I'd always back whoever was fighting Rome. If you look at their history you can see they were complete bastards. The major difference in the end was that the tribal peoples had warriors (highly skilled individual fighters), whilst the Romans had soldiers (cohesive, disciplined units). Also, in that kind of war, the biggest bastard wins. If you're fighting to win by any means rather than for honour then you have a huge advantage.
in dacia the rome impire come 2 times..one time in 101- 102 and they run back to rome because because the dacians are win that war and in 105-106 are come back with 13 legions..all.. 578000 soldiers..and win the war with massive loss..dacia was romania in prezent...
If you look up the history of steel making, you will be supriced. The making of iron is about 4000 years old, steel is just iron with some carbon impurities.
@gurkfisk89 I know. They have actually found "steel" in the Pyramids and in some "iron" age weapons that are very close to steel, but it is widely believed that these were really just chance. The way the presenter says "the finest steel" is misleading. They did not make steel weapons in the iron age, the made iron weapons. That they could be close to steel by todays reckoning would have been chance, it most certainly was not intended and was definitely not know to be "steel".
I agree with you to a degree. Sure it was mostly chance but take for example a little newer steel, like wootz steel. They surely didn't know that the ore from some mines in india had a little tungsten or vanadium content, so that's really just chance. But what they knew was that indian steel was good.
For what this presenter says, much of it is misleading =).
1. The Celtibearians actually did not call there stabbing sword a Gladuis, the word Gladius is actually Latin for sword and the Celtiberians did not speak Latin until the Romans conquered Iberia.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the Barbarians actually produces higher quality weaponry compared to Rome, they also always had the advantage to superior numbers in combat. Rome however had the advantage of superior Armour, training and leadership were it came to organized formation combat.
@TheTraumarama2 Only the Celtiberians or the ancient Spanish could tell you.
All of the names for people and places that we have for Iberia, Western and norther Europe we get from Roman records as Rome destroyed the native culture of the lands that they conquered.
Roman battles with the northern barbarians were usually decided by the charge. If the Romans could hold their formation through the charge they would win. However if the barbarians managed to break the the roman lines their devastating weaponry and physical strength would almost guarantee victory.
I love this guy, I love this show, but I have to point out something that got me. The Francisca has a very curved handle and a head that slopes down, allowing it to "bounce" along the ground without sticking in. You can imagine that two or three hundred bouncing axes coming in at once was terrifying, since the unpredictable flight could drop them on your head, or roll them under your shield and take out a kneecap. This unique flight is what separated this weapon from a normal throwing axe.
The Romans were not yet using the lorica segmentata (the armor) during the war of Gauls, and were not using it anymore during the Barbarians invasion.
they win cause brothership is so much more than a trained army, Wodan and donar (odin are thor) are the greates god for war, we fear wodan and get protect by thor. Im proud my ancestors had won from a great empire. horn to Donar
@LoneMyth Not true. The word "kopis" is derived from "khopesh" - the Semitic name for a cutting weapon. It later became widely used in Greek, and thus means "cutter" in modern Greek.
@migkillerphantom It is not derived from the Khopesh it is not even the same sword. I hope you realize that.
Khopesh Egyptian name of the Canaanite "sickle-sword", in Assyrian known as sappara. Its origins can be traced back to Sumer of the third millennium BCE
@LoneMyth The kopis, or whatever you want to call it, is widely theorized to be a simplified version of the sickle sword - since iron is harder to craft than bronze.
There is ample evidence it was used by Phoenicians, Anatolians, North Africans, Italics, Iberians and Persians - this area suggests a Phoenician origin.
@migkillerphantom The Kopis is not widely theorized to be a simplified version of the sickle sword.
And the Greeks didn't learn it from the Phoenician either. Site you're source when you make calm like that because I disprove the meaning of khopesh.
Remember find me the source where you got you're info because I know you wont find it. I know my history very well and my knowledge goes beyond average people like you.
@LoneMyth And how will you explain everyone using it, if it was pure Greek? It serves the exact same purpose as the sicle sword. No bronze kopis has been found, and no iron sickle sword. We know, however, that Phoenicians, Persians, Iberians, Libyans, Anatolians and likely others used them, not just the Greeks.
Yeah, Rome was conquered or taken by barbarians not just once but three times, but those times were in the Republic era, when there was no professional army, only an army what existed on campaigns, and at the time of the late roman empire, where the roman soldiers were mostly "barbarians" with new types of weapons, tactics and armor. Rome was never conquered during the early Empire era, when its army was the most professional and had the equipment which are seen in this video.
@VobisPacem Yea, lol indeed. If the barbarians were that stupid, how come the empire fell? I think Herman Arminius might have a thing or two to say...
@yoitsmeitsmeitsddp Ha awesome love scotland, more then englad actually ;) but still... The Picts where from your region so I understand that you find it awesome, although i don't see any relevance of Pictic bellic way to the show...
