Here’s what battles REALLY looked like | Modeling Roman Combat

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
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!
Info
Channel: Historia Militum
Views: 951,358
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: Gladiator, Battle formation, Testudo, Roman Battle, Roman, Ancient history, Documentary, Battle dynamics, Battle mechanics, Strategy of battle, Battle tactics, Pharsalus, Dyrachium, Munda, Julius Caesar, Roman army, Ancient army, Medieval warfare, Gaugamela, Agincourt, Thermopylae, 300, Spartacus, Art of war, Battle order, Alexia, Roman emperor, Siege of, Deadliest wars in history, Bloodiest battles
Id: _GKLsHwCXx0
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 17min 22sec (1042 seconds)
Published: Mon Jun 12 2023
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.