Cyrus The Great and Hannibal. Two excellent strategists. As for defeating the Romans, my guess would be Khalid Ibn Waleed. He did defeat Byzantines (Eastern Romans) who were basically improved Rome.
@CrimsonGuard1992 good point but I think that formation was used to protect from attacks from above seeing as they would have been approaching high walls.
So during testudo there is no one holding up shields to protect the sides of the formation? Im sure this is really how they did it but some illustrations snuggest they did have men holding shields on the sides. Bec this seems to be a loop hole in the formation that the enemy could just shot a legionary on the side
And I want to see some Iberians! And Numidians! And Carthaginians! And Germans! And Parthians! And Seleukidis! And Macedonians! And Skythians! And Pontians! And Armenians! And Gauls! And Britons! And Sarmatians! And Dacians! And Sassanides!
@ShowYourWorking Let's not overreact shall we? There weren't hundreds of Roman Cavalrymen on Trajans column. Also, the Ahenobarbus monument (and many other sculptures) show us cavalry without shields. So the question whether or not Roman cavalry did carry shields remains vague.
What is certain however, is that many (both pictural als filmographic) depictions of Roman cavalry in popular culture is just incorrect.
@MrTitanRed Praetorians where the senates/emperors guard and most of them were also in politics.Theyre guards not the bulk of the roman army.Praetorians how every where used in some wars like Claudius's campaign in britannia one cohort was used
" Quintili Vare, legiones redde! " -- Augustus Caesar, according to Suetonius, used to bang his head against the walls yelling so (it means 'Quintilius Varus give me back my legions!')
The empire reached it's height 200 years after Varus died. 20 years after Varus died Germanicus regained the lost standards and buried the legions killed years earlier and occupied the land between the border of the empire and the elbe.
I do like romans and they have good battle formations but they couldnt beat huns I mean Atilla the Hun was the master of tactics and war and have the finest cavarly
@tecna64 That's bullshit. History has proven (see Crassus vs. Parthia, Seljuks vs. Crusaders, Mongol invasions, hell you might as well take the Blitzkrieg as an example) that a highly mobile cavalry force that can deliver a punch from a distance (e.g. arrows, or cannons/bullets) is a meatgrinder for (heavy-)infantry.
@tecna64 uncorrect, romans didnt have the tactics and warfare to beat the hun warfare. huns would defeat the roman empire anytime. and when they actually came the romans had even better chance than they would had before. ;)
wrong my friend, very wrong, because the roman warfeare didn't change almost at all from theyr first aparence in history, they just improved they armors, besides the huns used very much skirmis tactiks wich were deadly for the slow roman foot soldier. At least that's the way i see things
Not true, at the time of the Roman Kingdom the Romans used Greeklike phalanxes, it wasnt untill the Gauls sacked rome in 550 something BC the romans changed their tactics to something more loose so they created the maniples with the hastati, principes and the triarii, which were remnants of the roman phalanx and contained the most experienced force, which was used as a last resort.
the romans changed their style of warfare a number of times during their history.
An phalanxes...the romans, never, yes they had triariai but they were equipt with a 2 meter long speare not 5-6 meter, so... yes i don't say they had some changes but not radical, one step at a time, a "gladius" a "testudo formation" something like that and about the tactics, was the same either they were fighting the celts the dacians either the egiptians, the tactics were the same, the strategy of each individually general was different.
And don't forge that the romans defeated the huns.
Who said i wanted to fight over the internet, its pointless, all I'm saying is if you dont know your history dont even bother, because i studied history for 3 years by myself and i know a heck of alot of ancient history, and i know the romans had the phalanx formation before they had their legionary formations, you do know rome was a city state before it became a republic right?
of please dont even start... i know all about they mythology, i'm 19 and i've study latin in high school, actualy i stiil do it, end they before were a small state city were homless,the romans being the survivors from Troy... I would tell you the entyer story, but perhaps some other time
no need to tell me something thats not even true... and just because you studied latin doesnt mean you studied history. its 2 different things entirely
@tecna64 True, in the very early days of the Roman Kingdom the Romans fought pretty much as Greek hoplites. This was way, way before the age of segmentata legionaries though. That guy obviously learns his history from Rome: Total War.
If the Ottoman Empire had attacked (or even existed) at the height of the Byzantine Empire, they would never have come far, and you can forget about Constantinople being called Istanbul today.
That's just pointless speculation far from reality. You might as well have Alexander the Great live to old age and have a Macedonian Empire for centuries.
i sort of agree but by the time attila came. the empire was very weak. the legions were not nearly as professional as they were now if attila came when the REAL Legions were around his calvary would have been squiashed by professional arrow vollyes not peasnt archers with an unsteady hand and bad aim. also his calvary would have been massacerd by the roman heavy calvary.. not the auxilliary calavry they used when attila came
@TheNormaldude33 How do you suppose roman cavalry could beat the cavalry of the Huns? First of all, Romans did not know how to use saddle-straps - so it was hard to control a horse. The nomads of course lived on horses from birth, so they would control their horses much better.
Secondly, Roman cavalry did not carry shields (this is a myth created by Hollywood in which the Roman cavalry wears fancy shields), so could easily be picked out by Hunnic archers.
@Gardash111 lol when alexander invaded afganistan and fought the hun like people who started loosing pretty bad, im sure the romans would do alot worst.
@ralphyboy1 Are you kidding me? How can you compare the peasant armies in Khorosan (since the Persians were already defeated) to the Huns who came straight out of the steps? And in what way does Alexander's warfare even come close to the maniple system used by the Romans?
You should get your history straight: hunnic people never got in to Khorosan. The only people who came into Khorosan with a similar style like the Huns were the Parthian, Turkic and Mongolic people. None of them lost to Rome.