@MsDjessa It was the same against the CeltIberian, they had to reinforce there shields, armours and helmets because of the effectivness of the Falcata
It's simply incorrect that the barbarians just charged. They were charging in different formations for example a triangel foramtion that would easily pierce the roman ranks. That's why the romans never realy succeded in conquering northern europe.¨
@Proxylight100 what you say is incorrect. on the military side, romans won over the northern people thousands of time. Their military primacy over barbarians has never been in discussion. Augustus conquered germany till varus lose it at teutoburgus. But that was an ambush on a caravan with a following massacre, not a true battle. Germanicus son of Drusus once again conquered Germany with the help of a river fleet till the weser river in east germany,revenging varus and taking back roman eagles.
@Proxylight100 so why, you say, romans never succeded in conquering northern europe? Roman empire wasn't created behind a dream of glory, but behind a dream of wealthiness. They conquered the whole mediterraneum area to ensure their trades and make it as "our sea" (mare nostrum). Dacia was conquered primarly because it was full of gold. Gallia and Britannia to ensure bounds. Germany? Germanicus had conquered the whole germany in 16 ad, but tiberius suddenly called him back with his legions.
@Proxylight100 That because Tiberius, and the other emperators who followed, considered Germania no more than a territory of wetlands and forest, too much beyond a great natural boundary like the rhine river was and with almost none natural, trading or economical interest. Just wood, swamps and people too much "uncivilized" and culturally different to accept roman domination. The same marcus aurelius conquered the "marcomannia", nowadays slovakia, but soon abandoned it for the same reasons.
@Proxylight100 they had success in northern Europe under Augustus but after they were ambushed at Teutoberg forest they never attempted to conquer East of the Rhine again
@Proxylight100 a formation of men can not pierce something like a piece of steel. the guy on the peak of the triangel formation has no one next to him, so enemies can flank him. if the guys in the 2nd row of the triangel want to protect the guy on the peak they have to step forward. the enemy will not get out of their way. very soon there will be no triangle formation anymore. the triangel formation was not made deliberately,some guys fell behind and some ran faster.
@Proxylight100 There was a bit more to it than just that... The Gaullic barbarians weren't that different from the Germanic, and the Romans defeated them just fine...... What's the difference? Two words: JULIUS CAESAR
@Proxylight100 nope, they didn't because the northern parts and germany where not very valuable in riches, also if they councered it it would be really hard to keep it with al the guerilla fighters.
@Proxylight100 True, but it also had to with with the fact that Northern Europe's weather and geography was nearly alien to the Romans. Northern Europe was just too dense in vegetation.
It's simply incorrect that the barbarians just charged. They were charging in different formations for example a triangel foramtion that would easily pierce the roman ranks. That's why the romans never realy succeded in conquering northern europe.
Entertainment and inaccuracies is right. The barbarians only know the frontal attack? Thats pretty insulting as well as being wrong. Battle of Teutoburg Forest anyone?
@blackstonewielder19 blackstonewielder19 Besides the ambush in the Teutoburg forest, Tacitus talked about a battle where the Germans formed up three lines, each line fighting, then breaking to reform behind the third, which was in a swamp. The Romans thereby were lured into the swamp, and as they were shorter, heavier armored, and unused to the ground, the Germans slaughtered them. Think the Germans never used the "wait on top of a hill" method? They knew what they were doing.
@BigBadassR and what would they do if the swamp wasnt there? the romans almost always won pitched battles on solid ground and all the barbarian tribes could do was to use frontal attacks. the barbarians were better at using the terrain to defeat the romans and could prevent them from penetrating further into either forested or hilly territory. despite the fact that the show seems to ignore this, making it unbalanced it is not necessarily incorrect in terms of how the romans won in pitched battle
@blackstonewielder19 Youre obviously a smart guy, so I dont want to argue with you other then to say one last point. Ambushes, feigned retreats, and envelopment are battle tactics used by the ancient Germans that were not "full frontal attacks". This guy makes the barbarians sound no better trained then a horde of monkeys with sticks. The Germans never could have survived the Roman killing machine without a wide knowledge of tactics.
@BigBadassR why thank you :) well the ambushes are part of the strategy but not part of pitched battle. feigned retreats could be used during a pitched battle to lure the romans into a forest behind the battlefield and then ambush them. envelopment wouldnt have worked very well for the germans in an open battlefield because the romans would have used cavalry to prevent this. in the event of a pitched battle that the romans lured their enemies into, the germans would have no room for other tacics
Last I read was that barbarian came from bááá (the sound sheep make) used by the ancient greek. OC, if those books were wrong, so am I, and history is guessing.
@Piatasify actually the word ''barbarian''is a greek one.in makes fun of those who dont speak greek cause its like they say bar bar bar.so athenians were making fun of them calling em barbarians and it stayed to that.since greeks were civilised it ended up beeing believed that barbarian r also those with no civilisation(which is correct).but its kinda odd when a person who dont speak greek calls other barbarian.no offence but evrytime i hear that its like a barbarian calls other barbarians.lol
@K9Productzions Kind of a cool idea isn't it? I looked into it a while ago. I'm probably Frisian or Chattii, well Batavian really but they were a sub-tribe of the Chattii. They lived in the area where I live now and as far as I know my ancestors have always lived here. Kinda cool to read how scared the Romans were of the Chattii. That they wore the skins of their fallen enemies and carried their heads with them into battle:P Proper nutters if you ask me;)
where the fuck are the Tracians? He spoke about Spartacus but there are no tracian introdused :S Thay had unique swords- the Sikas, would have been fun
if the first line was broken, the firs tline would be crushed by the stronger barbarians, but thats why they keept a fresh second line to replace the first line
barbarians weren't non professional romans weren't professional.The legionnaire of doom for half of Rome's history was a farmer, semi-professional at best. Tribes always had professional troops as well as semi-professional and levied farmers. The Roman propaganda was so good that even the history channel to this day portrays the Romans as lorica segmentata clad invincible demi-gods and there enemies as stupid morons with primitive weapons and tactics.
