalanx-based system but before them Greek cavalry was typically very low in number, low in quality, and played a rather minor role in the battlefield.
Greek warfare focused on infantry, particularly on the hoplite phalanx. Their job was to hold the line and push back the enemy into breaking into a rout, usually by focusing on the wings.
jonharana 3 weeks ago
Where did you get the Roman Legion armor at?
GovernorDerek 3 months ago
Not the best demonstration of hoplite fighting. It is now understood the hoplites usually carried the spear overhand, not underhand, and carried it from halfway up the spear for control and made a faux move to trick the opponent before a high attack. This demonstration shows the guy holding it underhanded and too far to the back of the spear, thus causing him to lose it quickly. Good Roman portrayal though, despite the Greeks never fought the Augustan equipped legionaire with lorica segmentata.
DarkFilmDirector 3 months ago
@DarkFilmDirector again the overhand theory is speculation AND research has shown that the overhand was only used when two great warriors fought in single combat off the battlefield.
Peidmonte89 3 months ago
@Peidmonte89 It's not speculation at all. Overhand attacks with a spear has more thrusting power. And this is also single combat is it not? Using it underhanded was using during the initial phalanx push.
DarkFilmDirector 3 months ago
i think one of the main reasons legionaries beat hoplites was not so much because of the inflexibility of the phalanx, but more so because the romans would cut of the end of the spears when they got to them
flavius717 3 months ago
@flavius717 The Hoplites had short stabbing swords as well though. BUt they werent the main weapon like the Roman gladius. THAT is what made the difference.
Wildcat425B 3 months ago
Problem is hoplites in phalanx were not flexible as they could not turn cos they hand guys behind em pushing them Romans were ready for movement and used these weaknesses to their advantage (sometimes they even used enemies strenght against them)
legokid5872 3 months ago
¿por que creeis que Roma conquistó Grecia?
Guaycely 3 months ago in playlist Más vídeos de kurakusername
pretty boring^^
BFSinnking 3 months ago
Roman legionaries could defend themselves against phalangites in anyway...A massive shields with thight formation and a important use of throwing spears which could easily harm phalanx formation...plus smart use of disciplined but rare cavalry on sides...
rakijas8 3 months ago
Roman legionary is far better than the Hoplite,a testament to this is that Macedon and greece were almost always beaten by Rome in battles,because of there use of the outdated hoplites...Roman tactics prevailed once again!Civis Romanus sum.
DukeOfTennessee117 3 months ago
@DukeOfTennessee117
wrong
1. macedonians and greeks didn't use hoplites during the 200s and 100 bc's they fought as phalangites in a phalanx.
2. The Macedonians and Greeks were equipped with a 2handed 21 foot pike. Therefore they were well out of range of the Roman's swords.
3. A phalanx is actually effective against a Roman legion with proper support on the flanks to prevent Roman legionnaires from surrounding the phalanx .
crackshack2 3 months ago
@crackshack2Hoplites still fought in a phalanxe formation,yes they were Phalangites ,but the general tactics were still the same,and my proof is the battle of Pydna.The roman infantry Outflanked the phalanxes,and the phalanxe useally didn't have much support in there sides,thus,the Roman inf could easily have beaten them,this said,Macedon was also a decreasing power during this time,and Rome was rising.
DukeOfTennessee117 3 months ago
@DukeOfTennessee117 and @crackshack2
I'm pretty sure that a majority fought as phalangites, while some still used the traditional hoplite way. And the reason that the Greeks didn't survive was for many reasons.
1. Bad Commanders- A Greek commander after Alexander the Great that was as good as him could only be a dream.
2. Cavalry Support of Flanks Neglected- The cavalry were put into weird positions, decreasing their potential.
ajbenius 3 months ago
@DukeOfTennessee117
lol no they didn't out flank the Romans read about the battle again. The Romans couldn't outflank the Macedonians at Pydna because they were protected by the companion cavalry! (One reason why the Macedonians lost was they never engaged). The Romans won Pydna because when they fell back on rough/high ground the Macedonians pursued and their formation lost its cohesion. The the Romans made a frontal attack and won. Not to mention Macedonians had poor leadership.
crackshack2 3 months ago
@crackshack2 I think you might be talking about the second battle of Pydna,becasue the phalanxe had to march over high ground and became broken up,then the romans took advantage of the gaps and wedged inot them...The romans won anyway,Thus marking the end of the Phalanxe as a main fighting force....
DukeOfTennessee117 3 months ago
@crackshack2 Wait nvm.
DukeOfTennessee117 3 months ago
@DukeOfTennessee117
w/e I was just bored so ur right w/e IDC xD
crackshack2 3 months ago
@crackshack2 I think it it would be interesting to see a Reformed army of Rome(Giaus marius reforms) and the Royal macedonian army with its elite Companion cavalry and Royal pikeman,That would be a great matchup since the macedonians would have a cavalry advantage and the Romans would have the INF advantage.
