People always seem to forget that the world was a far bigger place 2000 years ago.
The known world was ruled by Rome and her influence stretched even further... Indian rulers sent deputations asking to be friends and allies of Rome even though India was only known to the Romans by hearsay. Just as Alexander "conquered 90% of the known world", Rome effectively ruled the world.
The romans had also the same gods as the greeks (lol the greeks had so many gods ^^) or at least they had also alot, they just named them diffrently. Ive heard that they was inspired by the greeks, learned alot of the greeks by philosophy.
Adapting other nations strategy is a nice plan - but the romans fell because of bad leadership, as they relied heavily on slaves and continuing expansion.
@unfukkkmee But the phalanx was a very slow formation that needed its wings to be protected. The romans used the phalanx at first, but they realised its weaknesses in open field battles. So they used the maniple, which were much more faster than a whole phalanx and so, they could surround a phalanx. It is not the wall of shields that makes an army strong, it's tactics and training.
Your biased so shut your mouth. And also Macedonia is not Greece. Greece regarded Macedonia as an uncivilized.. Are the Dacians greek too?
The Phalanx was defeated numerous times by the Romans at Cynocephalye, Magnesia, and Pyda due to its slowness. Without a great amount of Hypasipis hopilites and Companion cavalry the Phanlax is pretty useless.
The Mongols would make mince meat out of the Phalanx. Thats why the medieval Europeans only used a minimal use of pikemen used only against calvary.
15.000 GREEK MACEDONIAN SOLDIERS DEFEATED ALL ARMIES OF EARTH
THE ROMANS OCCUPIED THE GREECE, WHY MANY GREEK SOLDIERS AND ALLIES FOR THE ROMANS. THE ALEXANDER THE GREAT CAN TO DEFEAT THE Julius Ceasar EASILY, TRUST ME.
@MrBsct STOP THE FANATIC PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE GREEKS. THE MACEDONIANS ARE GREEKS. THE MACEDONIA IS PROVINCE OF GREECE. THE MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE IS THE GREEK LANGUAGE. THE ALEXANDER THE GREAT SAID I AM GREECE , I AM GREECE.
@unfukkkmee defeated all armies on earth? China? Gaul? The Italians? The carthaginians? Alex and Julius were 300 years apart and tactics and logistics have changed. Rome defeated Macedon in almost every battle with generals just like Alex. Allies? Why are you bragging greek nationlism when traitors helped bring down the "empires"
Propaganda? Calling the Macedonians Greek is like calling Romans greek and Caesar a Gaul.
your right. But there is a bit of a problem... were all those "greek" nations united into one cause and nation? no. You said Alexander's army defeated every army. In "some battles"lol
No romans aren't Greek. They have Greek culture in their arts but the are Italian. The founders have origins to a Trojan Prince but that is a myth.
Death to my country? You try to invade us and see what happens...these comments are for millitary tactics and entertainment for this show...and you go political.
@unfukkkmee But i guess you cant, by judging on that ugly looking picture of yours on your page as well as all the writing. Your IQ must be lower than a chimpanzee.
NORDIC ANIMAL LISTEN TO ME EVERYTHING SAYS MT PROFILES IS 100% TRUE. THE GREEK PEOPLE CIVILIZED THE WORLD. AND WE THE GREEKS ARE MOST SMARTEST PEOPLE EVER.
I AM THE FATHER OF ANTHROPOLOGY.
@91rumpnisse SCANDINAVIAN CANIBAL FROM THE CAVES OF VALHALA, DONT HIDE UR TAIL IS INSIDE IN UR PANTS
its pretty expensive arming every soldier with a full set of armour and a shiny sword. Thats why most armies had cloth and a spear..and the expensive stuff for elite troops.
@MrBsct That didn't happen too often in the Roman empire, their spears for example were made of low quality metal, and made by the soldiers them selves
Well they would NOT. There's a reason that those tactics vere abandoned. Byzantines took a severe losses while using legionaires against cavalry. The first sign of change in warfare was the battle of Carrhae.
I am convinced that 4000 polish Winged Hussars (by far the best heavy cavalry in the history) would easily crush 30 000 roman legionaires (Battle of Klushino, Kircholm, Vienna, Lubiszewo, Konstantynow, Beresteczko etc.).
@cartman2792 They would also be defeated by english longbowmen, mongol horse archers and other anti-infantry armies. Don't get me wrong roman legions were great heavy infantry but the advent of horses and new tactics like heavy charge, feigned retreat, raiding etc. would beat romans who were masters in defeating infantry which was supreme in ancient times but not so much in medieval times.
@TheBlastingPower You are correct the Mongols and English Longbow men would prevail aginast the legions since they actually could pick off soldiers and outrun them till they are stuck in whatever trap they have in mind or they are all dead. BTW what are the Winged Hussars?
@cartman2792 Wiki: " They were widely regarded as one of the most powerful cavalry formations in the world. Polish Hussars were undefeated in battle for over 100 years."
It was a super heavy shock cavalry with longest cavalry lances ever (the record is over 6,5m while ordinary lances were 4m max) and special breed horses (there was a death penalty for exporting them, even to this day polish horses are ones of the most expensive in the World, sold annualny in Janów Podlaski).
@cartman2792 It was an elite formation but unusally highly disciplined (nobles tended to disobey orders), they were able to beat even firearms and cannons because they were spreading when the enemy was shooting and tighten the ranks 20 metres before the impact.
Plus they wore plate armours and had 1,5m long wings attached to saddle (it made deafenig noise during charge and it was anti-morale weapon).
To say it short: They OFTEN won battles outnumbered 10:1, like in Konsantynow or Kłuszyn.
@TheBlastingPower WOW those guys are complete badasses, my only question is that if Gunpowder didn't defeat them then what did? My guess would be either politics or arrogance that got themselves killed
@cartman2792 Well it's a bit long story, but shortly: Poland fought 5 wars almost simultainously (Cossacks, Russians, Swedes, Turks, Brandenburg and few minor states like Moldovia) plus they were betrayed in one battle attacked in camp during sleep. It was very expensive to be a Winged Hussar and countless wars very costly so less and less nobles could contribute to this formation. It ended with Poland beign partied between Germany, Austria and Russia for 123 years until 1918.
@cartman2792 BTW interesitng thing about hussars being "canon proof" was Battle of Somossierra in 1808 where125 polish cavaliers charged uphill over 3km under the canon barrage against 8000 spanish insurgents dodging fire and ultimatelly killing 600 of them and capturing 3000 of retreating ones. So the legacy of hussars remained :)
Poles fought then under Napoleon Bonaparte who later rewarded Poland with an independent state when he beat Germans and Russians.
@TheBlastingPower Oh so basically they bit off more than they could chew, makes sense, thx for the information its true that you learn something new every day lol. Would you happen to know when the Roman Legions got turned into the less effective Comitansese and Limitanses cohorts or at least began to turn into them, i'm trying to pinpoint when it happen but from the information i watched and read so far were not exact and only mentions them when Constatine took his steps into being Emperor
@cartman2792 As far as I know it was due to Constantine reforms so I would suspect 300 A.D., but I'm not sure wheter they were less effective. Romans had to adjust to fighting many wars at once and defending the emipre. Former legions were great at concentrated strike in order to spread the borders of the empire but then you have to "be everywhere" to defend big areas or you're prone to deep raids of enemy, but again it makes the defence thinner.