@kaizoebara Very few bearded axes were Franciscas, but a many Franciscas were bearded axes. I think you're referring to the Francisca's double curve vs the bearded axe's single dramatic curve, I've seen Franciscas with beards, but relatively small compared to the most bearded axes. I suppose it depends on your definition
Wrong, the Gladius descends from the greek Xiphos, a short sword, which was a bit longer as the Gladius, because the Hoplites also used it for slashing.
The Celtiberians used t longswords as their ancestors from France and the Alps did.
@ExtremeDeathman No, the Romans did use the Xiphos originally, but the Iberians had the gladius like sword first and the Romans adopted it after coming on contact with them
its ridiculous when they say "romans were the only force standing between civilization and survival" funny fact is they called the persians, the parthians, sassanids , carthaginians ,East indians etc even the Diadochi barbarians while they were if not more, equally civilised. but meh its an american documentary.
There are a lot of strange things in this documentary... When he is showing the weapons that the barbarians used, they don't show the Sling, witch was used by the Iberians, Germans, Gauls, Bretons, etc... And when they attack those figurines of romans they say they would have been choped to pieces and blablabla, but the barbarians knew how to use they're weapons... Did you saw how they throwed the axes and the javelins when they charged in... common...
In 400 BC Rome was in fact sacked by Gauls. That's why the Romans decided to work together with the whole of Latium and eventually took the Italian peninsula.
1: they thought of the 'the best defence is offense' kind of war.
@ProtestantIRA It is true that the Gauls in France were Celts as were the the Celts in Spain and Portugal but Celts north of the Alps were Brynthonic Celts like those in Wales and Breton and those south of the Alps were Goidalic (spelling?) Celts like those in Ireland and Scotland. Originally there was a slight language difference as well as a possible genetic difference.
this document is so ridiculous... the man obviously saw a single movie focused on roman armies, and did not bother himself to actually look for details...
- missiles were not effective against heavy inf., as they could not penetrate the armour completely, not to mention the large shields romans were using
- the barbarian tactics thing is completely wrong
- according to this man, celts and gauls were two different tribes... the thing is that those are two differents names for one tribe
The idea that barbarians only had one tactic in battle is laughable. While the frontal charge was indeed a big part of their combat, many barbarian tribes are known to have fought in formations. The germanic tribes were known for spear formations and many battle standards and horns have been found from ancient celt sites showing they indeed ordered maneuvers throughout the course of battle.
Half of the weapons are either not what they are sold for, or they are not used of the group they got classified at here.
There is absolutely ZERO sources of germanic people using axes for war. that is a myst, spread by video games. The only Germanic warriors using axes for close combat were vikings. And the THROWING Axe Franziska is outdated in time. The Franziska is looking absolutely different and was not used against marian reform legionairs
the people of spain made weapons for rome because of their skill
ziggurat2753 3 days ago
Makes me want to play Rome Total War
levierdragon 4 days ago
@levierdragon Dude, I was thinking exactly the same.
Dagsschiller 3 days ago
I'd always back whoever was fighting Rome. If you look at their history you can see they were complete bastards. The major difference in the end was that the tribal peoples had warriors (highly skilled individual fighters), whilst the Romans had soldiers (cohesive, disciplined units). Also, in that kind of war, the biggest bastard wins. If you're fighting to win by any means rather than for honour then you have a huge advantage.
tSp289 5 days ago
ROMA VICTOR!
silverlancexyz 1 week ago
Legionnaire of Doom :D
LOLfaceJR 1 week ago
hmmm sadly with those techniques it's no wonder the romans thought they were retarded, when in fact they were just disorganized.
Supertomiman 1 week ago
in dacia the rome impire come 2 times..one time in 101- 102 and they run back to rome because because the dacians are win that war and in 105-106 are come back with 13 legions..all.. 578000 soldiers..and win the war with massive loss..dacia was romania in prezent...
jackrusselleko 1 week ago
Steel in 218 BC....hmmm, I don't think so!
peyo001 2 weeks ago
@peyo001
If you look up the history of steel making, you will be supriced. The making of iron is about 4000 years old, steel is just iron with some carbon impurities.
gurkfisk89 2 weeks ago
@gurkfisk89 I know. They have actually found "steel" in the Pyramids and in some "iron" age weapons that are very close to steel, but it is widely believed that these were really just chance. The way the presenter says "the finest steel" is misleading. They did not make steel weapons in the iron age, the made iron weapons. That they could be close to steel by todays reckoning would have been chance, it most certainly was not intended and was definitely not know to be "steel".
cheers :)
peyo001 2 weeks ago
@peyo001
I agree with you to a degree. Sure it was mostly chance but take for example a little newer steel, like wootz steel. They surely didn't know that the ore from some mines in india had a little tungsten or vanadium content, so that's really just chance. But what they knew was that indian steel was good.
