This video is sponsored by Masterworks… Roman Battles are so often imagined from a
top view of geometrical formations clashing with each other, that many don't know how
ancient battles actually looked like for individual soldiers in the ranks. Since the
19th century, dozens of theories have come forward to explain just how combat was actually
performed, and Hollywood gives it no true justice, despite looking very entertaining on screen.
But how did battles really actually look like? What emotions did soldiers go through?
How much space was kept between ranks? What was the probability of surviving in the front ranks? And how did they manage to
fight for hours without breaks? After weeks of meticulous research, and the
contributions of hundreds of historians, this series will answer all these questions and
more, and reveal an accurate close-up model of Roman combat. If you stick around until
then, you will be an expert on the most up-to-date theories of combat. If you’re new to
the channel, consider subscribing, it helps a lot! If there is a way to define the state of mind
of the average Roman soldier deploying on the battlefield, it’s the feeling of uncertainty.
(zoom out) The long process of forming up for battle was no synonym of imminent engagement,
even if encamped right next to the enemy. Hours, days or even weeks could pass with both sides
facing each other on the battlefield under the summer heat, trying to spot the enemy’s weakness
while showing none in return. Only the eventual duel between champions or minor skirmishes would
break the tedium of standing in full armor for hours on end. As the day goes on, raging hunger
of nearby empty stomachs and the repulsive smell from companions who, unable to go anywhere,
alleviated themselves in the near vicinity, would add to the equation. Battlefield
stress and fear will also play its part here, as soldiers might experience a series of
symptoms ranging from a violent pounding of the heart and a sinking feeling in the
stomach to uncontrollable trembling, cold sweat, feelings of weakness or stiffness, vomiting
and, most unwelcome of all, involuntary urination or defecation, to name a few. Only the arrival
of night would put an end to this situation, as both sides would retreat to their camps and
repeat the same process again the following day. Such were the days of the soldiers of Scipio at
Ilipa; wake up, have breakfast, form a battle line and repeat, while at any moment the enemy
could do something unexpected or catch them by surprise. Due to this neverending uncertainty,
fear and anxiety of being close to the enemy, it comes as no surprise that many times,
Roman soldiers would put great pressure on their generals to force an engagement and
get it over with, but this was rarely for the best. General Pompey allowed himself to be
swayed into combat by his soldiers at Pharsalus, who were confident in their superior numbers. The
forced battle resulted in a devastating defeat, and the first in his entire career… So even
in tough conditions and when they think they know better, soldiers must maintain
unwavering trust in their generals, and that's easier said than done... When the
order to engage the enemy finally arrives, it acts as a huge psychological catalyst, raising
the adrenaline of the soldiers even higher. Vegetius speaks of a system of composing
the cohorts in such a way that the flanks would comprise of the most promising
and experienced fighters in the legion, to better withstand attacks from 2 possible
directions, while the middle cohorts were filled with the less experienced and younger
men, having to only worry about the front. The famous Roman “checkerboard” formation was very
popular in Republican and Imperial Roman armies. Before battle, the centuries within each cohort
would expand to form either a single battle line, or another checkerboard formation, which
will be thoroughly explained later.. At this point, it was not uncommon for generals
to ride to the front line and deliver a series of short encouraging speeches to different
sections of the army… The general was seen by the regular soldier as a strong authority, with
enough power to single him out for promotion, or punish him with death. His mere presence in
battle was a huge boost to morale, and his death, the far opposite. A wise general would
use this knowledge to great effect, motivating them for battle and calming their
anxiety. Given the size of ancient armies, such speeches were either repeated many times, or
only given to a small portion of the army. Tacitus records one such speech given by Paulinus to the
14th legion before their legendary victory at the battle of Watling street. And Tacitus’ own father
in law, Agricola, was a direct witness of it: “You see more women than warriors.
Unwarlike, unarmed, they will give way the moment they have recognised that
sword and that courage of their conquerors, which have so often routed them. Even among many
legions, it is a few who really decide the battle, and it will enhance their glory that a small force
should earn the renown of an entire army.. ..Once the victory has been won, everything will
be in your power.” Tacitus. Annals. 14.36 With the men properly hyped up,
the army was ready for battle… Many of you might have wondered how Roman
legionaries advanced into battle. Were they silent and disciplined as in Gladiator;
a compact bloc of professional soldiers advancing at a steady pace without
breaking the line? Or would they be as loud and noisy as the multitude of
tribes they faced over and over again? Late Roman manuals of Vegetius and the Strategikon
both stress the importance of a silent advance to allow commands to be heard, as well as to
terrify the enemy with the quiet and unhuman-like confidence of advancing lines. However, there
is good evidence that this was often ignored. Let’s Imagine, for a moment, the experience of the
average legionary in the 3rd row, advancing with his comrades: his vision is heavily obstructed by
the men around him and he can’t run away, given his position. This is a recipe for panic. But
hearing constant shouts of encouragement from men behind and the commands of his centurion in front,
help him overcome his fear and control himself. In such a way, units and soldiers would use sound to
encourage one another, with the rear ranks being especially noisy in this aspect. We have proof of
this, as Polybius vividly describes the contrast between the Roman and Carthaginian war-cries
at Zama. While Mark Antony’s legionaries, when clashing thousands of swords and shields,
frightened off the horses of Parthian cavalry charging at them in 36 BC. So part of a
Roman unit’s repertoire would be the clashing of swords against shields, before uniformly
uttering a war-cry prior to the final charge… Now, onto the speed and order of the battle line.