@TheBlastingPower From my understanding the Limitanses were the border forces and were only there to slow down an invasion force so the Comitanses would rally together and do the major fighting and while it wasn't a bad thing it did weaken the infantries fighting strength when they were less disciplined (lack of battalion training), less armored (Oval Shield and a simple cloth,leather, or chainmail shirt; not sure if they went back to the Lorica Hamantata), and less motivated to fight (money)
@cartman2792 Limitanei defended the borders against small parties of troops and against big and determined armies they would slow them down and comitatenses would fight them with more concentrated force. I think it was optimal choice to split army like that.They had 2 other ways: First was to keep all armies concentrated but then raids would burn villages, towns and eventually economy. Second was to spread all soldiers on borders but then they wouldn't whitstand concentrated attack due to spread
@cartman2792 As for they motivation it's different for a soldier to attack enemy and defend. In the first case soldiers could loot enemy towns etc., but when you defend area (and not even your own home which is on the other side of the empire) you have to rely on money paid by state.
@TheBlastingPower Actually i think they did spread all their armies on the borders at the end of the empire and like u said got slaughtered because of it, and ur right when it comes to motivation because they didn't expand their empire any further since Trajanus died so they went on the defensive ever since and didn't get any huge amounts of wealth pouring into the empire due to lack of looting enemy nations which is why i think thats why they were cheap on armor and other stuff
@TheBlastingPower As for Carrahe the Legions actually held their own against the Cataphracts(Basically the prototype of the medieval Knight incase who ever reads this comment didn't know what the Cataphracts was) and prevailed when they used hit and run tactics and brought the legions morale to an all time low when Cassus son's head was shown to them
@cartman2792 They would be crushed by a charge from knights with couched lances, trust me. That's why a medieval infantryman would carry an eight-foot spear, not a two-foot sword, which in great against infantry but wont'stop a 500kg horse in full heavy mail barding coming at you at 30 miles per hour (Nor it will stop the man on the horse, who's trying to aim his lance at your neck).
Also, a Roman helmet can stop a sling bullet or an ordinary arrow but not one from a powerful bow or a crossbow.
I forgot to add. The last one was the legionary as shown in the show were designed to be independent. They were a mobile army and there soldiers were trained to live off the land create camps in under 24 hrs. Even full blown forts in a few days. They were simply professional soldiers no exception. It would be better to compare a roman soldier with a modern one.
There is also one more thing to add. Because Rome assimilated new countries. There people (most of them) became citizens. Each was required to join the legion yet despite its hardships, a soldier was a builder, he was paid well, Hell he had good healthcare. If anything Romes biggest advantage was its soldiers had excellent motivation because each had property or were well taken care of, or at the end of there service was given land at the states expense. Pretty damn good award.
The important thing is that Rome's armies were designed to crush all ememies. Those that they lost too or couldn't wipe out they learned and adapted to kill them. Roman armies were very flexible and adapted to new situations. A important lesson they learned after Hannaible. A Medieval army was quite rigid and have very little flexibility in new situations. Which cost them against mobile armies like the Muslims armies of the middle east.
Even in battle there was vast differences. The Romans did encourage officers to train lower ranking ones to keep order incase said officer was disabled or killed to maintain order. Something not usually seen in medieval era due to the whole nobility crap. They were also trained to be cold killers. a Soldier of Rome was trained and paid to kill quickly and efficiently and more importantly kill whole armies. There weapons reflected that. Shields to block the enemy, and the Gladus to stab
The Roman Legions were vastly different from the medieval armies. They were well equiped, well organized, trained, well paid and highly motivated. There training and organization alone is more comparable to modern armies. Well not as heavily equiped as compared to a knight, each soldier was heavily armoured against probably anything else a medieval era army could throw at them. The size of the legions in battle showed different ideologies then the medieval era.
No it's not. 24 miles in 5 hours is 4.8 miles per hour. That's a very fast marching pace, but it's a 12:30 mile. I don't know where you got less than 5 from.
The tactics Rome used is what made them so powerfull. One Roman tactic used when fighting the celts was to have every legionare stab to the right, and therefore bypassing the Celts large shield. This is same tactic was used by the British at the battle of Culloden to defeat a similiar foe.
roman army is slightly overrated, they never managed to fight efficently against armies composed mostly of mounted troops, they suffered heavy defeats againts the parthians,goths,huns....
@termit88 It might be worth mentioning that the Roman army defeated all of those armies at some point. Late Rome in particular really learned the value of cavalry; the Late Roman Army had strong infantry (in dwindling numbers, as they were replaced by foederati) and heavily armed cataphracts and horse archers. Rome's advantage was a flexible army that could learn and adapt faster than other civilizations.
@termit88 The Byzantine empire, as we call them; they called themselves "Roman" all the time, were excellent at archery and horse archery. They adopted the Hun bow, then trained people to use those, then train them to ride a horse and become a horse archer. So if you call those Roman army, as themselves did, yes they did fight very efficiently against mounted warriors.
Well, they did bought out the Huns, but they outfought the Avar, which were super-Huns: unlike Huns, they were good at sieges.
@termit88 The Eastern Roman Empire, we call them Byzantine, even lingered and resisted waves after waves of mounted Turkish raiders and Arab jihadists. Well, they finally meet their end, quite ironically at the hands of Western Europeans during the Fourth Crusade. Well, the empire as they call lingered even longer until Constantinople was in Turkish hand.
If we call those Byzantine as they did: Roman, yes, they were probably the best army around.
well yea they called themselves romans(and they were the only organized civilization long time after the fall of the west roman empire) but still they didnt have anything too much similiar with the roman empire from its golden age,they had a completely different political structure,they were Greeks not Italians culturally and what is more important their army was more similiar to the other medieval ones, it had a semi-mercenary character
@123DROCK well yes and no. Yes rome fighting itself did not help its matters i agree. But as the years went on, it was not a case of fighting barbarians that was the problem, entire peoples were emigrating to the empire. Espically from the east near what is now known russia, and ukraine. The huns, the goths, etc.... were pushed that way. Rome could not defend aganist entire peoples, thats why in the later 3AD they allowed barbarian tribes to settle in their lands to help protect them
Regarding Lōrīca segmentāta - The currently accepted range for the use of the armour is from about 9 B.C. (Dangstetten) to the late 3rd century A.D. (León). However mail remained a common armour both amongst Roman Auxillery troops and Legionaries in the eastern provinces of the Empire.
@alonejms2 the Battle of Thermopylae was around 480 BC ...Sparta Disestablished around 146 BC...the roman empire take birth on 27 BC.....so i can't see how those two forces could face each other.
@DarkGuardian256 - Yes may friend your points are right. but I was talking about since julius caesar or before him..means before julius caesar it was roman republic and they were so powerful as well. The Greek peninsula came under Roman rule in 146 BC.
