Top Roman Historian Rates Famous Movie Scenes RESPONSE
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июн 2022
- Use my code METATRON to get $5 off your delicious, healthy Magic Spoon cereal by clicking this link: magicspoon.thld.co/metatron_0722
Link to the original video
• Top Roman Historian Ra...
Link to the video on Roman tattoos
• Did Ancient Romans Use...
Link to the video on Classical Latin pronunciation
• Lōrīca segmentāta legi...
Link to the video on Leather Bracelents
• No MORE Roman Wrist Le...
Link to my Top 10 Myths about Ancient Rome
• Top 10 Myths of Ancien...
Link to my review of the Roman movie the Eagle
• The Eagle - Movie Hist...
#ancientrome #movie #history
How are the ancient Romans represented in movies and films? This is a question that I believe most students of history and specifically the classical period have asked at least once. On this video we get to see what a Roman history expert has to say, and perhaps we'll get to learn a few more things too, as I try to do my best to add extra information as to make the whole experience more fun. Of course nobles ones if you have any questions, feel free to ask me in the comments below, as I always try to read and reply to as many comments as possible. Ancient Roman history is extremely interesting, but it's often misrepresented. Perhaps not as badly as the Medieval period, but still many things are not as they actually were. Through history and proper study, we can know how things actually were and on this video we'll learn a thing or two about the ancient Romans. I hope you like it. 
Игры
Holy moley, I thought the blood groove nonsense had gone away. You really can stap through a carcass and pull the sword out surprisingly easily in my personal experience. A lance can penetrate very deeply and get a little trapped simply because of the twisting angle as you ride past, but biological targets are quite wet and slippery inside...
"quite wet and slippery inside..."
I doubt that the myth will go away. It is spread by people who do not know better. That twist motion has some real life application. It was used with the Fairbairn Sykes fighting knife (which does not have a fuller) and with hunting knives (some of which have fullers). The purpose is to create a more severe wound and allow air to go into the thorax cavity and let the lungs collapse. The blade is left in the wound for a few seconds. Something that might not be a good move in a formation battle.
I think the fuller may be called like that in some places, and it remained that way.
I have a different question , about the Germans in the movie. Wouldn't they be called "Germanians", since the place was Germania, not Germany ?
I would assume if you hit a bone it can get a bit harder to pull out but again, Romans named the sword after a thing that goes in and out of a wet and slippery hole and while they might have been furries I doubt they were that much into knoting.
@@Cdre_Satori I do believe it to have been the Zulu with their iklwa spear, which was named for the sound it made when penetrating someone and when pulling out.
Metatron, for what it's worth, I once read about the making of the movie, Gladiator, is that in striving for historical accuracy, the producers hired 5 historians who were experts in their time periods of Roman history. According to the article, 3 of them quit because of the inaccuracies in the movie and the 2 that remained didn't want their names listed in the end credits of the movie. I can't attest to the accuracy of the article.
What was the point in hiring them if they didn't listen to them then
@@SM853 One of the reasons for not listening to the advice of the experts is that reality can be boring and dramatic license can be exciting. Remember that movies are made not for history but to entertain and make money. There could be other reasons but as I said I can't attest to the accuracy of what I read.
@@SM853 Because it sounds like a good idea at the time but as the movie production progresses, costs increase and the higher ups only care about what looks good enough and what they believe will appeal to the largest crowds. In the end, they're making art, not documentaries.
@@SM853 So they can say they consulted actual historians. It's purely a marketing trick. In this case, it rather backfired
SM853 it's just a checkbox they need to tick in film production. Lindybeige had a rather interesting short video about it IIRC
The comparison between a soldier and a sports fighter is golden. One is trained to kill and the other is how to fight in a specific style and show restraint.
Never thought of it that way.
Gold is softer plus pretty. I can see why it would be made for show.
Historians aren't usually super multi disciplinary either, they don't often understand metallurgy, armed combat or those things. Some anthropologists do and some specialized historians do but the type of historian this guy is is the more, read the texts, the stories has an idea of battles, maybe high level strategy and tactics, people, places, events, maybe culture both material and written etc etc.
I'm an anthropologist who focuses on Osteology. Anthropologists tend to be very specialized which is why we have full teams of various disciplines. Nobody can know everything so having connections is key for research that is outside of your lane.