@Gardash111 Are you a Moron please read what I said I SAID HUN LIKE PEOPLE! PEOPLE who rely mostly on horse back archery, and there are steppe people in Afganistan PLEASE look up geography at history. Also when did I mention Khorosan? Also Im pretty sure the Romans used phalanx like alot of greeks.
@ralphyboy1 Ergo, all the people who rely mostly on horse back archery are "Hun-like people?" I think you know too little of Hunnic warfare. Also, in what way does the maniple-system used by Romans come in comparison to the macedonian phalanx?
Khorosan? Kidding me? You don't know that Afganistan is part of an area called Khorosan? Haha, and then you are telling me I should look up the geographic history of Afghanistan?:D
@TheNormaldude33 huns had better technology of missile weapons, huns would crush any roman army. that heavy roman cavalry you are talking about is heavy = slow, slower than hun cavalry and romans didnt know to use the horses that professional like the huns, hun arrow beat any armor the romans used, rome wouldnt had any chance, no matter when the huns would came. ;)
The Romans couldn't beat the later barbarians from the Eurasian steppes, like the Goths, Alans, Sassanids, and the Huns. They couldn't conquer the Parthians. Roman infantry are no match against horse archers, light steppe cavalry, and heavily armored knights.
Around 115 AD, Roman Emperor Trajan defeated the Parthians in several campaigns, sacked the Parthian capital Ctesiphon, and annexed Armenia and Mesopotamia as Roman provinces.
In 165 AD, the Roman General Avidius Cassius crushed the Parthian armies in the Battles of Dura-Europos and Seleucia and sacked the Parthian capital Ctesiphon.
In 195-197 AD, Roman Emperor Septimus Severus sacked the Parthian capital Ctesiphon and conquered the cities of Nisibis and Singara.
Shapur I of the Sassanids defeated 3 Roman emperors. Emperor Gordian III, Emperor Valerian, & Emperor Philip the Arab. I am not saying the Sassanids never lost a battle. The Romans never completely conquered the Parthians or the Sassanids. The war was basically a stalemate. What about the Goths and Huns? Didn't they eventually destroy the Roman Empire?
The decline of the Roman empire is a complicated issue and has more to do with a gradual change of culture in the Roman world. The expression "last of the Romans" sums up the sentiment historians have trying to define the fall of the Roman empire.
@capablemachine The later barbarians from the Eurasian steppes were very good horsemen and very capable fighters. They brought down more than just the Roman Empire, they took out the Islamic Caliphate, China, and the Byzantine Empire.
No the roman empire existed at different states at different times and history is widely varied on those topics. You can not isolate the fall of the roman empire to one particular group of people or one particular time.
@capablemachine The Roman Empire was declining when the Goths, Alans, Vandals, and Huns started to attack it. The Roman Empire in its early days couldn't wipe out the Parthians and the Sassanids. The Sassanid king Shaphur boasted about defeating 3 Roman Emperors and capturing one alive and enslaving the rest. Roman infantry tactics are no match against the Turanian and Aryan warriors of the steppes.
The Roman empire was weakened internally for years by almost endless civil wars. Also the capture of Valerian was due to his army being reduced by plague and the Sassanids using deceit to capture him during talks, not because of military skill. Gordians failed because he was murdered by Phillip the Arab. Shapur himself lost his gains at the hands of a Romanised arab. Roman culture was also heavily influenced by the states it controlled and bordered and an Germanisation of Roman culture occured.
The Romans did have some good mounted weapon systems, like the carriage mounted ballistia. When the later barbarians invaded Rome, Rome was pretty much in decline. Their economy was in shambles, like how the U.S. economy is now. The government was too large, and they had a massive welfare state. Their money was debased to the point where the coins contained 95% iron and 5% silver. Most Romans didn't want to fight in the legions, and the empire was in moral decline as well.
Oi! The roman's didn't only fight for glory. They fougth also for citizenship (needed it to get deeper into Rome/Italy). When they where done in 40+ years they'r sons would get the same title as they when they died (sometimes they took sucide {honor old times}).
Never were truer words said-'A roman commander issued orders knowing that they would be carried out, a barbarian commander would issue orders hoping they would be carried out!' CAVE LEG. ROMANUS. SPQR
A shame the kids can't seem to keep their mouths shut for one minute and simply enjoy the efficient simplicity. I didn't know that fact about uniformity of height among Roman troops.
i wish we didnt had guns and we can have swords and shields like the olden days that would be so cool cuz less people die than fast little missle coming at u but anyway its way better with shields and swords. anyone agree with me? ^_^
Less people would die? What are you stupid? You would have to commit way more troops to achieve what a simple cruise missle could. You would shit your pants if you were on the front line of that shield and sword battle. Get a grip on reality.
watch the old spartacus movie which has around 7000 roman re-enactors marching in formation and the legion looks frightning. and thats only one legion, imagine 3- 5 legions together plus the auxiliary and cavalry?
Vartex, its been awhile but I just had to reply in case anyone else reads this merely for random historical facts :)
The Romans would put legions together of men with the same height. Shaq would either not be used in the army, or placed with an entire legion of Shaqs. Most likely he'd be a skirmisher because he's black. ;)
They actally used to heat up sand (not oil) as oil was very expensive,and harder to get hold of and the sand would work better - when it was heated up till it was red hot! you can imagine what it was like,sand gets everywhere doesn't it! having that tipped onto you from above, it would find its way threw your clothing and armour, having that touch your skin - youd be total agony!
depends, if the unit did not have enough men they would leave the sides. Reason being the more interlocked shields you had on top the better the deflection.