The state provided everything, but it came out of the soldiers pay so it's not like it was free. This is also somewhat anachronistic because the armor that they present in this was used by the legionnaries in the 2-3 century AD, but by that time military service was compulsory but also hereditary, so military life was determined by your birth. Regular people were generally not drafted as depicted here. Still, cool video.
Ever since my dad read Asterix for me when I was in day care i've allways liked the Roman military machine. Think I need to get myslef a full armor. But I like the legions BC when rome was still controlled by a senate..
By the time they had this equimpment, there was no longer any citizen army in Rome. And also, they had LS, square scutum shields and gladiuses combined only for 150 years. And only the legionnaires had them anyway.
Actually, the Gladius Hispaniensis was introduced into the Roman Army in the 3rd century bc by Scipio Africanus' campaign in Spain durning the Second Punic War.
@RomanLegioXx Roman legionnaires had discipline and were trained in both group tactics and basic individual combat; equipment and training was somewhat standardized. Medieval armies had men of varying experience and discipline fighting amongst side each other with varying equipment. I would say that the legion would beat most
@redsawdom Good one! I was thinking the same thing a few days ago after I review Spartacus. One of the first and best ancient army formations was the phalanx, but the roman legion surpass and even defeated them.
I was think ing if the a roman legion could take on the medieval armies, and I think for sure, at least 70% of them.
The major problems the roman legions had wore against Hannibal's elephants and the phartians archer cavalry.
@redsawdom Personally, after reading about the Eastern Roman Empire, we usually call Byzantine, I think they are even better.
One thing that Imperial Roman army lacked was missile force. They didn't have good archer. The Byzantine can train horse archers armed with composite bows. And they were probably the only people who can train horse archers.
The sad thing is Eastern Roman did not have the resource to crush everyone in the way their ancestors did. Muslims overran them.
@ImEternalWanderer Actually Rome had excellent Eastern Auxilia Archers in its army long before the Byzantine era. You are right though, Roman archers weren't quite as top-notch as though of, say, the Huns or the Parthians.
@redsawdom The legion wouldn't beat a standard medieval army mostly because their equipment was outdated and their tactics obsolete. A squad of 100 knights in 15th century plate could overrun an entire 6000 man legion, and any light/horse archer cavalry of the 1200s middle east would dominate a legion with its auxilliaries without much trouble.
This is the reason why after 200 AD the Roman legions EVOLVED. And you can see their evolution in tactics & arms into the Byzantine Empire.
@zhshsG7 You're wrong. Roman legion was able to fight against knight and horse archers just under Augustus (see the Battle of Mons Gindarus), and then under Trajan (when legionaries used lorica segmentata, able to spop arrows). If you read the description of Carrhae you'll notice that the first charges of parthian cataphracti were ineffective. A squad of 100 knights could overrun an entire 6000 man legion??? Roman tactics obsolete for Mediaval ones?? Ok, stop reading Asterix
@IronMat86 Ok, first off if you're willing to act childish and not read my post you can at least not insult me.
I never said a 50 AD middle-eastern army, I said a 1200s. Secondly, you cannot compare Parthian cataphracts with later era cataphract horses, such as Sassanid, Byzantine (Roman) and most importantly 16th century western ones. You guys think war hasn't evolved at all before the evolution of gunpowder. The still alive Roman Empire kept adapting its tactics. That's proof enough
@zhshsG7 You've written that 100 knights of XV century can fight against an entire legion. This is a enormous stupidity. Romans, also in II and III century, had tactics and formations able to stop cataphractii and clibanarii (sasanid), that were knight all covered by irons like reinassence ones. Heavy knights of XV could be defeated by trained and closed formations of men. Asking who would be the winner between medieval and roman army is useless, but you're underestimating roman legion.
@IronMat86 Again, you haven't read my post. Romans could defeat 150 AD cataphracts but they certainly wouldn't be able to do it with 1500 AD cataphracts. Because they weren't covered in Iron but in steel. Ancient Roman weapons just wouldn't pierce their armour. The Romans also knew their tactics became obsolete when they did which is why they kept adapting and reformatting their army. In this video only a small period of Roman arms (and still only the legionary) are presented.
@zhshsG7 I'm an expert of ancient roman warfare, and I know that video rapresent a tipical I-II a.C. roman army. Talking about sasanid clibanari (heavier than parthian counterpart) and medieval heavy knight, we can't say that medieval armour were so better than persian one, that was an iron masterpiece (it covered also the hand finger, like medieval armour). The use of heavy cavalry charge was ineffective (in sasanid and medieval warfare) against a solid infantry wall.
@IronMat86 So you're saying that Roman weapons of 200 AD would pierce a full plate of 1500 AD? And how would a solid infantry wall with weapons shorter than lances fare against a 1500 AD army of horsemen that use stirrups and saddles and heavy lances? Even horse breeding programs were more advanced, although I don't know how much better European horses were than the ones the Persians were using.
@zhshsG7 You're not considering some formations like moenia to stop cavalry, the artillery or slingers, that could hit and frighten horses from far distance, or archers. And you're talking about 100 heavy medieval horsemen vs an ENTIRE legion. Romans had to change their organization in order to fight Sasanid because they had to fight against THOUSAND of clibanari and THOUSAND of horsearchers. The contest is totally different.
@IronMat86 Well I exaggerated on the 100 knights part. By the by, I've never heard of moenia and I couldn't find anything in google. Also, artillery can't be relied upon to cause heavy casualties, especially versus cavalry. Concerning slings, I'm not sure about their effectiveness. If they were so good then why were they extinct in he 15th century?
I agree that the contest is different, but if so then why bring up the Persians as an example?
@zhshsG7 About moenia, write "repel-cavalry roman army". "moenia" seems wall in latin. Artillery was effective in killing some heavy horsemen and frighten the others, the same thing for the slingers. They didn't really estinct in 15th century, but they were just overcame by crossbowmen. Sasanid cavalry was very similar to medieval one, that's why it is a good example. But we're talking anyway about an anacronistic fight, with all the limit concerning this tyoe of discussions.
not of 1500,but from any late antiquity o medieval period{pre fire guns},the roman gladius was made with one of the best iron formula,it could say that the Roman "iron" could consider one of the earliest forms of industrial steel with excellent quality at the same grade of alloy formulas of the Han dynasty in China,on I-II cnt,the Roman Empire was the largest superpower in the world and enjoyed all the technological advances of conquered countries and regions,which were only matched by the Han
@redsawdom According to professor Ian Morris in the book "Why the west rules the world for now" he states that the Roman Legions would be more effective than all armies in the medieval ages until fire arms.
Sure the Romans had experiences fighting Parthians or Sarmatians, but those folks lacked the level of organization, logistics, and discipline of the Mongols under Genghis Khan.
@jonharana You cannot compare the Mongols to the complexity to the Roman army.
Ofcource they had more effective cav than the Legion normaly would, And if they had enouth arrows they could possibly defeat a single Legion given enouth time under the right circumstances.