Story of Socrates. Oracle of Delphi told him he was the wisest man. He tried proving them wrong. Found the most knowledgeable of three different fields a found them fools because they talked of matter in which they knew nothing. I may misquote this but the jist of his findings were I'm the wisest man for I know I know nothing. It's hard only talking about what you know sometimes. Wish more experts would keep it clear what they were experts on. The I'm no expert in is a good caveat to add im a case like this. Talking about the expert in the video be review not Metatron or @MrSaneman. For clearification.
Okay, and? The problem isn't that he's not an expert in every field, the problem is that he's stops to going into detail on those fields in which he's not an expert.
I know a ton about vintage American guitars, but if someone asks me to judge the value of a Jackson or ESP, I'm going to direct them elsewhere.
I am a former field archaeologist (20 years), and can state quite firmly that most archaeologists have a multi disciplinary mindset and skillset. I would regard myself as a historian, draftsman, surveyor, photographer, soil scientist, manual labourer, banksman, manager, team player, and investigator.
With all do respect, would you say that you are an expert in all those fields? You are an expert at using them in an archeological context, but surely you would be cautious about giving advice outside of your field?@@anthonycliftonjones2564
Imagine depriving the enemy of their sword by brilliantly allowing them to stab you.
*Stabs*
"...Oh bother, Reginald, I can't seem to remove my sword from your ribcage."
"Ah, t'was my plan all along! Your sword now belongs to me!"
"By gosh, that's brilliant!"
*Laughs in Scottish*
Anime Samurai feel called out now. The cliche is a swordsman fighting a superior enemy and winning by allowing the superior enemy to inflict a nonfatal wound, which allows the inferior swordsman to kill the superior opponent.
John wick tactics
Tis but a scratch.
I love metatron. “He is a historian so I should learn something from him, but you guys sent me this video and that is a huge red flag. You don’t send me the good stuff…”
@@daegnaxqelil2733 Your mom.
@@daegnaxqelil2733 I'm sure this is a joke.... right?
@@extremel.z.s3140 the fact hez criticize himq?
@@daegnaxqelil2733 No I'm asking you if your reply was a joke
@@extremel.z.s3140 it's his video which is a joke!
Point of clarity, the fuller meant that less metal was required to begin with, rather than metal was removed. It added strength by pushing metal to the sides of the center by a process known as fullering. Awesome video, very funny, well informed.
I am 100% interested in a Latin pronunciation tutorial especially for Roman soldier classes from after the Marion reforms with a short summary on the purpose each of them served on the field.
I always get goosebumps when I hear many youtubers say: Triari-eye, Juli-eye and so on.
I like how this vowel lenght thing also matches the typical 'melody' of speaking Italian. There you also have those distinctly long emphases.
Mind you, over two millennia multiple modes of Latin pronunciation have evolved. Classical Latin is naturally the authentic way when discussing the Romans, but ecclesiastical Latin has its own long tradition and to most Westerners is more familiar. And that's even before we get into national pronunciations, e.g. the Austro-German, the weird English etc.
We have very scant information about vulgar Latin because it wasn't really written down that much. The Latin we get (outside of invectives) is mostly high-falutin dialects that Patricians would use. The accent of the common soldier was probably highly variable considering how far and wide the Republic and Empire stretched. Rafaelo's mother tongue is a direct descendant of Italian Latin so he's familiar with the phonemes and stuff, but there was no standardized pronunciation. British Latin and Syrian Latin probably sounded way different to Iberian Latin, which probably sounded much different to Gaulish Latin which probably sounded much different to Greek Latin (though I think Greeks mostly just stuck with Greek). In any case, we have a decent idea of what Iberian and Italian Latin sounded like largely thanks to their descendants (I believe standard Portugese is actually an attempt at re-Latinizing the language after Reconquista) but we'll probably never know about the accents and pronunciations of Latin in areas where Romance languages aren't spoken any longer.
People say Lorica Segmentata even when their pronunciation is bad because it’s the standard name in English for segmented Roman armour made of iron bands, just like how Anglophones say Rapier with an English accent rather than calling it a needle sword or something. The foreign term has become a name within English so it’s used when discussing the thing it refers to, regardless of one’s knowledge of its language of origin.