This is a very entertaining demonstration. I wish I had the chance to watch one in real life, but thank you very much for putting the video! I think we people living in modern times don't understand much about the ancient times and their thinking and do the mistake of using our modern logical analysis to their lives and actions. But heck, it is a scary thing to see that wedge come at your charging. Notice the nervous relief laughters from women after that charge :)
I have a question about dusnd testudo what does they do when some one attacks them from the side or lets say 30 barbarians attack them from the side what will they do?
Like the Red Coats did and so many soldiers in different centuries ... they form a carré - to protect the commander and the wounded who where brought into the middle of the square. (First rome arena Gladiator fight in the movie Gladiotor show it as well (and in the second seseon of Rome)) It was quite effective as a last resort when cut of the main army.
No, the testudo predates Marc Anthony. The Romans had rectangular shields since the Punic Wars of the 4th century BCE. The testudo probably came around the late 2nd-1st century BCE.
As for the testudo being a genius....tell that to the legionaires and Crassus at Carrahe, when their testudo formations were raped by shield piercing composite bows and heavy cavalry cataphracts.
Yeah, well Crassus was dumb because he was stubborn and greedy (my personnal opinion of him because of the things he is said to have done at Carrhae and a bit before, like a certain moutain pass thing... whatever)
Uh...I need to ask the question, Is there anyone living today who was around then? No one has it "right" because no one really knows. Interpreting from written text two thousand years old is speculation at best.
Roman units were kept in a formation as strict as that of a Marine's signing out parade. I was just saying that you hardly ever see perfect formation in Roman acting. They are constantly being caught out of step and the turning is very dodgy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Russia and china sucks theyry very dumb... very very dumg assholes....GREETINGS FROM LITHUANIA TO GEORGIA!!!! but i have to agree with you .....china and russia march better......
The Romans used skitmishers against phalanx formations. They moved, threw, fell back, moved threw fell back... 3-4 times, than moved behind the infantry. The infantry threw their pilars in the last moment before the phalanx reached their lines, so that there were big gaps in the phalanx formation and the legionaries were able to enter those gaps and massacer the greek soldiers. Their only defence was a little shield and a knife...
To counter a statement by the speaker.....Roman soldiers beginning in the later Republic were not necessarily "Professional" soldiers. Many of them were, instead, were, landowners, farmers, and peasants who were paid to fight. Only when they were promised a lot of booty/treasure did these unprofessional soldiers gladly go off to march, otherwise they feared losing their land and crops due to negligence.
well i wouldn't say peasants... cause republican soldiers had to pay for their own gear and learn how to read and write. not any old peasant was accepted
America wont become an empire. if they do they will be destroyed in a matter of months. The world is built on nukes and allies now and if America attacks the wrong country then it will cause a chain reaction and possbily WW3 and i dont think America has enough nukes to take out other powerful countries such as Russia, Korea and China nevermind the rest of them. its extremly unlikely to happen.
wtf r you talking about? It only takes a couple nukes.... and what many don't know is that there are like, mroe then 8 countries with the power to do so.
dumbass. what are you another retarded mexican? get back to work beaner. my buildings won't build themselves.. build or get the fuck out of our country.
Good ANYTHINGS are not born, they're made. OK, so someone might be naturally brave or strong, but someone who works themselves into a position like that is much better. Also, the Romans thought about war... noticed good tactics and weapons and adopted them for use, with modification. Look up Queen Boudicca (sp?) here on Youtube and watch the 2-part History Channel thing on it. It proves the point exactly.
Good ANYTHINGS are not born, they're made. OK, so someone might be naturally brave or strong, but someone who works themselves into a position like that is much better. Also, the Romans thought about war... noticed good tactics and weapons and adopted them for use, with modification. Look up Queen Boudicca (sp?) here on Youtube and watch the 2-part History Channel thing on it. It proves the point exactly.
the word celt refers to a popular european cultural movement, not a people. The people who bore these cultural traits, often referred to incorrectly as celts were from all over europe and included the germanic, gaul and briton or pict peoples
ah yes britons where celts migrated from gaul into britannia and hibernia(ireland) the romano-british, the local people, the colonist mixed and formed the first BRITISH people, of course the etnogenosis consisted in the invasion of the angles, saxons, frisons, vikings, and normans...the rest is history
Yeah that's where I was coming from, since Romans drew a lot of stuff from the Greeks, I would think that they would implement the shinguards... That kinda sucks, but oh well, long time past anyway. Thanks for the reply!
Unfortunately I don't know exactly but in my opinion this show was from Britain.Especially in summers; some of groups who are fan of romans, roman life,roman war tactics etc. organize these kinds of show in britain and overall europe.
Cyrus The Great and Hannibal. Two excellent strategists. As for defeating the Romans, my guess would be Khalid Ibn Waleed. He did defeat Byzantines (Eastern Romans) who were basically improved Rome.
shadowC10ne 4 months ago
Cool fight Roman soldier vs Roman soldier youtbe.com/watch?v=uDUqoyF357w
voluntariosantiago 5 months ago
has anyone ever watched that old program where this man has a board and like a CGI army on the board and he explains there tactics and stuff
TheiTouchGuys 11 months ago
@TheiTouchGuys
Battlefield Britain?
AquilaRomana8 10 months ago
@TheiTouchGuys
20th Century Battlefields, on the Military Channel.
Pretty good, actually.
ArmyGuy543 7 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 good point but I think that formation was used to protect from attacks from above seeing as they would have been approaching high walls.
UrghNoNames 1 year ago
Cred to the PArthians who managed to win against the romans in open ground.
A Roman army after the marian reforms was nearly impossible to defeat in open field.