Roman military manuals recommend advancing at a jog or sprint, in order to cover the
distance with the enemy as quickly as possible. Only on exceptional occasions would
the advance be done in a slow and steady pace, as the soldiers of Catiline did at the battle of
Pistoria. And almost never was an army stationary, ready to absorb the charge of their
enemy. We can prove this from Caesar’s veteran legionaries at Pharsalus,
who finding it strange that their enemy did not charge them, chose to stop,
reform the line and approach them slowly: “Caesar's soldiers entirely defeated
Pompey's hopes, by their good discipline and experience. For, perceiving the enemy did
not stir, they halted, of their own accord, in the midst of their career; and having
taken a moment's breath, put themselves, a second time, in motion; marched up
in good order, flung their javelins, and then betook themselves to their
swords.” Caesar, Civil War III, 93. The reason Pompey’s men did not counter charge
was because their ranks were abnormally deep and tightly packed for a Roman army, with the purpose
of absorbing the oncoming charge and frightening their enemy. But this was a very rare strategy,
and Caesar’s veterans didn’t fall for it. This quote also nicely proves our next point, that
maintaining straight ranks while charging was near impossible, and even Caesar’s experienced veterans
needed to stop and reform the line. Moreover, in a kilometer-long battlefield, lines would
get fairly disorganized in the charge, with the overall chaos, noise of equipment, and limited
vision due to the dust from thousands of boots, all adding to the equation. This resulted in units
reaching the enemy at different time intervals… Just before the clash, javelins were thrown to
soften up the enemy formation and damage their shields and armor. Not only Romans, but Iberians,
Gauls, Germanians, Britons and Thracians also used some form of javelins in battle, so they
were a common occurrence not only before, but also throughout ancient battles, as
some commanders are known to have died from javelins even several hours after the start of
battle… Experiments carried out with the Roman javelin showed they had an effective range of
around 20 meters, and a charging legionary had, at best, 7 seconds to throw the pilum and
unsheathe his sword before the final clash. Unfortunately, ancient sources never
provide a close up description of Roman battle mechanics. But their
countless recorded battles do give us a set of patterns which we can use
to create a close-up image of battles: Firstly, Roman battles often dragged on for
several hours and even days until one side broke, with casualties from both sides recorded
as surprisingly low, that is until one side broke formation and was routed. In this case,
the defeated side would lose between 30-60% of the whole force in the battle and ensuing rout,
whereas the victorious side rarely suffered more than 5% losses in the entire engagement. Now,
there were exceptions to this rule, like the Pyrrhic victories of the 3rd century BC, but the
vast majority of Roman battles comply with it. Secondly, Roman battles were highly mobile
affairs, with sections of the army either pushing or being pushed back for large distances.
For example, Caesar mentions the Helvetii being pushed back at least 1 mile before they resumed
fierce resistance from their new uphill position. And thirdly, the Romans had a system for replacing
wounded and tired men from the front line, considering it's near impossible for
an individual to fight for more than 12 minutes due to physical and mental
exertion. So how did they do it? And no, they probably didn’t systematically replace
front liners upon the blow of a whistle. The battle line would be too noisy and chaotic for
it, and we have no real evidence for this model… On first glance, these rules of Roman
battles could seem counterintuitive and even contradictory, which is why the true nature
of Roman battles was under constant debate, with all agreeing that these 3 points must
be accounted for in the model. Luckily, the “Dynamic Stand-off theory” has been put
forward to provide a viable solution for recreating the Roman battle experience, and it
is what we will explain throughout this series… Maintaining a Roman army took lots of money,
resources and years of specialized training, but they were crucial investments to protect the
wealth of the Roman elite. Today, the protection of wealth has greatly evolved, with some elites
doing it through investing. Not just into stocks, bonds, or real estate, but more exclusive assets,
luxury commodities and Collectibles, like fine art. These assets historically retain–and even
gain–value during periods of economic downturn, which is why in 2022, while most investments and
investors were having their worst year since the 2008 financial crisis, the art market sale
set all-time high sale records during auction season… Financial experts from Deloitte expect
the global value of art to continue growing to an eye-popping $1 trillion by 2026.. Until
recently, you’d need millions to invest in art, but thanks to our new sponsor, Masterworks, you
can invest in art from legends like Picasso, Banksy, and Monet, all for a fraction of the
piece’s total cost. Thus far, Masterworks has sold over $45 million worth of art, and distributed
the net proceeds to their investors. In fact, all of their sales have delivered positive net
returns, and over 700,000 people have already signed up. As the economy grows more stagnant,
demand grows by the day, so there may be a waitlist… But our subscribers can skip the line
by clicking the link in the description below… Hollywood likes to represent charges
as chaotic and impetuous, with eager soldiers clashing violently with the enemy.