Exactly, I was going to say basically the same thing, we aren't treating a lot of these terms as Latin terms, we're treating them like loans. Here in the US we have a habit of pronouncing a lot of (hardly all, but a fair amount) of French personal and place names closer to how they'd be pronounced in modern French, even though they've been in our language for centuries and in many cases, the modern French pronunciation is quite different from the way they were pronounced when we borrowed them. I can't think of any examples offhand though...
Given its not even an original Latin name but a modern one, what version of Latin pronunciation could even be considered correct? Everyone know what the term means, its like criticising of a biologist for not pronouncing the Latin name of an animal "properly".
Excellent Bob. Love Metatron but his Latin pronunciation is heavily tainted by his Italian heritage so you cannot complain when someone else's Latin is tainted by their own native language
@@stephenede-borrett1452 Actually Metatron has made considerable study of both classical and church Latin. He is a language teacher.
@@markhorton3994 Church Latin bears little or no resemblance to how Latin was spoken in Ancient Rome (when it was spoken in Ancient Rome of course!)
The armour not being uniform is definitely a film making decision! It would be far more difficult to film if the armour wasn't uniform. for each take every soldier would have to stand in the exact same place when restarting for a new take. With everyone the same, it would be far easier to reset each time.
And the difference between creating 50 identical suits of armour and 50 unique ones is huge in modern industry, the prop makers would have had a stroke
He's aware of that, but the question is still how accurate it is not if it was efficient for the production to do it, as long as that's the question given to historians it should always be said so, so as to avoid misconceptions like the way Hollywood did.
I'd still wanna see SOMEONE try to go the extra mile, even if they have to chart every individual's position in their respective formations and do it all in three takes or less. That or dare to put in the extra time to get it done *without* rushing, no matter how long it may take.
When Glitchpunk 2077 came out, after more than a DECADE of production, it was buggier than my house after a suspiciously quick visit from the feds.
However despite that, everyone starts eating it up and screaming "shut up and take my money" after a few half assed "fixes" are installed.
If THAT kind of miracle can happen, certainly a Historically Accurate (or as close as feasibly possible) Roman Battle Sequence absolutely CAN display its true glory on the Silver Screen.
The ONLY excuse at this point is that no one actually wants to work *that* hard on a film anymore.
It's all about shoveling out as much fast, edible food as possible while spending only slightly less than a billion dollars. All to make a little back on what they spent, just to do the same thing. All. Over. Again.
Lord of the rings did a pretty good job with that
@@septimus7524 And in a fight scene which usually happens quickly, how many people in the audience would notice that someone was out of place? And they have people hired in all movies to track the position of the actors. That is commonplace. So it wouldn't be all that hard to do.
About the fuller, I didn't even knew there was some weird stories around it, very surprising to me when you know it was just actually made to simply reduce the weight of the blade, as any blacksmith will tell you.
And add rigidity. As an engineer, this is the same principle we use for I beams in constructions (well ][ beams as the I in informatics is missing the extra edges)
@@bertrandronge9019 tbf you also take away mass from beams so they are well, lighter xD
Kurt Voneget is probably to blame for this
Evolutionary biologist in training here: you’re absolutely right that fullers would probably have evolved if it were advantageous in teeth. As far as I am aware, the only widespread hollowing or groove in teeth seen in a classification of animals is fangs in venomous snakes so they can pump (or spit) venom. Some other venomous animals like certain lizards have groove like structures but not as pronounced as a fuller.
Med student here: if you stick a hole in someone's abdomen, that implement is not getting sucked in. If they are standing, stuff will want to exit the abdominal cavity that you don't want coming out. Well, if you intend to kill them, then you do want the stuff to come out. If they are fighting you, stuff will positively fly out if the hole is big enough, and pour out if the hole is bigger still.
Cats do have a little groove along their canines. I am not sure about the purpose but placque accumulates in them so u see them as dark lines
@@jafsterlordbib It is so that blood flows away from and out of the mouth instead of pooling up in it.
@@brandondriver99that doesnt make alot of sense
"The people mining the animals..."
Love it. It just conjures images of someone with a pickaxe out digging for cows.
I can't wait for the new Minecraft DLC: Moo-ncraft
😂
He said "minding", or at least that's what I heard.