For what this presenter says, much of it is misleading =).
gurkfisk89 2 weeks ago
1. The Celtibearians actually did not call there stabbing sword a Gladuis, the word Gladius is actually Latin for sword and the Celtiberians did not speak Latin until the Romans conquered Iberia.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the Barbarians actually produces higher quality weaponry compared to Rome, they also always had the advantage to superior numbers in combat. Rome however had the advantage of superior Armour, training and leadership were it came to organized formation combat.
1169Timothy 2 weeks ago
@1169Timothy
He calls it that because we don't know what the Celtiberians called it (f**kin Romans).
If you know, would you tell me (I honestly don't know)?
TheTraumarama2 1 week ago
@TheTraumarama2 Only the Celtiberians or the ancient Spanish could tell you.
All of the names for people and places that we have for Iberia, Western and norther Europe we get from Roman records as Rome destroyed the native culture of the lands that they conquered.
1169Timothy 1 week ago
The Gaul is a Kelt DUH, stupid ignorant TV's...
vukashin88 2 weeks ago
@vukashin88 And that's what the documentary said...
TheLoyalOfficer 2 weeks ago
@TheLoyalOfficer No they didn't - when they listed the warriors they said 'So what do we got? We got a Celt, a Gaul, a Dacian and a...'
vukashin88 2 weeks ago
Roman battles with the northern barbarians were usually decided by the charge. If the Romans could hold their formation through the charge they would win. However if the barbarians managed to break the the roman lines their devastating weaponry and physical strength would almost guarantee victory.
pleeeeep 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"These were just hay bails. Against real Romans, we wouldn't have stood a chance." Great analysis there man.
fasteddyuk 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
fasteddyuk 3 weeks ago
lol. im feeling lazy today... lets fight the romans in our pjs!
haunteddrifter 3 weeks ago
I love this guy, I love this show, but I have to point out something that got me. The Francisca has a very curved handle and a head that slopes down, allowing it to "bounce" along the ground without sticking in. You can imagine that two or three hundred bouncing axes coming in at once was terrifying, since the unpredictable flight could drop them on your head, or roll them under your shield and take out a kneecap. This unique flight is what separated this weapon from a normal throwing axe.
oddbarrows 1 month ago
Those weapon look so fake... real iron is not suppose to shine like those stainless steel.
sok8888 1 month ago
the barbarians will always be my friends because they seem to be more human and less evil
lion3p0 1 month ago 8
The Romans were not yet using the lorica segmentata (the armor) during the war of Gauls, and were not using it anymore during the Barbarians invasion.
The Barbarians didn't used tactics ? lol !
MrRemicas 1 month ago
Ancient Macedonians were the best warriors the world had ever seen (Alexander the Great)
YaBudala 1 month ago
Celts= total badass
kilroywuzhere1 1 month ago
Stupid Romans! The Gauls were awesome!
Titanwriter 2 months ago
6:52 How to don't throw the spear
Volmax96 2 months ago
sax appeal - sex apeal
lucasmontec 2 months ago
A double-bladed axe? Please. No concern for actual history, eh History Channel?
calderwis 2 months ago
a barbarian is someone who doesn't speak greek
loadedClownZ 2 months ago 18
I find it funny that they left the britons out of this.
masterninjaman1 3 months ago
The greeks never used the falcata, they used the xiphos and kopis.
masterninjaman1 3 months ago
Completely wrong gladius is a Spanish sword and the Soliferum is nothing more than a Pilum. Roman "Copied" spain.
LoneMyth 3 months ago
they win cause brothership is so much more than a trained army, Wodan and donar (odin are thor) are the greates god for war, we fear wodan and get protect by thor. Im proud my ancestors had won from a great empire. horn to Donar
dragongame2 3 months ago
The Falcata was NOT based on the "Greek kopis". The Greek version was most likely a copy of Phoenician designs.
migkillerphantom 3 months ago
@migkillerphantom Not really Kopis is a Greek sword even the name it self is greek orgin
LoneMyth 3 months ago
@LoneMyth Not true. The word "kopis" is derived from "khopesh" - the Semitic name for a cutting weapon. It later became widely used in Greek, and thus means "cutter" in modern Greek.
migkillerphantom 3 months ago
@migkillerphantom It is not derived from the Khopesh it is not even the same sword. I hope you realize that.
Khopesh Egyptian name of the Canaanite "sickle-sword", in Assyrian known as sappara. Its origins can be traced back to Sumer of the third millennium BCE
LoneMyth 3 months ago
@LoneMyth The kopis, or whatever you want to call it, is widely theorized to be a simplified version of the sickle sword - since iron is harder to craft than bronze.
There is ample evidence it was used by Phoenicians, Anatolians, North Africans, Italics, Iberians and Persians - this area suggests a Phoenician origin.
migkillerphantom 3 months ago
@migkillerphantom The Kopis is not widely theorized to be a simplified version of the sickle sword.
And the Greeks didn't learn it from the Phoenician either. Site you're source when you make calm like that because I disprove the meaning of khopesh.