DukeOfTennessee117 3 months ago
@DukeOfTennessee117 and @crackshack2
(cont)
3. Pikes got longer and more unwieldy- 20 foot pikes are already long enough. But the later Greeks only made it longer.
4. Inability to Replace Losses- They just didn't have enough new recruits like Rome did.
5. Horrible Dudes- Those Macedonians were pretty full of themselves. At Pydna, the phalanx actually retreated the Romans, but then, they came forward and broke their continuous line. The legions came back and killed all the guys.
ajbenius 3 months ago
@ajbenius LOL YOUR HERE MAN!HOW DID YOU FIND THIS VID LOL!
DukeOfTennessee117 3 months ago
@DukeOfTennessee117 I was looking at some random vids and found the link to this. I'm not sure, but I think I was watching a TW vid when I saw the link.
ajbenius 3 months ago
@ajbenius HAHa,then you saw our argument.
DukeOfTennessee117 3 months ago
I like the energy tower at back of your camps!, good!, time travel!
Masterofdeath310 3 months ago
lol.... so much great historians here on youtube...especially when they read a book...
rakijas8 3 months ago
now the conclusion is only one:no one trust you here,while everyone agree with me.So it's clear to everyone you're inventing tales.You didn't even tried to respond to what i said about spartans,because yourself realized you just said stupid things.And the "racist people who don't admit that etruscans,armenians and lydians were greeks" have a name:they're called historians.It's their work:to distinguish between real history and LIES.Now free this video from your ignorance,and get a life,muppet
romandef 3 months ago
DUDE STOP TALKING SHIT ARMENIANS DIDNT EVEN CAME NEAR BEING GREEKS THEY WHERE PUSSYS ON HORSES SHOOTING ARROWS OR SOLDIERS WITH A SPEAR AND A POOR WOODEN SHIELD WITH POOR MORALE!!!!! STOP TALKING SHIT YOU IDIOT! YOUR MESSING UP PEOPLES KNOWLODGE OF HISTORY YOU CUNT! IM NOT SAYING WHO ARMENIENS ARE BUT THEY DEFINITALY WERENT GREEKS YOU MORON!
swordangel3 3 months ago
@swordangel3 are you responding to me?i hope no,since i'm saying exactly the same thing
romandef 3 months ago
oh sorry bro you sound very intelegent and i already thought i was taunting the wrong personXD sorry bro wasnt ment to react to you like that but to the 1 who was telling bullshit that armenians where greeks they where and are a pile of shit easy said anywayz
im sorry man:)
swordangel3 3 months ago
@swordangel3 lol,no problem!but armenians aren't shit,man:they are a people like others
romandef 3 months ago
@swordangel3 bro armenia had a huge empire back then im not saying they were greeks but they didnt have a crappy army they were an empire at the time
miketastic97 3 months ago
you are armenian arent you?
swordangel3 3 months ago
@swordangel3 yes I am
miketastic97 3 months ago
thought so stupid armenian propaganda armenia never had an empire dude never ever.
swordangel3 3 months ago
@swordangel3 ya they did and its not propaganda didnt armenia have an empire in modern day turkey azerbeijan and georgia? I think so armenia played an important role in that time didn't it?
miketastic97 3 months ago
Simply,etruscan,as well as lydians and other mediterranean civilizations,had many (mostly,but not only,commercial) relationships with greeks.That's why you can see achilles.The greek myth was well known,not only in Etruria,and not only in italy:it's just greek influence.But these relationships don't mean that Etruscans,armenians and lydians were greek.Indeed, a similar statement isn't written in a single history book.maybe you greeks know something the rest of the world doesn't know?lol
romandef 3 months ago
You mean Monteleone's chariot?First it's dated 530 b.c.(and not 550 b.c.).Second,it wasn't unearthed in tuscany,but in umbria(another italian region).That is one of the best examples of ETRUSCAN art.Do you know that chariots were more important for etruscans than for greeks?you know that in greece they were not much important,not even in art,but just in athletics?face it,boy,they're different cultures.The presence of achilles(it's not even certain),it's easily explained by historians(continue)
romandef 3 months ago
And obviously,like everyone knows,rome was built by latins,then conquered by etruscans who established the tarquinian dynasty,then chased away by romans.Dressed like greeks?the wearing style(helmets included) of the period was common to all the mediterranean era,and wasn't even greek:it developed before the same greek could even been considered a civilization.Historians interpret the etruscan dress and customs as eastern,not greek,and not even western(continues)
romandef 3 months ago
Etruscans were native italic(probable) or of lydian origin(less probable).According to the majority of historians,the etruscan language,that was used also by other italic peoples,wasn't even an indoeuropean language(like greek and latin).A smaller group of historians says that the etruscan language was of anatolic family(but anyway not indoeuropean,so can't be greek).As you can read etruscan language was not even of the same linguistic family of the greek,so stop talking shit
romandef 3 months ago
(continue) the lydians descended from the hittite populace who was living in anatolia.They were natives of that place,and not of "an area hundreds of miles away from hittites".lol,what area,give me a name.Ethiopia?muhahahah...fantasies,my friend."Etruscans were greeks who came from greece to tuscany,speaking greek dialect,it is well documented"...Where?give me the books,the titles.Not a single historians said that Etruscans,Armenians and Lydians were greek,just your pitiful propaganda
romandef 3 months ago