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb I heard "mining", which I had to think about for a second, but I'm sure he at least meant to say "minding", if not actually said it with the 'd' sound getting a bit swallowed at the end.
@@FlinnGaidin he said minding his accent is just thick
I have no idea how anyone would believe that a weapon meant to pierce the body would somehow be designed in such a way to be difficult to pull back out, unless it was an arrow. I've never even heard of that myth before. As for the Roman Soldier vs Gladiator scenario in the arena. Well, the movie Gladiator portrays this. Maximus has little trouble against the common Gladiators in the far East of the Empire. But his fight against the veteran Gladiator who if I recall was even retired, but came back to fight Maximus... Maximus does struggle a fair bit. Granted odds were against him with the animals, but still.
When I pierce a piece of meat while cooking, I can pull the knife out very easily. It shouldn't take much to realize how ridiculous this theory is.
I want to say I actually first heard it from Shadiversity. If I’m not mistaken there and totally misremembering, I’m really surprised he would fall for such a ridiculous myth.
Wasn't Maximus also contending with tigers in that battle against the veteran gladiator?
@@damasek219 because it's dead meat. Actually, when you pierce someone with a sword, you need to twist it so the air comes in and it doesn't get stuck
@@marianolorenzo2852 Did you watch the video before scrolling through comments?
6:06 Well, as someone who have a masters degree in history I must point out that for most historians I've met, correct pronunciation of Latin is of secondary importance at best. They care foremost about the ability to read and translate Latin.
I think it's because of Metatron's linguistic background and heritage, as well as general passion and desire for accuracy. As a linguist myself, I am more in line with Metatron's take on this matter. However, that does not mean that our opinion is better or has any "greater" merit to it.
Because they aren't trying to speak Latin, they're speaking English and using what is, in effect, a loanword. Like "sushi", "burrito", "katana", "pepperoni" etc. It's meant to convey meaning to other English speakers, not be understandable to Latin speakers.
@@viysnjor4811 Then why not go all the way and say "banded armor"? Why insist on lorica segmentata?
@@alonsoACR because "banded armor" isn't specific enough. Even saying "roman banded armor" isn't specific enough, and saying "late Imperial Roman banded steel armor" is too much
@@viysnjor4811 It's just "Roman banded armor"
Early, late, republic, or imperial; all of them are Lorica Segmentata
Lorica segmentata is as vague as it gets already.
Or shall we, then, call 19th century German muskets by their name in German? Why would the German name only apply to a specific century?
What I find ironic about Gladiator is that it effectively revitalised the 'Sword and Sandals'/Historical Epic genre, which rather died after The Fall of the Roman Empire - which was pretty much the same story, up to Commodus being killed by the hero in a 'gladiatorial' fight! (AND the original had the gorgeous Sophia Loren)
Absolutely the same story!
When it comes to the mispronunciation of Latin, you've got to remember that the primary method of academic communication is written not spoken. To write lorica segmentata is much easier and clearer than an alternative term like 'Roman-style banded iron armour', so makes more sense when writing. When it comes to speaking about these things, the same terms end up getting used without consideration to the original pronunciation because speaking about the subject is secondary to writing about it.
Dosn't make it any more justified when a "professional" gets it wrong though.
@@gabzsy4924 Yes it does as he is not a language professional rather a historian. As long as people get what he means pronunciation is secondary.
My sister teaches Hebrew at Harvard. Her accent is only used by people not using it as a conversational tool as opposed to prayer language.
To the extent that the groups which use that accent for prayers _don't_ use that accent in vernacular.
@@gabzsy4924 he didn't get it wrong, historians are not the same as linguists and don't go round pronouncing every historical term or name as it was. Do you get upset when historical say Ceaser with the soft C?
@@101Mant yes I do - if I know better. And it make sense too. For example - if you pronounce Caesar with a hard "C" correctly it leads directly why germans name their Emperors "Kaiser" exactly from Caesar, I didn't know and was correctly only in university learning Latin. Ahem writing from Germany.
Honestly, the community of the sword here on youtube should be advisors for historical movies.
I think most historians would give great advice.
@@michaelterrell5061 The historians worth their salt, for sure.
But when looking at hollywood productions, it seems like they hire the most awful historians and military advisors imaginable for every single production.