RoManLP15 1 year ago
Alexander would have destroyed the romans, he had plans to invade Italy but then died. Shame...
mwillis1000 1 year ago
So during testudo there is no one holding up shields to protect the sides of the formation? Im sure this is really how they did it but some illustrations snuggest they did have men holding shields on the sides. Bec this seems to be a loop hole in the formation that the enemy could just shot a legionary on the side
CrimsonGuard1992 1 year ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 they held shields at the side and even back when necessary
HawkeyesMKV 11 months ago
Now I want to see the celts as well!
And I want to see some Iberians! And Numidians! And Carthaginians! And Germans! And Parthians! And Seleukidis! And Macedonians! And Skythians! And Pontians! And Armenians! And Gauls! And Britons! And Sarmatians! And Dacians! And Sassanides!
Man, I gotta buy a lot of costumes...
Schensue 1 year ago
5:18 ..just imagine a legion doing that..lol
Rangerfull3 1 year ago
Wow Im impresed they were good, no no perfet even to the left right left
Dimodeus360 1 year ago
The weakness of the roman legions where mounted archers. Look at the battle of carrhae forexample.
About 10000 persians defeated 42000 romans.
Btw haha i am laughing as hell, when i watch hollywood films where legionaries use the Gladius to chop xD
VictumRoManius 1 year ago
@ShowYourWorking Let's not overreact shall we? There weren't hundreds of Roman Cavalrymen on Trajans column. Also, the Ahenobarbus monument (and many other sculptures) show us cavalry without shields. So the question whether or not Roman cavalry did carry shields remains vague.
What is certain however, is that many (both pictural als filmographic) depictions of Roman cavalry in popular culture is just incorrect.
Gardash111 1 year ago
the testudo leaves its flanks suspiciously open if the cavalry fail to defend properly.
pwnrzero 1 year ago
3:25 or being attacked from the side lol...
Masterzec 1 year ago
The testudo should have shields covering flanks to the only exposed part should be the back
ifartinurdirection1 1 year ago
@ifartinurdirection1 i think most of the time the formation did cover the flanks, idont know why they didnt do it here
archery75689 1 year ago
blablabla
its a vid about roman war tactics, not about the history of the roman empire
kalesteinsegek 1 year ago
Oh guys cant u stop arguing about themes u didnt studied?
RealestMcKoy 2 years ago
roma ti amo!
santotraffcante88 2 years ago 5
penis
repentandrebel 2 years ago
need to get 2000 romans to do wat they like in a 10 mile radius and have them hunt 10 snipers in ghilli suites and see who last standing
gloin118118 2 years ago
well the snipers would need a time machine and 2000 rounds of ammo.
MrTitanRed 2 years ago 9
well u could get people from now and hae them taught as roman soldiers and arm them since a lot of the roman legions werent roman people
and the snipers could esily use sneak attaks with knives or lay traps
gloin118118 2 years ago
romans could easly just use praetorians
MrTitanRed 2 years ago
@MrTitanRed Praetorians where the senates/emperors guard and most of them were also in politics.Theyre guards not the bulk of the roman army.Praetorians how every where used in some wars like Claudius's campaign in britannia one cohort was used
WRH90059 1 year ago
@MrTitanRed There were no snipers in the ancient Roman period. Gunpowder weapons were well into the future.
zipsrule 6 months ago
@zipsrule Think you missed my point :p
MrTitanRed 6 months ago
@MrTitanRed Then what is your point.? Snipers armed with gunpowder weapons didn't exist during the "Roman Period."
zipsrule 6 months ago
i'd take em out with a m-16
redSHIFT69 2 years ago
your m-16 is no match for their short swords and pointy sticks
KingoftheGods123 2 years ago 3
" Quintili Vare, legiones redde! " -- Augustus Caesar, according to Suetonius, used to bang his head against the walls yelling so (it means 'Quintilius Varus give me back my legions!')
TAWEEYZZ 2 years ago
varus was an ass hole fuckers like him help bring down the empire
histatimaniples 2 years ago
i agree
TAWEEYZZ 2 years ago
The empire reached it's height 200 years after Varus died. 20 years after Varus died Germanicus regained the lost standards and buried the legions killed years earlier and occupied the land between the border of the empire and the elbe.
capablemachine 2 years ago
I dont like varus whoever thinks that was a poor coment im just saying
TAWEEYZZ 2 years ago
I do like romans and they have good battle formations but they couldnt beat huns I mean Atilla the Hun was the master of tactics and war and have the finest cavarly
TAWEEYZZ 2 years ago
if attila would have come at the time of the empire's height, the huns would have been HORRIBLY defeated
tecna64 2 years ago 32
yea thats true
TAWEEYZZ 2 years ago
@tecna64
When White man stands together , not when our nations have faced massive immigration ..
We can defeat any foe , as One people . influx of those not our kin has always been our demise ...
88Thyra 1 year ago
@tecna64 That's bullshit. History has proven (see Crassus vs. Parthia, Seljuks vs. Crusaders, Mongol invasions, hell you might as well take the Blitzkrieg as an example) that a highly mobile cavalry force that can deliver a punch from a distance (e.g. arrows, or cannons/bullets) is a meatgrinder for (heavy-)infantry.