A simmilar event happened when Marcus Crassus tried to invade Parthia where the parthians sent massive trains of camels loaded with arrows to the mounted archers making sure they did not run out from firing so much.
@redsawdom ESPECIALLY after the Marius reforms. The Roman military after the Marius reforms was close to any modern day army than any other of any historical time period. Packs weighed around 80-120 pounds(same as today), every man carried entrenching tools(almost identical to the ones used today, just not compacted into one tool), every man carried three days of rations(identical to the amount we carry today)
Depends on the period. From around 1300 AD, the medieval armies would have won. Reason: heavy cavalry and massive infantry formations with superiour weaponry (pikes, halberds) which were far more agile because of lighter armor. Another reason is that those armies relied heavily on missile weapons which the roman army did not deploy on such a massive scale.
@unangemessen It depends what Medieval army you are deploying,intelligence,numbers,terrain,weather,morale etc.Battle is subjective and never predictable.Roman Legionaries could have closed in on an undisciplined force of peasant based Infantry and slaughtered them,or they could have been mowed down by armored Cavalry with heavy steel armor.
@CenturionWarriors He ment better protected aghainst the wepons of the time compared wit the protection of a modern soldier aghainst modern wepons ,understand?
There's an awful bloody segmentata there.
Surtak 16 hours ago
@Surtak I meant an awful lot of segmentata...
Surtak 16 hours ago
Why do people always say the romans conquered the world THEY DIDN'T they didn't even conquer northern europe
paintballKid545 1 month ago
@paintballKid545 cause the majority of the worlds population was in the empire.
MrBsct 3 weeks ago
@MrBsct the majoirity of the known world
paintballKid545 3 weeks ago
@paintballKid545
People always seem to forget that the world was a far bigger place 2000 years ago.
The known world was ruled by Rome and her influence stretched even further... Indian rulers sent deputations asking to be friends and allies of Rome even though India was only known to the Romans by hearsay. Just as Alexander "conquered 90% of the known world", Rome effectively ruled the world.
RomaInvicta1 1 week ago
@RomaInvicta1 Yes they conquered the known world not the whole world.
paintballKid545 1 week ago
5:04 TOILET PAPER!! ID RATHER USE A LEAF!
PhalangitePower 1 month ago
Comment removed
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
Comment removed
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
DEATH TO GERMANIC CANIBALS FROM THE CAVES OF VALHALA
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee yes we eat people. be afraid.... be VERY afraid..... -,..,-
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@91rumpnisse UR DECSEDANTS WAS HUMAN-EATERS
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee yes! AND NOW WE COME FOR YOU xD!!!!!!!!!!
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@91rumpnisse .I.
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee <3
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@91rumpnisse LEAVE THE IRONY
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee nope :3
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@91rumpnisse ΒΑRBARIC FLIRT I SEE
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
---
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
------
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you like to watch documentary films on YouTube then visit HOTDOCUMENTARIES,COM
wolawl1 1 month ago
I didn't know SpongeBob took crap from the common Roman soldier!;)
shaider1982 1 month ago 2
Rome has been the real one capital of the world from 753. a.C. to the end of middleage and other two century late.
illillino 2 months ago
The romans had also the same gods as the greeks (lol the greeks had so many gods ^^) or at least they had also alot, they just named them diffrently. Ive heard that they was inspired by the greeks, learned alot of the greeks by philosophy.
Adapting other nations strategy is a nice plan - but the romans fell because of bad leadership, as they relied heavily on slaves and continuing expansion.
ptccashmoneymaker 2 months ago
@ptccashmoneymaker No, they werent the same, just similar.
SpadaccinoLuciano 1 month ago in playlist Rome
THE GREEK MACEDONIAN PHALANX OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT , WAS MOST POWERFUL THAN ROMAN ARMY
unfukkkmee 3 months ago
@unfukkkmee But the phalanx was a very slow formation that needed its wings to be protected. The romans used the phalanx at first, but they realised its weaknesses in open field battles. So they used the maniple, which were much more faster than a whole phalanx and so, they could surround a phalanx. It is not the wall of shields that makes an army strong, it's tactics and training.
Hebime 3 months ago
THE GREEK MACEDONIAN PHALANX WAS BEST ARMY EVER.
@Hebime UGRO-MONGOL MONSTER, SHUT UR MOUTH
unfukkkmee 3 months ago
@unfukkkmee lol you're dumn
killerrj8 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@killerrj8 SHUT UP NEO BARBARIAN
unfukkkmee 3 months ago
Your biased so shut your mouth. And also Macedonia is not Greece. Greece regarded Macedonia as an uncivilized.. Are the Dacians greek too?
The Phalanx was defeated numerous times by the Romans at Cynocephalye, Magnesia, and Pyda due to its slowness. Without a great amount of Hypasipis hopilites and Companion cavalry the Phanlax is pretty useless.
The Mongols would make mince meat out of the Phalanx. Thats why the medieval Europeans only used a minimal use of pikemen used only against calvary.
MrBsct 2 months ago
15.000 GREEK MACEDONIAN SOLDIERS DEFEATED ALL ARMIES OF EARTH
THE ROMANS OCCUPIED THE GREECE, WHY MANY GREEK SOLDIERS AND ALLIES FOR THE ROMANS. THE ALEXANDER THE GREAT CAN TO DEFEAT THE Julius Ceasar EASILY, TRUST ME.
@MrBsct STOP THE FANATIC PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE GREEKS. THE MACEDONIANS ARE GREEKS. THE MACEDONIA IS PROVINCE OF GREECE. THE MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE IS THE GREEK LANGUAGE. THE ALEXANDER THE GREAT SAID I AM GREECE , I AM GREECE.
THE MACEDONIA IS HELLAS
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee defeated all armies on earth? China? Gaul? The Italians? The carthaginians? Alex and Julius were 300 years apart and tactics and logistics have changed. Rome defeated Macedon in almost every battle with generals just like Alex. Allies? Why are you bragging greek nationlism when traitors helped bring down the "empires"
Propaganda? Calling the Macedonians Greek is like calling Romans greek and Caesar a Gaul.
MrBsct 2 months ago
THE GREEK NATIONALISM IS REALISM.
THE MACEONIANS ARE GREEKS. AND OFCOURSE THE ROMANS HAVE GREEK ORIGIN
@MrBsct LISTEN IF U CATCH I SENT U IN HOSPITAL , DEATH TO UR COUNTRY 1000 TIMES I WISH REALLY
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
THE MACEDONIA IS GREECE. THE MACEDONIA IS HELLAS. THE MACEDONIANS ARE GREEKS.
@MrBsct THE DIONYSUS ZAGREAS DEFEATED THE Chinese.
THE GREEK TROYANS DEFEATED THE GAULS.
THE PYRRHUS DEFEATED THE Romans IN SOME BATTLES .
THE MITHRIDATES DEFEATED THE Romans, IN SOME BATTLES.
THE GREEK MACEDONIAN DEFEATED THE Romans IN SOME BATTLES.