I'm willing to bet that if a movie crew decided to consult with Raf, Shad, Jason Kingsley and the others and followed their advice, you'd end up with a film that even the most nitpicky viewer would have trouble finding faults with in terms of historical accuracy.
@@michaelterrell5061 My reasoning here is that many typical historians are academics first and foremost. They study the manuscripts and the archeological finds.
The community of the sword in contrast seek to live and breathe history. They don't just want to "look" at history, but try it out in practice (wearing armour, testing weapons, doing HEMA, archery and such).
Even though most of them may be more like enthusiasts than academic scholars, I think their knowledge and experience would translate much better to film.
that would imply that movie makers even want that. they are just looking for a name they can slap on and claim historical accuracy.
@@sevenproxies4255 No offense, but professional historians in general are a good bet for historical accuracy, you tubers aren’t peer reviewed and aren’t professionally trained to be historians, guys like Metatron have backgrounds in linguistics and things like the history of Japan and Rome so he gets a say in these things, but overall it’s like a choice between getting someone who knows things about medicine and makes RUclips videos on it as a consultant vs a doctor trained for years to be able to heal the human body. In other words, while I love guys like Metatron, Shad, Raf, etc, I trust the words of the experts more than them, I hope you understand.
Also as for your second point, I agree. I think it translates to things like sword fighting much better. Seriously if Japanese and Chinese film makers can consult their weapons experts so can the European and American film makers(its what we used to do).
In my position as a a living history interpreter at a museum where I demonstrate 17th c. weapons on an almost daily basis, I have helped to show our staff that both a rapier and a broad sword without fullers thrusts cleanly through and back out of a ham without getting stuck, without needing to twist, etc. I've been hearing this myth since the '70's, almost always from people who have never used an edged weapon of any type. Any good source on the history or construction of swords typically points out that the fuller reduces the weight of the sword while helping it retain strength, like the cross section of an I-beam. As to why the Romans form testudo in those movie situations? Because the director thought it would be cool! Directors often make decisions that contradict what their technical consultant advises, purely for the visual or dramatic impact.
I've started to read a book in German, it is called "Legionär in der Römischen Armee, der ultimative Karriereführer" (Matyszak, Philip), in English perhaps something like "Legionary in the Roman Army, the ultimate career guide". It is written with a lot of Humor and Anekdotes BUT... he also brings up this Gladius Myth, when he comes to the Equipment. It is such a good book and I enjoyed it so much... On the Inside I was about to throw it out of my window... Well I obviously kept it and still have to read the last part of it but WHY? These myths are as sticky as molasses...
Greetings from Germany, to be precise, the former area of the tribe of the Semnonii, later called a part of the Germanica Slavika, finally it was called Brandenburg ;)
Fantastic conclusion. I feel a little bit bad for the historian. He was clearly put in a position where he was expected to perform.
I feel like there are four rules that if people were to constantly train themselves to never forget then it would get rid of most of the misconceptions.
1 just because someone is smart does not mean that they are correct.
2 just because someone is stupid does not mean that they are incorrect.
3 just because something sounds smart does not mean that it is true.
4 just because something sounds stupid does not mean that it is false.
We all need to be aware of our emotional reactions and understand that it can cloud our judgment.
Another rule I would add is:
5) Just because someone has credentials and is considered an "expert," does not mean that they are correct.
6) Just because someone does not have credentials and is not considered an "expert," does not mean that they are incorrect.
This is just an appeal to authority and is logically fallacious.
@@Z45HR4 Yes. Misconceptions can start from 1000 different places but they all have to get shared before they become a problem.
Personally I think every iteration of the rule could be summed up in the statement
“ intelligence is an artificial construct that has no effect on the credibility of any individual statement”
But that takes too long to explain what I’m trying to say. The more specific you are in your statements the less likely you are to be understood
@@Z45HR4 If the person says "trust me because, I am a expert". most of the times they are full of shit.
I remember an old classmate of mine, he was one of those people who were smart and he sounded smart, but couldn’t accept when he was wrong.
I’m a guy who’s smart but I’m not very confident, so people used to try to walk all over me just to find out I knew more than they did.
This guy was convinced Tony was pronounced “tinny” and I just wouldn’t have it, and when I told him that he was wrong he got furious until he saw that I was so sure I was right he had to fold. 🤣 Hell, I even used to correct my English-teachers sometimes, and this a guy couldn’t take my advice without getting angry!