Gardash111 1 year ago
@tecna64 uncorrect, romans didnt have the tactics and warfare to beat the hun warfare. huns would defeat the roman empire anytime. and when they actually came the romans had even better chance than they would had before. ;)
DemeterHUN 1 year ago
@tecna64 you cant really make that claim...but ok
Emanusmell 1 year ago
wrong my friend, very wrong, because the roman warfeare didn't change almost at all from theyr first aparence in history, they just improved they armors, besides the huns used very much skirmis tactiks wich were deadly for the slow roman foot soldier. At least that's the way i see things
theforeverwarrior 1 year ago
@theforeverwarrior
Not true, at the time of the Roman Kingdom the Romans used Greeklike phalanxes, it wasnt untill the Gauls sacked rome in 550 something BC the romans changed their tactics to something more loose so they created the maniples with the hastati, principes and the triarii, which were remnants of the roman phalanx and contained the most experienced force, which was used as a last resort.
the romans changed their style of warfare a number of times during their history.
tecna64 1 year ago
An phalanxes...the romans, never, yes they had triariai but they were equipt with a 2 meter long speare not 5-6 meter, so... yes i don't say they had some changes but not radical, one step at a time, a "gladius" a "testudo formation" something like that and about the tactics, was the same either they were fighting the celts the dacians either the egiptians, the tactics were the same, the strategy of each individually general was different.
And don't forge that the romans defeated the huns.
theforeverwarrior 1 year ago
@theforeverwarrior
maybe you should grab a history book because your reasonings dont add up...
tecna64 1 year ago
in wich way, the phalanx matter or the one with the romans beatting the huns??? because, in my country at least, attila was defeated...
BTW, don't turn this in to a fight, because it's just a friendly conversation
theforeverwarrior 1 year ago
@theforeverwarrior
Who said i wanted to fight over the internet, its pointless, all I'm saying is if you dont know your history dont even bother, because i studied history for 3 years by myself and i know a heck of alot of ancient history, and i know the romans had the phalanx formation before they had their legionary formations, you do know rome was a city state before it became a republic right?
tecna64 1 year ago 2
of please dont even start... i know all about they mythology, i'm 19 and i've study latin in high school, actualy i stiil do it, end they before were a small state city were homless,the romans being the survivors from Troy... I would tell you the entyer story, but perhaps some other time
theforeverwarrior 1 year ago
@theforeverwarrior
no need to tell me something thats not even true... and just because you studied latin doesnt mean you studied history. its 2 different things entirely
tecna64 1 year ago
@tecna64 True, in the very early days of the Roman Kingdom the Romans fought pretty much as Greek hoplites. This was way, way before the age of segmentata legionaries though. That guy obviously learns his history from Rome: Total War.
Unremarkable1000 1 year ago
@tecna64 yep lol
TAWEEYZZ 1 year ago
@tecna64 Wrong as hell. The Roman legion only got better, but stupid people think it grew worse.
SilverTemplar 1 year ago
@tecna64
If if if.
If the Ottoman Empire had attacked (or even existed) at the height of the Byzantine Empire, they would never have come far, and you can forget about Constantinople being called Istanbul today.
That's just pointless speculation far from reality. You might as well have Alexander the Great live to old age and have a Macedonian Empire for centuries.
McLarenMercedes 7 months ago
@tecna64 hell yes it wasdumb to change the armore to lighter and worser armore and not that disipline like this time!
sweAndreasFilm 7 months ago
@tecna64 And Atilla didn't come since his ancestors were busy being obliterated and forced westwards by the Han Chinese armies.
TJPinoy 2 weeks ago
i sort of agree but by the time attila came. the empire was very weak. the legions were not nearly as professional as they were now if attila came when the REAL Legions were around his calvary would have been squiashed by professional arrow vollyes not peasnt archers with an unsteady hand and bad aim. also his calvary would have been massacerd by the roman heavy calvary.. not the auxilliary calavry they used when attila came
TheNormaldude33 2 years ago 2
@TheNormaldude33 How do you suppose roman cavalry could beat the cavalry of the Huns? First of all, Romans did not know how to use saddle-straps - so it was hard to control a horse. The nomads of course lived on horses from birth, so they would control their horses much better.
Secondly, Roman cavalry did not carry shields (this is a myth created by Hollywood in which the Roman cavalry wears fancy shields), so could easily be picked out by Hunnic archers.
Gardash111 1 year ago
@Gardash111 lol when alexander invaded afganistan and fought the hun like people who started loosing pretty bad, im sure the romans would do alot worst.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Are you kidding me? How can you compare the peasant armies in Khorosan (since the Persians were already defeated) to the Huns who came straight out of the steps? And in what way does Alexander's warfare even come close to the maniple system used by the Romans?
You should get your history straight: hunnic people never got in to Khorosan. The only people who came into Khorosan with a similar style like the Huns were the Parthian, Turkic and Mongolic people. None of them lost to Rome.
Gardash111 1 year ago
@Gardash111 Are you a Moron please read what I said I SAID HUN LIKE PEOPLE! PEOPLE who rely mostly on horse back archery, and there are steppe people in Afganistan PLEASE look up geography at history. Also when did I mention Khorosan? Also Im pretty sure the Romans used phalanx like alot of greeks.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Ergo, all the people who rely mostly on horse back archery are "Hun-like people?" I think you know too little of Hunnic warfare. Also, in what way does the maniple-system used by Romans come in comparison to the macedonian phalanx?
Khorosan? Kidding me? You don't know that Afganistan is part of an area called Khorosan? Haha, and then you are telling me I should look up the geographic history of Afghanistan?:D
Gardash111 1 year ago
@TheNormaldude33 huns had better technology of missile weapons, huns would crush any roman army. that heavy roman cavalry you are talking about is heavy = slow, slower than hun cavalry and romans didnt know to use the horses that professional like the huns, hun arrow beat any armor the romans used, rome wouldnt had any chance, no matter when the huns would came. ;)
btw sry for my english
DemeterHUN 1 year ago
@DemeterHUN Also Romans at that time didnt use stirrups they had to hold the horses hair lol.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
The Romans couldn't beat the later barbarians from the Eurasian steppes, like the Goths, Alans, Sassanids, and the Huns. They couldn't conquer the Parthians. Roman infantry are no match against horse archers, light steppe cavalry, and heavily armored knights.