Remember find me the source where you got you're info because I know you wont find it. I know my history very well and my knowledge goes beyond average people like you.
LoneMyth 3 months ago
@LoneMyth And how will you explain everyone using it, if it was pure Greek? It serves the exact same purpose as the sicle sword. No bronze kopis has been found, and no iron sickle sword. We know, however, that Phoenicians, Persians, Iberians, Libyans, Anatolians and likely others used them, not just the Greeks.
migkillerphantom 3 months ago
Sure, units were defeated but after such, Rome launched a terrible campaign of revenge against the tribes.
Hebime 4 months ago
Yeah, Rome was conquered or taken by barbarians not just once but three times, but those times were in the Republic era, when there was no professional army, only an army what existed on campaigns, and at the time of the late roman empire, where the roman soldiers were mostly "barbarians" with new types of weapons, tactics and armor. Rome was never conquered during the early Empire era, when its army was the most professional and had the equipment which are seen in this video.
Hebime 4 months ago
weapons of the BAVARIANS
GermanSwordMaster 4 months ago
Your emperor is pleased to give you.... THE BARBARIAN HORDE!!!!
CrimsonGuard1992 4 months ago
looks fun :)
TheMonsterSkull 4 months ago
1.48 Finnaly some truth about the barbarians
DutchPetriot 4 months ago
That's the Roman Pompeii gladius, not the Celtiberian one.
Tasarte 5 months ago
This guy is a little racist.... the tall blond man is a Gaul Celt, and the guy with a mustache is the Iberian.
Resedit 5 months ago
only one tactic: frontal charge. Lol! XD
VobisPacem 5 months ago
@VobisPacem Yea, lol indeed. If the barbarians were that stupid, how come the empire fell? I think Herman Arminius might have a thing or two to say...
MrLathron 5 months ago
@yoitsmeitsmeitsddp Ha awesome love scotland, more then englad actually ;) but still... The Picts where from your region so I understand that you find it awesome, although i don't see any relevance of Pictic bellic way to the show...
PompeusMagnus 6 months ago
@yoitsmeitsmeitsddp Of course you do... your from the U.K. :/
PompeusMagnus 6 months ago
the vandals sacked rome
rex2074 6 months ago
@yoitsmeitsmeitsddp No... Actually the picts hadn't very expecific weapons and armour :/ I don't think it would be ingteresting to show them
PompeusMagnus 6 months ago
Barbarian scum. Rome is the light!
MrTrykster 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans weren't very good at fighting. . . the normans conquered multiple bases on the mediterranean sea that the romans set up to fight pirates.
MacDaggerson 7 months ago
Comment removed
MacDaggerson 7 months ago
@yoitsmeitsmeitsddp the picts are like celts
iamnobodyism 7 months ago in playlist Worrior
Romans actually had to re-enforce theyr helmets and add armour protection to the sword hand when they fought against the Dacians.
MsDjessa 7 months ago 25
@MsDjessa It was the same against the CeltIberian, they had to reinforce there shields, armours and helmets because of the effectivness of the Falcata
maximom999 5 months ago
It's simply incorrect that the barbarians just charged. They were charging in different formations for example a triangel foramtion that would easily pierce the roman ranks. That's why the romans never realy succeded in conquering northern europe.¨
Proxylight100 7 months ago 17
@Proxylight100 They address that in part 3, wedge formations eventually started getting used, but it was not always used.
Railstarfish 6 months ago
@Proxylight100 what you say is incorrect. on the military side, romans won over the northern people thousands of time. Their military primacy over barbarians has never been in discussion. Augustus conquered germany till varus lose it at teutoburgus. But that was an ambush on a caravan with a following massacre, not a true battle. Germanicus son of Drusus once again conquered Germany with the help of a river fleet till the weser river in east germany,revenging varus and taking back roman eagles.
fenotipobombay 4 months ago
@fenotipobombay Also important to know at teutoburgerwald that treason by Herminius was an important consideration.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@Proxylight100 so why, you say, romans never succeded in conquering northern europe? Roman empire wasn't created behind a dream of glory, but behind a dream of wealthiness. They conquered the whole mediterraneum area to ensure their trades and make it as "our sea" (mare nostrum). Dacia was conquered primarly because it was full of gold. Gallia and Britannia to ensure bounds. Germany? Germanicus had conquered the whole germany in 16 ad, but tiberius suddenly called him back with his legions.
fenotipobombay 4 months ago
@Proxylight100 That because Tiberius, and the other emperators who followed, considered Germania no more than a territory of wetlands and forest, too much beyond a great natural boundary like the rhine river was and with almost none natural, trading or economical interest. Just wood, swamps and people too much "uncivilized" and culturally different to accept roman domination. The same marcus aurelius conquered the "marcomannia", nowadays slovakia, but soon abandoned it for the same reasons.
fenotipobombay 4 months ago
@Proxylight100 That's also why they never even competed with Wales and Scotland.
Slajjin 3 months ago
@Proxylight100 they had success in northern Europe under Augustus but after they were ambushed at Teutoberg forest they never attempted to conquer East of the Rhine again
Mvenven 3 months ago
@Mvenven Either way, I feel slightly more prepared in case I get sent back in time.