30.000 GREEK SOLDIERS DEFEATED THE 200.000 GAULS OF BRENNUS. THE GREEK SICILIANS DEFEATED THE Carthagians MANY TIMES.
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
your right. But there is a bit of a problem... were all those "greek" nations united into one cause and nation? no. You said Alexander's army defeated every army. In "some battles"lol
No romans aren't Greek. They have Greek culture in their arts but the are Italian. The founders have origins to a Trojan Prince but that is a myth.
Death to my country? You try to invade us and see what happens...these comments are for millitary tactics and entertainment for this show...and you go political.
MrBsct 2 months ago
WE ARE REAL GREEKS / HELLENES.
THE GREEK NATION IS ONE. AND THE IITALIANS HAVE GREEK ORIGIN.
THE TROY IS VERY REAL STORY OFCOURSE
@MrBsct HEY ANGLO-BARBARIAN TRASH UR PROPAGANDA WILL DIE TODAY
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
yep my propaganda will die....its getting late leaving comments on video meant for enterainment.
MrBsct 2 months ago
@MrBsct DEATH TO GERMANO-BARBARIAN TRASH.
DEATH TO ANGLO-BARBARIANS TRASH. BURN IN HELL SON OF WHORE
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
@unfukkkmee grow up, youre acting like a 3 year old.
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@91rumpnisse SHUT UP
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee make me.
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@91rumpnisse YOU SPEAK TO ME AS WOMAN
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee Women can be more manly than your average man. Come with something better.
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee But i guess you cant, by judging on that ugly looking picture of yours on your page as well as all the writing. Your IQ must be lower than a chimpanzee.
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
NORDIC ANIMAL LISTEN TO ME EVERYTHING SAYS MT PROFILES IS 100% TRUE. THE GREEK PEOPLE CIVILIZED THE WORLD. AND WE THE GREEKS ARE MOST SMARTEST PEOPLE EVER.
I AM THE FATHER OF ANTHROPOLOGY.
@91rumpnisse SCANDINAVIAN CANIBAL FROM THE CAVES OF VALHALA, DONT HIDE UR TAIL IS INSIDE IN UR PANTS
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee Ok O_o........... you should go and get some help bro. Trust me, it will benefit you very much.
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@91rumpnisse GO BACK IN UR CAVE AND LEAVE THE BIG IDEA AGAINST ME
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
@unfukkkmee your the second greek idiot to come with such bullshit. please dude, get some help.
91rumpnisse 1 month ago
@MrBsct PUT UR FACE , INHUMAN GERMANIC ANIMAL , PUT UR FACE
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
its pretty expensive arming every soldier with a full set of armour and a shiny sword. Thats why most armies had cloth and a spear..and the expensive stuff for elite troops.
MrBsct 4 months ago
@MrBsct That didn't happen too often in the Roman empire, their spears for example were made of low quality metal, and made by the soldiers them selves
traceur4God 3 months ago
@MrBsct
Well, usually, most men would at least have have mail.
ArtypNk 2 months ago
Toilet paper like a icea cream form, seriously?
NICELF 4 months ago
Comment removed
roccomedy 4 months ago
I'm pretty sure the Roman legions from Seutonius or Vespasian would defeat any Medieval army in Europe up until they invented firearms
cartman2792 5 months ago
@cartman2792
Well they would NOT. There's a reason that those tactics vere abandoned. Byzantines took a severe losses while using legionaires against cavalry. The first sign of change in warfare was the battle of Carrhae.
I am convinced that 4000 polish Winged Hussars (by far the best heavy cavalry in the history) would easily crush 30 000 roman legionaires (Battle of Klushino, Kircholm, Vienna, Lubiszewo, Konstantynow, Beresteczko etc.).
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@cartman2792 They would also be defeated by english longbowmen, mongol horse archers and other anti-infantry armies. Don't get me wrong roman legions were great heavy infantry but the advent of horses and new tactics like heavy charge, feigned retreat, raiding etc. would beat romans who were masters in defeating infantry which was supreme in ancient times but not so much in medieval times.
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@TheBlastingPower You are correct the Mongols and English Longbow men would prevail aginast the legions since they actually could pick off soldiers and outrun them till they are stuck in whatever trap they have in mind or they are all dead. BTW what are the Winged Hussars?
cartman2792 5 months ago
@cartman2792 Wiki: " They were widely regarded as one of the most powerful cavalry formations in the world. Polish Hussars were undefeated in battle for over 100 years."
It was a super heavy shock cavalry with longest cavalry lances ever (the record is over 6,5m while ordinary lances were 4m max) and special breed horses (there was a death penalty for exporting them, even to this day polish horses are ones of the most expensive in the World, sold annualny in Janów Podlaski).
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@cartman2792 It was an elite formation but unusally highly disciplined (nobles tended to disobey orders), they were able to beat even firearms and cannons because they were spreading when the enemy was shooting and tighten the ranks 20 metres before the impact.
Plus they wore plate armours and had 1,5m long wings attached to saddle (it made deafenig noise during charge and it was anti-morale weapon).
To say it short: They OFTEN won battles outnumbered 10:1, like in Konsantynow or Kłuszyn.
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@TheBlastingPower WOW those guys are complete badasses, my only question is that if Gunpowder didn't defeat them then what did? My guess would be either politics or arrogance that got themselves killed
cartman2792 5 months ago
@cartman2792 Well it's a bit long story, but shortly: Poland fought 5 wars almost simultainously (Cossacks, Russians, Swedes, Turks, Brandenburg and few minor states like Moldovia) plus they were betrayed in one battle attacked in camp during sleep. It was very expensive to be a Winged Hussar and countless wars very costly so less and less nobles could contribute to this formation. It ended with Poland beign partied between Germany, Austria and Russia for 123 years until 1918.
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@cartman2792 BTW interesitng thing about hussars being "canon proof" was Battle of Somossierra in 1808 where125 polish cavaliers charged uphill over 3km under the canon barrage against 8000 spanish insurgents dodging fire and ultimatelly killing 600 of them and capturing 3000 of retreating ones. So the legacy of hussars remained :)
Poles fought then under Napoleon Bonaparte who later rewarded Poland with an independent state when he beat Germans and Russians.
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@TheBlastingPower Oh so basically they bit off more than they could chew, makes sense, thx for the information its true that you learn something new every day lol. Would you happen to know when the Roman Legions got turned into the less effective Comitansese and Limitanses cohorts or at least began to turn into them, i'm trying to pinpoint when it happen but from the information i watched and read so far were not exact and only mentions them when Constatine took his steps into being Emperor
cartman2792 5 months ago
@cartman2792 As far as I know it was due to Constantine reforms so I would suspect 300 A.D., but I'm not sure wheter they were less effective. Romans had to adjust to fighting many wars at once and defending the emipre. Former legions were great at concentrated strike in order to spread the borders of the empire but then you have to "be everywhere" to defend big areas or you're prone to deep raids of enemy, but again it makes the defence thinner.