He101A 2 years ago
Around 115 AD, Roman Emperor Trajan defeated the Parthians in several campaigns, sacked the Parthian capital Ctesiphon, and annexed Armenia and Mesopotamia as Roman provinces.
In 165 AD, the Roman General Avidius Cassius crushed the Parthian armies in the Battles of Dura-Europos and Seleucia and sacked the Parthian capital Ctesiphon.
In 195-197 AD, Roman Emperor Septimus Severus sacked the Parthian capital Ctesiphon and conquered the cities of Nisibis and Singara.
tacotony24 2 years ago 2
Shapur I of the Sassanids defeated 3 Roman emperors. Emperor Gordian III, Emperor Valerian, & Emperor Philip the Arab. I am not saying the Sassanids never lost a battle. The Romans never completely conquered the Parthians or the Sassanids. The war was basically a stalemate. What about the Goths and Huns? Didn't they eventually destroy the Roman Empire?
He101A 2 years ago
The decline of the Roman empire is a complicated issue and has more to do with a gradual change of culture in the Roman world. The expression "last of the Romans" sums up the sentiment historians have trying to define the fall of the Roman empire.
capablemachine 2 years ago
@capablemachine The later barbarians from the Eurasian steppes were very good horsemen and very capable fighters. They brought down more than just the Roman Empire, they took out the Islamic Caliphate, China, and the Byzantine Empire.
He101A 2 years ago
No the roman empire existed at different states at different times and history is widely varied on those topics. You can not isolate the fall of the roman empire to one particular group of people or one particular time.
capablemachine 2 years ago
@capablemachine The Roman Empire was declining when the Goths, Alans, Vandals, and Huns started to attack it. The Roman Empire in its early days couldn't wipe out the Parthians and the Sassanids. The Sassanid king Shaphur boasted about defeating 3 Roman Emperors and capturing one alive and enslaving the rest. Roman infantry tactics are no match against the Turanian and Aryan warriors of the steppes.
He101A 2 years ago
The Roman empire was weakened internally for years by almost endless civil wars. Also the capture of Valerian was due to his army being reduced by plague and the Sassanids using deceit to capture him during talks, not because of military skill. Gordians failed because he was murdered by Phillip the Arab. Shapur himself lost his gains at the hands of a Romanised arab. Roman culture was also heavily influenced by the states it controlled and bordered and an Germanisation of Roman culture occured.
capablemachine 2 years ago
The Romans did have some good mounted weapon systems, like the carriage mounted ballistia. When the later barbarians invaded Rome, Rome was pretty much in decline. Their economy was in shambles, like how the U.S. economy is now. The government was too large, and they had a massive welfare state. Their money was debased to the point where the coins contained 95% iron and 5% silver. Most Romans didn't want to fight in the legions, and the empire was in moral decline as well.
He101A 2 years ago
@He101A I bet Romans loved paying those epicly HIGH taxes too.
Agent1W 1 year ago
@He101A yes they are,the romans took on several cultures with skirmish tactics,like the pontians,armenians scyhtians etc
WRH90059 1 year ago
The Roman Infantery versus the Chinese infantery please!!!!
woolfero 2 years ago
No... Romans vs Apaches... The romans would easily get rid of them
Devinfilms6679 2 years ago 8
Oi! The roman's didn't only fight for glory. They fougth also for citizenship (needed it to get deeper into Rome/Italy). When they where done in 40+ years they'r sons would get the same title as they when they died (sometimes they took sucide {honor old times}).
Bidmartinlo 2 years ago
Never were truer words said-'A roman commander issued orders knowing that they would be carried out, a barbarian commander would issue orders hoping they would be carried out!' CAVE LEG. ROMANUS. SPQR
capodicino 2 years ago
I would be roflmao if one of those kids pissed his pants and started crying when they charged at them in wedge formation at the end. xD
wokani 2 years ago
the guy on the PA system sounds like a twat
stuartallford 2 years ago
can anyone give the names of the formations?
limoG 2 years ago
double line, single line, testudo (tortoise) and wedge
747t 2 years ago
Cool video. Thanks for posting.
A shame the kids can't seem to keep their mouths shut for one minute and simply enjoy the efficient simplicity. I didn't know that fact about uniformity of height among Roman troops.
Nemonicus 2 years ago
i wish we didnt had guns and we can have swords and shields like the olden days that would be so cool cuz less people die than fast little missle coming at u but anyway its way better with shields and swords. anyone agree with me? ^_^
xboxpirates2000 2 years ago
Less people would die? What are you stupid? You would have to commit way more troops to achieve what a simple cruise missle could. You would shit your pants if you were on the front line of that shield and sword battle. Get a grip on reality.
GoodEvenings 2 years ago
infact i dont care wat u think or say
xboxpirates2000 2 years ago
Exactly as soon as you see how retarded your perspective was you say that.
GoodEvenings 2 years ago
i agree
filipo300 2 years ago
you mean less civilians dying. unlike war with ballistics.
andthereis 2 years ago
omg i wish one person can like gather 4000-5000 legionary demonstrators so we can see what a real legion would of looked like =]
aznxmaster2 2 years ago 3
watch the old spartacus movie which has around 7000 roman re-enactors marching in formation and the legion looks frightning. and thats only one legion, imagine 3- 5 legions together plus the auxiliary and cavalry?
ignacio90 2 years ago 5
Go to a fair or concert. Now imagine everyone is wearing armor, carrying a sword and wants to kill you. Ta daaaaaa!