WonderfulAkari 3 months ago
@Proxylight100 the so called "barbarians" actually used a lot of tactics but anyways.... what can you expect from a tv show
K1ps1 3 months ago
@Proxylight100 a formation of men can not pierce something like a piece of steel. the guy on the peak of the triangel formation has no one next to him, so enemies can flank him. if the guys in the 2nd row of the triangel want to protect the guy on the peak they have to step forward. the enemy will not get out of their way. very soon there will be no triangle formation anymore. the triangel formation was not made deliberately,some guys fell behind and some ran faster.
888HamilkarBarkas888 1 month ago
@Proxylight100
Thank you for bringing that up. I've got a friend who keeps yammering on how "impenetrable" the Roman formations were. Now I can shut him up. :)
TheTraumarama2 1 month ago
@Proxylight100 There was a bit more to it than just that... The Gaullic barbarians weren't that different from the Germanic, and the Romans defeated them just fine...... What's the difference? Two words: JULIUS CAESAR
LokitheCajun 1 month ago
@Proxylight100
they didnt conquered northern europe because of the forest romans cant fight in the forest
nicolai161 1 month ago
@Proxylight100 Thats in part 3
crimson177 3 weeks ago
@Proxylight100 the triangle formation is only usefull in a cavalry charge.
pleeeeep 3 weeks ago
@Proxylight100 nope, they didn't because the northern parts and germany where not very valuable in riches, also if they councered it it would be really hard to keep it with al the guerilla fighters.
brammatie2 2 weeks ago
@Proxylight100 True, but it also had to with with the fact that Northern Europe's weather and geography was nearly alien to the Romans. Northern Europe was just too dense in vegetation.
luciferiexcelsil 2 weeks ago
@Proxylight100
Misusing the word "easily" I dare say :/
I'd say the main factor was terrain and the sheer logistical difficulty of it all.
Surtak 2 weeks ago
It's simply incorrect that the barbarians just charged. They were charging in different formations for example a triangel foramtion that would easily pierce the roman ranks. That's why the romans never realy succeded in conquering northern europe.
Proxylight100 7 months ago
BUT....I...
i wanted to be the dacian....
DelTevynes 7 months ago
Fuck they din't show the rhomphaia :/ Our the soliferrum, that's a damn shame :/
PompeusMagnus 7 months ago
germans BARBARIANS XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA
isokraths2010 7 months ago
Thanks for posting these.. this show was awesome.
Axiomaticstatic 8 months ago
The gladius he picks up is the exact same as one I got online recently.
demomanchaos 8 months ago
Entertainment and inaccuracies is right. The barbarians only know the frontal attack? Thats pretty insulting as well as being wrong. Battle of Teutoburg Forest anyone?
BigBadassR 8 months ago
@BigBadassR so right!
Piatasify 8 months ago
@BigBadassR They had a brilliant, ROMAN TRAINED leader. Also, they got lucky.
SpadaccinoLuciano 8 months ago
Comment removed
blackstonewielder19 7 months ago
@BigBadassR watch part 2...
blackstonewielder19 7 months ago
@blackstonewielder19 blackstonewielder19 Besides the ambush in the Teutoburg forest, Tacitus talked about a battle where the Germans formed up three lines, each line fighting, then breaking to reform behind the third, which was in a swamp. The Romans thereby were lured into the swamp, and as they were shorter, heavier armored, and unused to the ground, the Germans slaughtered them. Think the Germans never used the "wait on top of a hill" method? They knew what they were doing.
BigBadassR 7 months ago
@BigBadassR and what would they do if the swamp wasnt there? the romans almost always won pitched battles on solid ground and all the barbarian tribes could do was to use frontal attacks. the barbarians were better at using the terrain to defeat the romans and could prevent them from penetrating further into either forested or hilly territory. despite the fact that the show seems to ignore this, making it unbalanced it is not necessarily incorrect in terms of how the romans won in pitched battle
blackstonewielder19 7 months ago
@blackstonewielder19 Youre obviously a smart guy, so I dont want to argue with you other then to say one last point. Ambushes, feigned retreats, and envelopment are battle tactics used by the ancient Germans that were not "full frontal attacks". This guy makes the barbarians sound no better trained then a horde of monkeys with sticks. The Germans never could have survived the Roman killing machine without a wide knowledge of tactics.
BigBadassR 7 months ago
@BigBadassR why thank you :) well the ambushes are part of the strategy but not part of pitched battle. feigned retreats could be used during a pitched battle to lure the romans into a forest behind the battlefield and then ambush them. envelopment wouldnt have worked very well for the germans in an open battlefield because the romans would have used cavalry to prevent this. in the event of a pitched battle that the romans lured their enemies into, the germans would have no room for other tacics
blackstonewielder19 7 months ago
Last I read was that barbarian came from bááá (the sound sheep make) used by the ancient greek. OC, if those books were wrong, so am I, and history is guessing.