@@Z45HR4 an appeal to an authority is only fallacious if you appeal to a false authority. If I appeal to a biologist for a legal issue that would be an appeal to authority fallacy. If I refer to a lawyer it wouldn’t. This is a common misconception much like the ad hominem fallacy. If I insult you it isn’t an ad hom, it’s just an insult. If I say you’re wrong because of the insult then it’s an ad hominem. “You’re stupid”=insult “you’re wrong because you’re stupid”=ad hominem
22:20 there is a error though: vesuvius didn't look like that at all before the eruption, in fact there is a fresco in Pompeii or Herculaneum which rapresents it an it looks just like a smooth and woody hill, nothing to fear. The Vesuvius took the conical shape we now know exactly during the eruption, this fact changed dramatically its shape
You should see the blown out half cone of Mt. St. Helen's!
Not strictly true, stratovolcanoes cones are formed over many eruptions, mixtures of upward pressure from the rising magma. Lavaflows and pyroclastic flows, this is a process that takes millions of years. Vesuvius has a chunk blown out of its crater, similar to that of St. Helen's because of the eruption. It was the standard cone shape, now it has a bit missing.
@@peterbray5383 Are you sure the missing bit wasn't 'lost' during a subsequent eruption?
@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle There has only been one major eruption subsequent eruptions since AD79, that was a VEI 5 in 1631. It is possible, but the data suggests that the chunk was removed "St. Helen's" style in AD79
@@peterbray5383 Wasn't there one in 1944?
The first place I heard the "twist and withdraw" myth was from an infantry sergeant telling me how to use a bayonet. Even professional soldiers today are prone to perpetuating myths.
Its not exactly a myth however, I have stabbed the blade can get lodged depending on where the strike goes AND how powerful the thrust was.
Then you do need to pull hard and twist to pull it out, granted this will vary between types of weapons
Pretty sure it because twisting opens the wound a bit more than not twisting.
@@mattm8870 surely, but it doesn't help you get the blade out.
Rings of Power furthered this idea too. Galadriel teaches newbies her special elven sword skills saying after you stab an orc then you "twist" and "gut." 😅😂
@@keeperofthedomus7654 a fantasy show talking about killing fantasy creatures
Using terms like Lorica Segmentata or Lorica Hamata, in context of discussing armor or history, are in my experience, even when mispronounced, very helpful to specify the type of armor one is talking about. There are many different styles of mail armor, long and short sleeve shirts, some cover the thighs, others stop at the waist, ect. Where as Lorica Hamata is Lorica Hamata. It is specifically Roman Legionary mail. It's for specificity, not immersion.
You could just call it segmented armor. There is no reason for him to use term from a different language, without explaining it. Its not more specific to just change the language for no reason, but to appear smart.
lorica hamata is chain mail so call it chainmail.
lorica squamata would be scale armor. I wouldnt know if I didnt just googled them.
@@nostalji75 But there's tons of kinds of segmented armor of various varieties, even in "Rome" if one counts the Byzantines, so saying "Roman segmented armor" is not specific enough and "Late Imperial Roman segmented armor" is a lot longer than just saying "lorica segmentata"
This goes for tons of loanwords in English, like why do we call it sushi instead of "Japanese raw fish on rice"? Because its easier and the word is only ever used for that specific thing in English, so it sticks. Japanese does the same thing btw, they will use a native Japanese word for a more general concept, then an English (or German) loanword, pronounced incorrectly, to mean something specific that is usually an import or foreign style.
The thing is it's not meant to be pronounced properly, it doesn't matter that in Latin it would be pronounced one way, the purpose of the term is to communicate to other English speakers, not Latin speakers.
This is just a fundamental aspect of English and Japanese that you will see used everywhere and for centuries, it's not some specific attempt to sound smart or whatever, it's literally how the languages work.
@@viysnjor4811 Yeah and its a bad habit of the language and its user. To be hyperbolic its kinda fascistic, to take loanwords, associate new meaning to it and expect people to understand the same. I literally had people explain my first language to me. "Educating me" a "Zweihänder" is a specific 16 th century great sword. And not what it means in German: A sword wiehlded by two hands.