HERMESTHRICEGREATEST 2 years ago
Shaq would be killed by an archer, or javalin, or a catapult. Depends on how high you think the damn projectile needs to go for a kill. lol
r00k10 2 years ago
Shaq would get killed first - shield not tall enough to cover him lol
vietcongak 2 years ago 20
@vietcongak hahaha
Rangerfull3 1 year ago
How wold this work if 1 of the men was Shaq :P
Vartex 3 years ago
Vartex, its been awhile but I just had to reply in case anyone else reads this merely for random historical facts :)
The Romans would put legions together of men with the same height. Shaq would either not be used in the army, or placed with an entire legion of Shaqs. Most likely he'd be a skirmisher because he's black. ;)
commandoe 2 years ago 3
if he was barbarian hed be a berserker lol
747t 2 years ago
They actally used to heat up sand (not oil) as oil was very expensive,and harder to get hold of and the sand would work better - when it was heated up till it was red hot! you can imagine what it was like,sand gets everywhere doesn't it! having that tipped onto you from above, it would find its way threw your clothing and armour, having that touch your skin - youd be total agony!
rooneyjunior1 3 years ago 5
I am sure that is accurate.
Kortoso 3 years ago
Wow, You need to PRACTISE
Pourleduc 3 years ago
i think it was a 5 metre gap in their lines
DannyJamesRead 3 years ago
the testudo formation is wrong because the ppl on the edges of it should have their sheilds pointed outwards to protect the flanks
indyfan927 3 years ago
ya but they still did ok i wish they did more
vinnyStigerknight97 3 years ago
depends, if the unit did not have enough men they would leave the sides. Reason being the more interlocked shields you had on top the better the deflection.
frozencanadian 3 years ago
Where is this?
HawkWarrior2 3 years ago
i think UK cuz of how the guy sounds
vinnyStigerknight97 3 years ago 2
hahaha the last formation kicks ass XD
dpsantos1994 3 years ago
This is a very entertaining demonstration. I wish I had the chance to watch one in real life, but thank you very much for putting the video! I think we people living in modern times don't understand much about the ancient times and their thinking and do the mistake of using our modern logical analysis to their lives and actions. But heck, it is a scary thing to see that wedge come at your charging. Notice the nervous relief laughters from women after that charge :)
ServantofTruth 3 years ago
I have a question about dusnd testudo what does they do when some one attacks them from the side or lets say 30 barbarians attack them from the side what will they do?
DeGreatestLigonier 3 years ago
Well, testudo is originally used to protect romans from arrows, not hth attack.
MadeinHell2 3 years ago
yeah i know but if sonme one surprices them from the side but I understand what you mean
DeGreatestLigonier 3 years ago
they used it when asssaulting walls, not in close combat
franosijek 3 years ago
Like the Red Coats did and so many soldiers in different centuries ... they form a carré - to protect the commander and the wounded who where brought into the middle of the square. (First rome arena Gladiator fight in the movie Gladiotor show it as well (and in the second seseon of Rome)) It was quite effective as a last resort when cut of the main army.
viowave 3 years ago
dusnd testudo has shields at side to?
camoflage008 3 years ago
The guy who thought of the rectangular shield and testudo is a genius (isnt it Marc Antony in 27 BC who thought of it?)
Philly666lol 3 years ago
No, the testudo predates Marc Anthony. The Romans had rectangular shields since the Punic Wars of the 4th century BCE. The testudo probably came around the late 2nd-1st century BCE.
As for the testudo being a genius....tell that to the legionaires and Crassus at Carrahe, when their testudo formations were raped by shield piercing composite bows and heavy cavalry cataphracts.
Intranetusa 3 years ago
Yeah, well Crassus was dumb because he was stubborn and greedy (my personnal opinion of him because of the things he is said to have done at Carrhae and a bit before, like a certain moutain pass thing... whatever)
Philly666lol 3 years ago
Aremania mountains
godfear000 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i hate america!!!Fucking retarded mutha fuckers!!!
andraz224 3 years ago
Get into position you untrained maggots!
*ehem*
Why do people always make Rome look so unorganized? Very few people ever get it right.
leeham991 3 years ago
Uh...I need to ask the question, Is there anyone living today who was around then? No one has it "right" because no one really knows. Interpreting from written text two thousand years old is speculation at best.
Shipskeel 3 years ago
*slaps*
You missed the point.
Roman units were kept in a formation as strict as that of a Marine's signing out parade. I was just saying that you hardly ever see perfect formation in Roman acting. They are constantly being caught out of step and the turning is very dodgy.
leeham991 3 years ago
I got'cha now. Maybe those who are out of step need a good flogging or whatever disciplinary action used on the real Roman soldier. That'll teach'em.
:-)
Regards
Shipskeel 3 years ago
lol the american army sucks at amrching... no one beats the military parades of russia or china even
decimuscarrerus 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Russia and china sucks theyry very dumb... very very dumg assholes....GREETINGS FROM LITHUANIA TO GEORGIA!!!! but i have to agree with you .....china and russia march better......
N1DE0N 3 years ago
*cough* dumb? *cough*
DeathKnoob 3 years ago
You're a disgrace to Lithuania, you fucking twat. I hope they kick you in the balls.
ExadusX 2 years ago
The Romans used skitmishers against phalanx formations. They moved, threw, fell back, moved threw fell back... 3-4 times, than moved behind the infantry. The infantry threw their pilars in the last moment before the phalanx reached their lines, so that there were big gaps in the phalanx formation and the legionaries were able to enter those gaps and massacer the greek soldiers. Their only defence was a little shield and a knife...
EmperorofTerra 3 years ago
To counter a statement by the speaker.....Roman soldiers beginning in the later Republic were not necessarily "Professional" soldiers. Many of them were, instead, were, landowners, farmers, and peasants who were paid to fight. Only when they were promised a lot of booty/treasure did these unprofessional soldiers gladly go off to march, otherwise they feared losing their land and crops due to negligence.