Piatasify 8 months ago
@Piatasify actually the word ''barbarian''is a greek one.in makes fun of those who dont speak greek cause its like they say bar bar bar.so athenians were making fun of them calling em barbarians and it stayed to that.since greeks were civilised it ended up beeing believed that barbarian r also those with no civilisation(which is correct).but its kinda odd when a person who dont speak greek calls other barbarian.no offence but evrytime i hear that its like a barbarian calls other barbarians.lol
itachiitachi1946 7 months ago
@TheStrawberryLolicon Inaccuracies?
LordKorloros 8 months ago
i am romanian :D......and i am proud that i have dacian-barbarian blood in my veins :)....the thing is that i am half barbarian,half roman :|
K9Productzions 8 months ago
@K9Productzions Kind of a cool idea isn't it? I looked into it a while ago. I'm probably Frisian or Chattii, well Batavian really but they were a sub-tribe of the Chattii. They lived in the area where I live now and as far as I know my ancestors have always lived here. Kinda cool to read how scared the Romans were of the Chattii. That they wore the skins of their fallen enemies and carried their heads with them into battle:P Proper nutters if you ask me;)
evildeathmonkey1 8 months ago
nerds....
mamudatu 9 months ago
My roids itch! I know this has nothing to do with the video, but I felt like typing it. Nice video by the way.
misper34 9 months ago
you got mail!!! lol
hotterwax 9 months ago
soliferum - pure iron
solis ferum - "
XD brilliant name
GermanSwordMaster 9 months ago
@Peeerdear All barbarians fought against each other: that's part of what made them "barbarians"
duncanisnuts1 9 months ago
Boys... I see boys.. playing war...
JustWickedSwede 9 months ago
where the fuck are the Tracians? He spoke about Spartacus but there are no tracian introdused :S Thay had unique swords- the Sikas, would have been fun
immortaliserwow 9 months ago
if the first line was broken, the firs tline would be crushed by the stronger barbarians, but thats why they keept a fresh second line to replace the first line
SuperTravis898 9 months ago in playlist History Channel: Warriors With Terry Schappert
I cannot even say how many times I wanted to scream "bullshit! buuullshiiiit!" while seeing this crap...
Lothenon 10 months ago
so the western view of warfare is "divide and conquer" while the east prefers "hit and run" :P
FreeeeS 10 months ago
I m from mongolia and hit and run tactics on foot sound revolutionary lol
FreeeeS 10 months ago
Thank yu rome
reyshakquit 10 months ago
That's mo Francesca...
JohnTraviss 10 months ago
First Reich Best Reich!!!
TheCameljockie 10 months ago
barbarians weren't non professional romans weren't professional.The legionnaire of doom for half of Rome's history was a farmer, semi-professional at best. Tribes always had professional troops as well as semi-professional and levied farmers. The Roman propaganda was so good that even the history channel to this day portrays the Romans as lorica segmentata clad invincible demi-gods and there enemies as stupid morons with primitive weapons and tactics.
gazzmilsom 10 months ago
@gazzmilsom i m a biology bachelor i like how the scales of lizards or any "armored" animal have latin names refering to legionarie armor :P
FreeeeS 10 months ago
@gazzmilsom well most are of insects
FreeeeS 10 months ago
Legionaries were trained to fight cavalry and archers 0 damage.
TechnoManiac2 11 months ago
Comment removed
roccomedy 11 months ago
That is not a Francesca, it is the cheapest tomahawk the prop guy could find. Francescas had an altogether different head design.
kaizoebara 11 months ago
@kaizoebara They were called "Bearded axes" for a reason.
Tareltonlives 11 months ago
@Tareltonlives A Francesca is not a bearded axe.
kaizoebara 11 months ago
@kaizoebara Very few bearded axes were Franciscas, but a many Franciscas were bearded axes. I think you're referring to the Francisca's double curve vs the bearded axe's single dramatic curve, I've seen Franciscas with beards, but relatively small compared to the most bearded axes. I suppose it depends on your definition
Tareltonlives 11 months ago
A few inaccuracies here, but overall an entertaining bit of TV.
SkiDesignS 11 months ago
oh no, i see a stupid double sided axe again..
karretjex 1 year ago
What's wrong with a woodaxe pressed into military service?
Happened all the time.
Skullchaser08 11 months ago
ONe mistake on the Celtiberians: They did not have a GLADIUS, as this was the roman short sword, after all, Gladius is latin.
They had a longsword just as all Celts and Germans...
ExtremeDeathman 1 year ago
@ExtremeDeathman
Wrong, the Gladius comes from the Iberians
karretjex 1 year ago
@karretjex
Wrong, the Gladius descends from the greek Xiphos, a short sword, which was a bit longer as the Gladius, because the Hoplites also used it for slashing.
The Celtiberians used t longswords as their ancestors from France and the Alps did.
ExtremeDeathman 1 year ago
@ExtremeDeathman Wrong, karretjex was right.
cheesepie72 11 months ago
@cheesepie72 Wrong, I'm right.
ExtremeDeathman 11 months ago
@ExtremeDeathman No, the Romans did use the Xiphos originally, but the Iberians had the gladius like sword first and the Romans adopted it after coming on contact with them
cheesepie72 11 months ago 16
@cheesepie72 Ya, and what is your source?
cheesepie72 11 months ago
its ridiculous when they say "romans were the only force standing between civilization and survival" funny fact is they called the persians, the parthians, sassanids , carthaginians ,East indians etc even the Diadochi barbarians while they were if not more, equally civilised. but meh its an american documentary.
sushanalone 1 year ago
This is funny.