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@TheBlastingPower From my understanding the Limitanses were the border forces and were only there to slow down an invasion force so the Comitanses would rally together and do the major fighting and while it wasn't a bad thing it did weaken the infantries fighting strength when they were less disciplined (lack of battalion training), less armored (Oval Shield and a simple cloth,leather, or chainmail shirt; not sure if they went back to the Lorica Hamantata), and less motivated to fight (money)
cartman2792 5 months ago
@cartman2792 Limitanei defended the borders against small parties of troops and against big and determined armies they would slow them down and comitatenses would fight them with more concentrated force. I think it was optimal choice to split army like that.They had 2 other ways: First was to keep all armies concentrated but then raids would burn villages, towns and eventually economy. Second was to spread all soldiers on borders but then they wouldn't whitstand concentrated attack due to spread
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@cartman2792 As for they motivation it's different for a soldier to attack enemy and defend. In the first case soldiers could loot enemy towns etc., but when you defend area (and not even your own home which is on the other side of the empire) you have to rely on money paid by state.
TheBlastingPower 5 months ago
@TheBlastingPower Actually i think they did spread all their armies on the borders at the end of the empire and like u said got slaughtered because of it, and ur right when it comes to motivation because they didn't expand their empire any further since Trajanus died so they went on the defensive ever since and didn't get any huge amounts of wealth pouring into the empire due to lack of looting enemy nations which is why i think thats why they were cheap on armor and other stuff
cartman2792 5 months ago
@TheBlastingPower As for Carrahe the Legions actually held their own against the Cataphracts(Basically the prototype of the medieval Knight incase who ever reads this comment didn't know what the Cataphracts was) and prevailed when they used hit and run tactics and brought the legions morale to an all time low when Cassus son's head was shown to them
cartman2792 5 months ago
@cartman2792 They would be crushed by a charge from knights with couched lances, trust me. That's why a medieval infantryman would carry an eight-foot spear, not a two-foot sword, which in great against infantry but wont'stop a 500kg horse in full heavy mail barding coming at you at 30 miles per hour (Nor it will stop the man on the horse, who's trying to aim his lance at your neck).
Also, a Roman helmet can stop a sling bullet or an ordinary arrow but not one from a powerful bow or a crossbow.
ludoalta1995 1 month ago
I forgot to add. The last one was the legionary as shown in the show were designed to be independent. They were a mobile army and there soldiers were trained to live off the land create camps in under 24 hrs. Even full blown forts in a few days. They were simply professional soldiers no exception. It would be better to compare a roman soldier with a modern one.
eaglerocks123 6 months ago
There is also one more thing to add. Because Rome assimilated new countries. There people (most of them) became citizens. Each was required to join the legion yet despite its hardships, a soldier was a builder, he was paid well, Hell he had good healthcare. If anything Romes biggest advantage was its soldiers had excellent motivation because each had property or were well taken care of, or at the end of there service was given land at the states expense. Pretty damn good award.
eaglerocks123 6 months ago
The important thing is that Rome's armies were designed to crush all ememies. Those that they lost too or couldn't wipe out they learned and adapted to kill them. Roman armies were very flexible and adapted to new situations. A important lesson they learned after Hannaible. A Medieval army was quite rigid and have very little flexibility in new situations. Which cost them against mobile armies like the Muslims armies of the middle east.
eaglerocks123 6 months ago
Even in battle there was vast differences. The Romans did encourage officers to train lower ranking ones to keep order incase said officer was disabled or killed to maintain order. Something not usually seen in medieval era due to the whole nobility crap. They were also trained to be cold killers. a Soldier of Rome was trained and paid to kill quickly and efficiently and more importantly kill whole armies. There weapons reflected that. Shields to block the enemy, and the Gladus to stab
eaglerocks123 6 months ago
The Roman Legions were vastly different from the medieval armies. They were well equiped, well organized, trained, well paid and highly motivated. There training and organization alone is more comparable to modern armies. Well not as heavily equiped as compared to a knight, each soldier was heavily armoured against probably anything else a medieval era army could throw at them. The size of the legions in battle showed different ideologies then the medieval era.
eaglerocks123 6 months ago
imagine if R lee ermey was the one hosting this
Hypastpist 7 months ago
@Hypastpist We need to get the two hosts TOGETHER.
SpadaccinoLuciano 7 months ago in playlist Rome
@SpadaccinoLuciano FUCK YEAH!
Hypastpist 7 months ago
pot luck fucker
dial3for3dwin 7 months ago in playlist Worrior
'24 miles in 5 hours'? No way. That's less than a 5 minute mile.
I used to run 5 and 10k footraces and never beat a 6:30 mile.
ironhorzmn 8 months ago
@ironhorzmn
No it's not. 24 miles in 5 hours is 4.8 miles per hour. That's a very fast marching pace, but it's a 12:30 mile. I don't know where you got less than 5 from.
robotminione 8 months ago
@robotminione My bad.
ironhorzmn 8 months ago
roman armour and weapons weren't chromed
jethro035181 8 months ago
where do you FIND such camps?!
MrTrykster 8 months ago
Guys, im uploading some conquest episodes that arent here in youtube yet, so check my channel :D
Lucasmwagner 9 months ago
The tactics Rome used is what made them so powerfull. One Roman tactic used when fighting the celts was to have every legionare stab to the right, and therefore bypassing the Celts large shield. This is same tactic was used by the British at the battle of Culloden to defeat a similiar foe.
Theclaidheamhmor 9 months ago
Its bullying !! 24 miles with heavy bargain within 5 hours ? I wasnt in the army-fortunately...
garden2010city 10 months ago
it dosen't look like the roman uniform its was much more detaled xD okay now it dose xD
sweAndreasFilm 10 months ago
it dosen't look like the roman uniform its was much more detaled xD
sweAndreasFilm 10 months ago
roman army is slightly overrated, they never managed to fight efficently against armies composed mostly of mounted troops, they suffered heavy defeats againts the parthians,goths,huns....
termit88 11 months ago
@termit88 It might be worth mentioning that the Roman army defeated all of those armies at some point. Late Rome in particular really learned the value of cavalry; the Late Roman Army had strong infantry (in dwindling numbers, as they were replaced by foederati) and heavily armed cataphracts and horse archers. Rome's advantage was a flexible army that could learn and adapt faster than other civilizations.
14GloryofRome14 10 months ago
@termit88 The Byzantine empire, as we call them; they called themselves "Roman" all the time, were excellent at archery and horse archery. They adopted the Hun bow, then trained people to use those, then train them to ride a horse and become a horse archer. So if you call those Roman army, as themselves did, yes they did fight very efficiently against mounted warriors.
Well, they did bought out the Huns, but they outfought the Avar, which were super-Huns: unlike Huns, they were good at sieges.
ImEternalWanderer 10 months ago
@termit88 The Eastern Roman Empire, we call them Byzantine, even lingered and resisted waves after waves of mounted Turkish raiders and Arab jihadists. Well, they finally meet their end, quite ironically at the hands of Western Europeans during the Fourth Crusade. Well, the empire as they call lingered even longer until Constantinople was in Turkish hand.
If we call those Byzantine as they did: Roman, yes, they were probably the best army around.