LightWarrior1 3 years ago
well i wouldn't say peasants... cause republican soldiers had to pay for their own gear and learn how to read and write. not any old peasant was accepted
decimuscarrerus 3 years ago
America wont become an empire. if they do they will be destroyed in a matter of months. The world is built on nukes and allies now and if America attacks the wrong country then it will cause a chain reaction and possbily WW3 and i dont think America has enough nukes to take out other powerful countries such as Russia, Korea and China nevermind the rest of them. its extremly unlikely to happen.
cunni20081 3 years ago
america has enough nukes to blow the world up 3 times. Don't ask why.
rahulk552008 3 years ago
wtf r you talking about? It only takes a couple nukes.... and what many don't know is that there are like, mroe then 8 countries with the power to do so.
decimuscarrerus 3 years ago
i've never seen this in ehmn..well 'real'...onlly in video games...but with testudo he...i always thought they also had should on the sides...
upsidedownkill 3 years ago
I hate America!!!!!!
andraz224 3 years ago
Go fuck yourself, andraz!
kufygfykt 3 years ago 2
dumbass. what are you another retarded mexican? get back to work beaner. my buildings won't build themselves.. build or get the fuck out of our country.
rahulk552008 3 years ago
America WILL become an empire you just wait...
RoboChickenHead 3 years ago
this kind of reminds me of airshows
DanM25456 3 years ago
sorry for my english
Edgtho36 3 years ago
hmm
nice posts
I hate them, too but if You think about the theme, You'll see it: It was the greatest empire in the world..
Edgtho36 3 years ago
Personally, I hate the Romans. Then again, I'm kindof biased, I'm from Celtic Briton ancestry. lol.
But let's be honest, It would be scary as hell to see that marching towards you.
TheWorldHatesU 3 years ago
Thats in Wales
Its Caerleon in south wales its supposed to be Camelot's sight of where the city was
BorrasBoy 3 years ago
I'm making a school project about the Roman Amry and this helped alot, thx
saitekk 3 years ago
same
manishy1 3 years ago
you're welcome.ı will post another roman video soon
ilteber 3 years ago
Really Nice Video!
TitusLabienus 3 years ago 3
Questa lingua primitiva che spiega, stona con questo bel filmato...
Jvlivs 54295Trier(Avgvsta Treverorvm)D.
franco0039 3 years ago
celts were bornfighters romans had to achieve it from discipline
brennus67 3 years ago
Good ANYTHINGS are not born, they're made. OK, so someone might be naturally brave or strong, but someone who works themselves into a position like that is much better. Also, the Romans thought about war... noticed good tactics and weapons and adopted them for use, with modification. Look up Queen Boudicca (sp?) here on Youtube and watch the 2-part History Channel thing on it. It proves the point exactly.
scratchtasticZ 3 years ago
Good ANYTHINGS are not born, they're made. OK, so someone might be naturally brave or strong, but someone who works themselves into a position like that is much better. Also, the Romans thought about war... noticed good tactics and weapons and adopted them for use, with modification. Look up Queen Boudicca (sp?) here on Youtube and watch the 2-part History Channel thing on it. It proves the point exactly.
scratchtasticZ 3 years ago
the word celt refers to a popular european cultural movement, not a people. The people who bore these cultural traits, often referred to incorrectly as celts were from all over europe and included the germanic, gaul and briton or pict peoples
choorex 3 years ago
Where was this filmed?
RTWhero 3 years ago
Those reenactors seem to be very well trained. Well done!
bayruun 3 years ago 2
ah yes britons where celts migrated from gaul into britannia and hibernia(ireland) the romano-british, the local people, the colonist mixed and formed the first BRITISH people, of course the etnogenosis consisted in the invasion of the angles, saxons, frisons, vikings, and normans...the rest is history
stakeee 4 years ago
Perfectly replicated armor. A must for any self respecting nerd. :P
Seriously though, thats actually pretty cool.
admiralnomad 4 years ago 2
anyway in the reality the Britons were barbarians not romans... BRITTUNCULI!!
MarcusAgrippa87 4 years ago
very educational
AndrewL123 4 years ago 3
thank 4 the vid
life4lax19 4 years ago 2
you're welcome
ilteber 4 years ago
Granted this is accurate... Roman legionaries didn't use shinguards?
duderseb 4 years ago
Nope, Greeks did.
ZeZiMaPwNt 4 years ago
Yeah that's where I was coming from, since Romans drew a lot of stuff from the Greeks, I would think that they would implement the shinguards... That kinda sucks, but oh well, long time past anyway. Thanks for the reply!
duderseb 4 years ago
Ohh yeah, and no problem =)
ZeZiMaPwNt 4 years ago
where was this?
bonaparte60 4 years ago
Unfortunately I don't know exactly but in my opinion this show was from Britain.Especially in summers; some of groups who are fan of romans, roman life,roman war tactics etc. organize these kinds of show in britain and overall europe.
ilteber 4 years ago
Was this actual footage of a roman battle ?
fergawdsache 4 years ago
ya, the camera man took the car from back to the future, and he went in 100 ad. J-C.
Aquiloniaac 4 years ago 3
yes i thought so, you cant fake that sort of thing.
fergawdsache 4 years ago
no doubt about it, its julius ceaser filming one of his battles in britain, probally for the kids back in rome.
i hate vanity lol.
aaron9099 4 years ago
LOL
btw i dont think you no this they DIDNT have camras bk then...
DeadEyexD 3 years ago
lol nice thnx for pointing that out but i'm sure people already know that.
drzsr13 3 years ago
good
aguantelucas 4 years ago 2