4515jonny 1 year ago
It is true how the Romans thought their race and ways were superior to others
godzillaskywalker456 1 year ago
@godzillaskywalker456 They weren'y really a race but a great mix of tribes in the beginning from what I remember.
jaknife99 1 year ago
He makes a good point about the early Romans using weapons from other peoples
godzillaskywalker456 1 year ago
Where's Asterix's Magic Potion???
hexpinete 1 year ago
Film full of stupid bystander stereotypes about Rome. Pity. I like previous series.
TonyHanin 1 year ago
There are a lot of strange things in this documentary... When he is showing the weapons that the barbarians used, they don't show the Sling, witch was used by the Iberians, Germans, Gauls, Bretons, etc... And when they attack those figurines of romans they say they would have been choped to pieces and blablabla, but the barbarians knew how to use they're weapons... Did you saw how they throwed the axes and the javelins when they charged in... common...
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus Were you alive back then?
AnthonyReigns 1 year ago
Don't you just love the Falcata! It looks so cool! Actually i have a Falcata, Kopesh and a Gladius... I prefer a lot the Falcata...
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
Where are the Britons?
Isthisthelongestname 1 year ago
Oh wait... My bad. Research fail
666satanification666 1 year ago
What the fuck? He said "sacked rome in 400 BC." NO THEY DIDN'T! THAT WAS 410 AD!
666satanification666 1 year ago
@666satanification666
In 400 BC Rome was in fact sacked by Gauls. That's why the Romans decided to work together with the whole of Latium and eventually took the Italian peninsula.
1: they thought of the 'the best defence is offense' kind of war.
2: they wanted revenge on the Gauls.
crimron 1 year ago
end civilization? more like ending domination
FaakedLillebror 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A throwing axe is not useless against a shield! Rather a shield is very useful against a throwing axe.
Roman Legionare shields were quite good at deflecting missile weapons due to the angles they have, but once an axe hits it square in the middle...
TheScandinavianOne 1 year ago
A throwing axe is not useless against a shield! Rather a shield is very useful against a throwing axe.
Roman Legionare shields were quite good at deflecting missile weapons due to the angles they have, but once a axe hits it square in the middle...
TheScandinavianOne 1 year ago
They should have shown other types of Falxes... There was one that had a bigger blade then the shaft... It was awsome :D
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
Erm wasnt steel discovered after the 10th century,didnt know they had steel in bc.
Whatever4690 1 year ago
@Whatever4690 I think what he meant was that large scale production of steel was impossible in Europe before the 10th century.
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@Whatever4690 they did have steel
Istojataachatearme 1 year ago
I was told that Barbarian is derived from Barbus = beard.
tigranvartanovitch 1 year ago
where are the swedish, norweigan, danish vikings`?
wowliraren12345 1 year ago
@wowliraren12345 they vikings came after the fall of the Roman Empire
tomisdead 1 year ago
Where the hell can I sign up for this class.
kingofepic 1 year ago
In actuallity the only Gauls who ran into battle naked painted or tattoed seems to have been an elite group of warriors called Woad Raiders.
crazyviking24 1 year ago
wait a minute, the Celts and Gauls were the same people!
ProtestantIRA 1 year ago
@ProtestantIRA It is true that the Gauls in France were Celts as were the the Celts in Spain and Portugal but Celts north of the Alps were Brynthonic Celts like those in Wales and Breton and those south of the Alps were Goidalic (spelling?) Celts like those in Ireland and Scotland. Originally there was a slight language difference as well as a possible genetic difference.
crazyviking24 1 year ago
@crazyviking24 oh ok, thanks for straightening that out.
ProtestantIRA 1 year ago
this document is so ridiculous... the man obviously saw a single movie focused on roman armies, and did not bother himself to actually look for details...
- missiles were not effective against heavy inf., as they could not penetrate the armour completely, not to mention the large shields romans were using
- the barbarian tactics thing is completely wrong
- according to this man, celts and gauls were two different tribes... the thing is that those are two differents names for one tribe
A-hole
somskaredynonevadi 1 year ago
I am SOOOOO PLEASED with how the narrator frames his conception of the 'barbarians" demonstrating their intellect and prowess
Manegarm66 1 year ago
like the barbarians wouldnt had bows
thebowman2 1 year ago
The idea that barbarians only had one tactic in battle is laughable. While the frontal charge was indeed a big part of their combat, many barbarian tribes are known to have fought in formations. The germanic tribes were known for spear formations and many battle standards and horns have been found from ancient celt sites showing they indeed ordered maneuvers throughout the course of battle.
urielwolfblood 1 year ago
what an unauthentic piece of american horsecrap.
Half of the weapons are either not what they are sold for, or they are not used of the group they got classified at here.
There is absolutely ZERO sources of germanic people using axes for war. that is a myst, spread by video games. The only Germanic warriors using axes for close combat were vikings. And the THROWING Axe Franziska is outdated in time. The Franziska is looking absolutely different and was not used against marian reform legionairs
000000AEA000000 1 year ago