ImEternalWanderer 10 months ago
@ImEternalWanderer
well yea they called themselves romans(and they were the only organized civilization long time after the fall of the west roman empire) but still they didnt have anything too much similiar with the roman empire from its golden age,they had a completely different political structure,they were Greeks not Italians culturally and what is more important their army was more similiar to the other medieval ones, it had a semi-mercenary character
termit88 10 months ago
@123DROCK well yes and no. Yes rome fighting itself did not help its matters i agree. But as the years went on, it was not a case of fighting barbarians that was the problem, entire peoples were emigrating to the empire. Espically from the east near what is now known russia, and ukraine. The huns, the goths, etc.... were pushed that way. Rome could not defend aganist entire peoples, thats why in the later 3AD they allowed barbarian tribes to settle in their lands to help protect them
loudman12 1 year ago
so when did the romans start using the red unfiforme, silver armore, and curved sheilds that are most famues?
spam1138 1 year ago
Regarding Lōrīca segmentāta - The currently accepted range for the use of the armour is from about 9 B.C. (Dangstetten) to the late 3rd century A.D. (León). However mail remained a common armour both amongst Roman Auxillery troops and Legionaries in the eastern provinces of the Empire.
SMChurchill 1 year ago
WRONG!they wered lorica segmentata from the first century BC NOT AD
HerasBoss 1 year ago
Spartans would be beaten the romans anytime
DarkGuardian256 1 year ago
@DarkGuardian256 romans ruled greek since julius caesar to eastern roman empire.
alonejms2 1 year ago
@alonejms2 the Battle of Thermopylae was around 480 BC ...Sparta Disestablished around 146 BC...the roman empire take birth on 27 BC.....so i can't see how those two forces could face each other.
DarkGuardian256 1 year ago
@DarkGuardian256 - Yes may friend your points are right. but I was talking about since julius caesar or before him..means before julius caesar it was roman republic and they were so powerful as well. The Greek peninsula came under Roman rule in 146 BC.
alonejms2 1 year ago
The state provided everything, but it came out of the soldiers pay so it's not like it was free. This is also somewhat anachronistic because the armor that they present in this was used by the legionnaries in the 2-3 century AD, but by that time military service was compulsory but also hereditary, so military life was determined by your birth. Regular people were generally not drafted as depicted here. Still, cool video.
Foreverclever87 1 year ago
Ever since my dad read Asterix for me when I was in day care i've allways liked the Roman military machine. Think I need to get myslef a full armor. But I like the legions BC when rome was still controlled by a senate..
MooseHunter911 1 year ago
Do you have the Conquest : Bow and Arrow... ?
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
Poor reanactors...
migkillerphantom 1 year ago
The Achaemenids also had standartized equipment.
migkillerphantom 1 year ago
FAIL!!!!
By the time they had this equimpment, there was no longer any citizen army in Rome. And also, they had LS, square scutum shields and gladiuses combined only for 150 years. And only the legionnaires had them anyway.
migkillerphantom 1 year ago
i love how the guys just look at the host like: "wtf you talking about lewis"
TheSpurs825 1 year ago
lol hes on a power trip
theshadowbehindme 1 year ago
Actually, the Gladius Hispaniensis was introduced into the Roman Army in the 3rd century bc by Scipio Africanus' campaign in Spain durning the Second Punic War.
ThaiBox7788 1 year ago
actually there was 100 men in a century not eighty. thats why there is 100 cents in a dollar, 100 years in a century and 100 in french is cent
feligirl01 1 year ago
@feligirl01 common misconception my friend, look it up. it was around 83.
illadelphripper 1 year ago
@feligirl01
Actually, a century could be 60, 80, or 100 depending on the time period.
DifangDuana 1 year ago
yea host was pretty funny, the penalty was pretty lenient for the legion though!
steelpanther88 1 year ago
After seeing all 3 parts, well Roman legion or Medieval army? Who wins, in your opinion?
RomanLegioXx 1 year ago
@RomanLegioXx Romans..medieval is retard
ReSliSt 1 year ago
@RomanLegioXx Roman legionnaires had discipline and were trained in both group tactics and basic individual combat; equipment and training was somewhat standardized. Medieval armies had men of varying experience and discipline fighting amongst side each other with varying equipment. I would say that the legion would beat most
redsawdom 1 year ago 38
@redsawdom Good one! I was thinking the same thing a few days ago after I review Spartacus. One of the first and best ancient army formations was the phalanx, but the roman legion surpass and even defeated them.
I was think ing if the a roman legion could take on the medieval armies, and I think for sure, at least 70% of them.
The major problems the roman legions had wore against Hannibal's elephants and the phartians archer cavalry.
InTRuD3r86 1 year ago
@redsawdom Personally, after reading about the Eastern Roman Empire, we usually call Byzantine, I think they are even better.
One thing that Imperial Roman army lacked was missile force. They didn't have good archer. The Byzantine can train horse archers armed with composite bows. And they were probably the only people who can train horse archers.
The sad thing is Eastern Roman did not have the resource to crush everyone in the way their ancestors did. Muslims overran them.
ImEternalWanderer 11 months ago
@ImEternalWanderer Actually Rome had excellent Eastern Auxilia Archers in its army long before the Byzantine era. You are right though, Roman archers weren't quite as top-notch as though of, say, the Huns or the Parthians.
14GloryofRome14 10 months ago
@redsawdom The legion wouldn't beat a standard medieval army mostly because their equipment was outdated and their tactics obsolete. A squad of 100 knights in 15th century plate could overrun an entire 6000 man legion, and any light/horse archer cavalry of the 1200s middle east would dominate a legion with its auxilliaries without much trouble.
This is the reason why after 200 AD the Roman legions EVOLVED. And you can see their evolution in tactics & arms into the Byzantine Empire.
zhshsG7 7 months ago
@zhshsG7 You're wrong. Roman legion was able to fight against knight and horse archers just under Augustus (see the Battle of Mons Gindarus), and then under Trajan (when legionaries used lorica segmentata, able to spop arrows). If you read the description of Carrhae you'll notice that the first charges of parthian cataphracti were ineffective. A squad of 100 knights could overrun an entire 6000 man legion??? Roman tactics obsolete for Mediaval ones?? Ok, stop reading Asterix
IronMat86 7 months ago
@IronMat86 Ok, first off if you're willing to act childish and not read my post you can at least not insult me.
I never said a 50 AD middle-eastern army, I said a 1200s. Secondly, you cannot compare Parthian cataphracts with later era cataphract horses, such as Sassanid, Byzantine (Roman) and most importantly 16th century western ones. You guys think war hasn't evolved at all before the evolution of gunpowder. The still alive Roman Empire kept adapting its tactics. That's proof enough
zhshsG7 7 months ago
@zhshsG7 You've written that 100 knights of XV century can fight against an entire legion. This is a enormous stupidity. Romans, also in II and III century, had tactics and formations able to stop cataphractii and clibanarii (sasanid), that were knight all covered by irons like reinassence ones. Heavy knights of XV could be defeated by trained and closed formations of men. Asking who would be the winner between medieval and roman army is useless, but you're underestimating roman legion.