Lines are then broken, order is lost and the full chaos of a battle royale commences. This
may look great on a big screen, but in reality, would never happen because of mere psychological
factors. When faced with an army in front, people don’t just leave the safety of their comrades
next to them to break through the enemy line and surround themselves with enemies. Here, we can
already identify a few that wouldn’t even last the next few seconds, with a blow coming from any
direction. And let’s not forget that every soldier wants to return home in one piece. Furthermore,
if such a thing did happen, the casualties on both sides would have been astronomical,
especially for those in the front, which violates our first rule of there
being low casualties before victory… Hand to hand combat was a traumatic and tentative
affair, where even the most seasoned veterans could break under psychological pressure at any
moment… As cohorts, centuries and maniples closed the last meters with the enemy, not all of them
would have committed to the charge. Some would have lost heart and kept a safe distance to utter
insults and exchange missiles with the enemy, not yet willing to engage in hand to hand
combat. This is also proven by the quote from Pharsalus when units autonomously decided to
halt. The stalemate would continue until one side got the courage to initiate a charge and resume
combat. Officers played a critical role in this, as their leadership skills could persuade hesitant
soldiers to overcome their fear. A notable example is a standard-bearer at the Battle of Pydna who
purposely threw his standard into enemy ranks, in order to motivate his unit to fight on and
retrieve it. While at the battle of Pharsalus, the whole army was led by a single centurion at
the head of 120 brave volunteers… Despite these individual heroes, the vast majority of the army’s
front line would be using more of the shield than the sword, fighting more to survive, rather
than to kill. At any point in time, only a small number of individuals would work up the courage to
throw a stab or bash the enemy with their shield, in the process of which, they would be greatly
exposing themselves to being injured or killed. Biologically, we humans barely changed
from the time of the ancients, and so did our psychology. So World War 2 studies of
US soldiers concluding that 8 out of 10 rifles in firefights were either not fired at all
or fired without aiming due to battle fear, would have also been reflected to some degree
in Roman battles, with only those “2 out of 10” soldiers making the difference. And that’s
despite the Romans placing their best natural fighters in the front... Nineteenth century
officer, Du Picq, who studied ancient battles, puts it nicely as: “Man does not enter battle
to fight, but for victory. He does everything he can to avoid the first and obtain the second”. In
other words, fighting would be avoided as much as possible, but if a section of the army breaks the
enemy in front of them, the entire unit and even those behind them would press on their advantage
with a surge of confidence to kill as many enemies as they can. This overconfidence would then
result in even more panic for the breaking line, as they would offer little resistance when their
instinct of self-preservation took over and spread to the whole army. This phycological phenomena
is very well documented in the battle of Zama: “Consequently the Romans immediately broke
the enemy's line at the first attack; then they pressed on with their shoulders and shield
bosses, steadily advancing as the foe fell back, and making considerable progress as no one offered
resistance. Then, as soon as they saw that the line confronting them had given way, the Roman
rear line also began to press hard from behind, and this gave increased impetus to the
rout of the enemy. On the other side, the second line of Africans and Carthaginians
gave no support at all to the auxiliaries as they gave way; on the contrary, they fell back
themselves for fear that the Romans would cut their way through those of the front line who
offered firm resistance, and reach themselves.” And so, it is the small breaches like
these that result in the panic and withdrawal of entire armies, and
change the course of history…
So far, this battle model very much satisfies
our 1st point, explaining how casualties were surprisingly low during combat, but were
staggering when they turned out decisive… But this model is still fairly inaccurate, as we
have yet to consider our other 2 points in order to create a complete close-up battle model. But
all this will have to be tackled and presented in another video, as this topic turned out
too interesting and far longer than expected, and I refuse to quickly sum it up in one video for
the sake of time. So make sure you are subscribed and have the bell notifications turned on
so you don't miss the next one, which will include the more shocking theories of close
combat and how victory was actually achieved. I would like to thank our loyal Patreons for
helping us to tackle such intriguing video topics. Consider signing up and helping us create
more. I will see you very soon in the next one!
