ROME - The First Battle

XIII Legion in Gaul.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• rome
• gaul
• XIII
• Legion
• caesar
• varenus
• pullo

[SPQSpartacus]

This is a rare clip where you actually see a legion fighting the way they did. Keeping fresh troops in front meant fewer losses, and pretty soon the enemy would tire out, resulting to breakthrough, panic and annihilation. Romans did lose a few battles, mostly thanks to idiot generals, but for centuries they didn't lose a single war.

[rohontsiawaks]

Pullo is Chuck Norris's great great great great great great grandaddy

[infokemp]

@michaelroosendaal1 Right on lol

All the best

David

[michaelroosendaal1]

@infokemp s.thing like that b.4 breakie .organisation.

[FacistPikl]

what movie?

[infokemp]

@andresrojas22 P3 If you talk about 449 or 1066 you see Nordic-Celtic prof Troops - a systematic approach to fighting like a machine (similar to Rome) in Marius or Ceaser's time the Gauls & Britons (Celts) fighting as Warriors (individual glory, skill & trying to fight individuals) 1 on 1 you're right few Romans where as good warriors but Romans fought as a military machine if I go & attack with a flax or axe or broad sword against ranks of Romans they strike from all angles as 1

[infokemp]

@andresrojas22 P2 The use of the axe as part of a combined arms unit as in the English Houscarl Shieldwall or hogshead means you have comrades covering you from the stabs of the enemies short swords, if your comrades stand with the spear & another with a sword & shield to rush in & flank the man whose shield you are trying to split, if you have archers sniping then all the better - but this requires discipline & training the English under Hengest in 449 had this - Gauls did not.

[infokemp]

@andresrojas22 I am not saying that the axe is not a great weapon - the English Houscarls at Hastings used it against Norman Cavaliers(!) will great slaughter done to our enemy. However will I might say there is a great different between a modern & a Legionaries strength you might say the same about a Gaul or other enemy of the Romans. 1 on 1 you are probably right but a Warrior (out for personnel glory) vs Prof Troops (code of collective unit discipline) results are not certain

[andresrojas22]

@infokemp his shield and after a couple of more blows his arm was in too much pain for him to keep taking more blows, in a battlefield situation he would have died since he could not raise his shield anymore

[andresrojas22]

@infokemp systematic fighting, discipline, all that is irrelevant to the fact that an axe hits the shield with enough force to crack it and even if it doesnt damage the shield the impact of the axe on the shield makes a painfull concussion on the soldiers arm that exhaust his energy very soon. i saw this show n the history channel of a recreation between 2 guys using shields, one used a sword and the other an axe. the one using the sword took like 4 axe blows 2 his shield and

[infokemp]

@andresrojas22 You are right to say that they evolved their shield design - many sighted the use of leather coverings at Teutorburg for the weight of shields in the rain making them useless, however the Romans had already met & defeated the much vaunted Spartans & also the Crimbri (Nordic-Celtic people) & Carthaginians - this is after the Marius reforms where Shield walls are depicted stopping horses, arrows & pole weapons - whats more important was their systematic fighting

[infokemp]

@SPQSpartacus Romans fought in formation as a unit - I have read their sword drill techniques influenced the British bayonet fighting in that they struck the enemy to their right, this enabled them to form wedge or strike the enemies flank thus protecting your comrade to the right. As the enemy raised his sword arm to strike he would expose his ribs to the sword strike of the Romans while they remained protected by their shields thus the enemy lost their front rank