IronMat86 7 months ago
@IronMat86 Again, you haven't read my post. Romans could defeat 150 AD cataphracts but they certainly wouldn't be able to do it with 1500 AD cataphracts. Because they weren't covered in Iron but in steel. Ancient Roman weapons just wouldn't pierce their armour. The Romans also knew their tactics became obsolete when they did which is why they kept adapting and reformatting their army. In this video only a small period of Roman arms (and still only the legionary) are presented.
zhshsG7 7 months ago
@zhshsG7 I'm an expert of ancient roman warfare, and I know that video rapresent a tipical I-II a.C. roman army. Talking about sasanid clibanari (heavier than parthian counterpart) and medieval heavy knight, we can't say that medieval armour were so better than persian one, that was an iron masterpiece (it covered also the hand finger, like medieval armour). The use of heavy cavalry charge was ineffective (in sasanid and medieval warfare) against a solid infantry wall.
IronMat86 7 months ago
@IronMat86 So you're saying that Roman weapons of 200 AD would pierce a full plate of 1500 AD? And how would a solid infantry wall with weapons shorter than lances fare against a 1500 AD army of horsemen that use stirrups and saddles and heavy lances? Even horse breeding programs were more advanced, although I don't know how much better European horses were than the ones the Persians were using.
zhshsG7 7 months ago
@zhshsG7 You're not considering some formations like moenia to stop cavalry, the artillery or slingers, that could hit and frighten horses from far distance, or archers. And you're talking about 100 heavy medieval horsemen vs an ENTIRE legion. Romans had to change their organization in order to fight Sasanid because they had to fight against THOUSAND of clibanari and THOUSAND of horsearchers. The contest is totally different.
IronMat86 7 months ago
@IronMat86 Well I exaggerated on the 100 knights part. By the by, I've never heard of moenia and I couldn't find anything in google. Also, artillery can't be relied upon to cause heavy casualties, especially versus cavalry. Concerning slings, I'm not sure about their effectiveness. If they were so good then why were they extinct in he 15th century?
I agree that the contest is different, but if so then why bring up the Persians as an example?
zhshsG7 7 months ago
@zhshsG7 About moenia, write "repel-cavalry roman army". "moenia" seems wall in latin. Artillery was effective in killing some heavy horsemen and frighten the others, the same thing for the slingers. They didn't really estinct in 15th century, but they were just overcame by crossbowmen. Sasanid cavalry was very similar to medieval one, that's why it is a good example. But we're talking anyway about an anacronistic fight, with all the limit concerning this tyoe of discussions.
IronMat86 7 months ago
not of 1500,but from any late antiquity o medieval period{pre fire guns},the roman gladius was made with one of the best iron formula,it could say that the Roman "iron" could consider one of the earliest forms of industrial steel with excellent quality at the same grade of alloy formulas of the Han dynasty in China,on I-II cnt,the Roman Empire was the largest superpower in the world and enjoyed all the technological advances of conquered countries and regions,which were only matched by the Han
gueropalma1990 6 months ago
@redsawdom According to professor Ian Morris in the book "Why the west rules the world for now" he states that the Roman Legions would be more effective than all armies in the medieval ages until fire arms.
Miratesus 7 months ago 10
@Miratesus And after firearms were invented, based on Roman History, they would of captured some and made them far better.
SpadaccinoLuciano 4 months ago in playlist Rome
@SpadaccinoLuciano Indeed if they would be true to their former ways :)
Miratesus 4 months ago
@Miratesus Would they have been able to stand a cavalry charge from knights with couched lances? Crossbow bolts? Not sure.
ludoalta1995 2 months ago
@ludoalta1995 lol one of the reasons they used big rectengal red shields (scutum) cuz it would stop horses from charging into dem...
Davidt963 1 month ago
@ludoalta1995 Machiavelli says yes. They would have done excellently against calvary.
SpadaccinoLuciano 1 month ago in playlist Rome
@Miratesus The tactics of the Roman Legions still live today in the riot control police. They don't have a pilum, of course.
shaider1982 1 month ago
@shaider1982 If they fight leftist protestors then I wish they had the pilum.
Miratesus 1 month ago
@Miratesus Lol!;)
shaider1982 1 month ago
@Miratesus What about the Mongols?
Sure the Romans had experiences fighting Parthians or Sarmatians, but those folks lacked the level of organization, logistics, and discipline of the Mongols under Genghis Khan.
jonharana 1 month ago
Comment removed
Miratesus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonharana You cannot compare the Mongols to the complexity to the Roman army.
Ofcource they had more effective cav than the Legion normaly would, And if they had enouth arrows they could possibly defeat a single Legion given enouth time under the right circumstances.
A simmilar event happened when Marcus Crassus tried to invade Parthia where the parthians sent massive trains of camels loaded with arrows to the mounted archers making sure they did not run out from firing so much.
Miratesus 1 month ago
@redsawdom ESPECIALLY after the Marius reforms. The Roman military after the Marius reforms was close to any modern day army than any other of any historical time period. Packs weighed around 80-120 pounds(same as today), every man carried entrenching tools(almost identical to the ones used today, just not compacted into one tool), every man carried three days of rations(identical to the amount we carry today)
M40A3 4 months ago
@RomanLegioXx
Depends on the period. From around 1300 AD, the medieval armies would have won. Reason: heavy cavalry and massive infantry formations with superiour weaponry (pikes, halberds) which were far more agile because of lighter armor. Another reason is that those armies relied heavily on missile weapons which the roman army did not deploy on such a massive scale.
unangemessen 1 year ago
@unangemessen It depends what Medieval army you are deploying,intelligence,numbers,terrain,weather,morale etc.Battle is subjective and never predictable.Roman Legionaries could have closed in on an undisciplined force of peasant based Infantry and slaughtered them,or they could have been mowed down by armored Cavalry with heavy steel armor.
fixdeluxe1 1 year ago
Hahaha the Legionary was better protected than modern American soldiers.
jivenesspie 1 year ago 21
@jivenesspie erm no he wasn't - ever heard of body armour?
SomeRandomTiger 11 months ago
@jivenesspie Wow put that armor on then i'll shoot you and lets see :D
CenturionWarriors 11 months ago
@CenturionWarriors He ment better protected aghainst the wepons of the time compared wit the protection of a modern soldier aghainst modern wepons ,understand?
LaurAgony 11 months ago
@jivenesspie Well, the Romans also didn't have to deal with Tanks, RPGs, Frags, and AK-47s. But, the Roman Legion still kicked ass. :D
dremoraman1 11 months ago
@jivenesspie wrong apparently you dont know that a flack jacket will stop bullets. Their thin armour wouldn't.
cwood4ever 11 months ago
@jivenesspie are u retarded? a bullet would go right through that, tehres a reason armor dosnt exist, *facepalm* dumbass
DJsharp707 11 months ago
@jivenesspie kevlar's 100x stronger than steel, so no.
brohan914 10 months ago
@jivenesspie Idiot...
preemptivestrike20 10 months ago