To say "Sushi" instead "Japanese raw fish on rice" sure is easier, shorter and more precise, because even your translation or definition for sushi is wrong. The word firsh doesn't even exist in the name.
If you want to communicate to English speaker there is absolute no reason to use a foreign language except for aestetic reasons. Its not more precise, and simply more difficult than the english equivalents. Its pretentious to talk latin instead of the perfectly fine direct translations into English. Like Roman segmented armour or chain mail. If I want to talk about Byzantine segmented armour I just say that. You can be a lot more precise and easier to understand by simply using the language you are speaking.
If you use foreign words just to sound fancy, you sound pretentious to me.
There is also a difference to adept some words and sounds from a different language and using them as names or fully implementing them into your language with a new specific meaning. Like if Iam japanese and I give my house or a fictional sword a German name. That doesnt distract or even overwrite its original meaning like I see it happen in the English language plenty of times.
@@nostalji75 ..What? How is it a "bad habit of the language" or "fascistic"..? It's just how it works jfc.
You also entirely missed my point, the use of lorica segmentata in English is AS a loanword, just like sushi or burrito
@@viysnjor4811 No you missed mine. English isn't even your first language. is it? If so do you say silentium instead of silence? Its just silly.
It's my experience that in English people have a tendency to anglicize foreign words in their attempt to classify things. So when the expert says "Lorica Segmentata" in an English pronunciation it's not an attempt to speak Latin but instead it's the anglicized Latin that is used to describe the armor worn by some Roman soldiers. This is also seen in the anglicized ways of saying Katana, Kabuto, Zweihander, and other such things.
Nobody, well almost nobody, goes around saying foreign or historical weapons and armour in an accurate way. Pretty sure the way English people say every Roman, Greek or other ancient weapon is not historically accurate. And this isn't even a historical term but modern one. I get he is a linguist so it probably bugs him but a weird complaint.
@@101Mant It was less a complaint and more a desire to understand from a linguistic point of view so I see no problem there.
People just say things in ways that are more comfortable for them, it's like asking a japanese person to pronounce something in English, the vast majority won't pronounce it perfectly, also some people feel awkward or disingenuous putting on an accent to achieve correct pronunciation
It's because English is pretty unusual in terms of vowel sounds, at least in Europe. Consonants can vary a lot between different languages, but vowel sounds are often very similar, if not identical.
My ultimate pet-peeve is listening to English-speaking history communicators trying to teach/explain an Ancient Greek word and they almost always use the Latin transliteration or anglicization. That's not fucking Greek.
Maximus from the Gladiator is inspired to three historical people:
1) Marcus Nonius Macrinus (as you pointed out already)
2) Narcissus (the slave / wrestler / coach that killed Commodus)
3) Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus (deserves his own video, tbh)
You forgot about Cincinnatus. They added that facet to him as well.
@@svan81 ah yes, giving up great power to go back to your farm to plough your field and plough your slaves... The peak ideal a Roman could strive for
@@svan81when does Maximus become dictator then retire to the countryside? And his boon for saving Rome and relinquishing absolute power was to have the third shittiest city in Ohio named after him
Language is amazing. I live in the North of England, which was the Danelaw as you’re most likely aware. I worked with a Danish colleague, and he would often be able to deduce certain geographical features associated with an area because of its name. The names given to places by the Danes who settled here often describe the area, and they made sense to him, it was very interesting. Amazing video as always, thanks.
The Romans knew that the way to a man's heart was trough his stomach.
Why would you want to try and reach for the heart by stabbing the belly? You'd have to go underneath the ribs for that, very impracticle. A good stab to the belly is lethal anyways.
@@wulfheort8021 missed the joke buddy
@@ManiacallyQuiet can hardly call that a joke, BUDDY. maybe mind the arrogance, online you're very brave of course talking that way, go do that to someone's face in real life, you coward.
My guess is actual historians don't spend much time on armour and weapons unless it's their specific area of speciality, really just minor details compared to people, events, politics and societies. All the sword nerds (myself incldued) care a lot but its a pretty minor thing when looking at history. I've read a lot of history books as I enjoy them and unless it's specifically about arms and armour such details are often barely mentioned.
I never understood why weapons are so overlooked from history :( most of history is fitting and wars..... for peace of land, for religion, because my grandma liked me more than you....and yet it is a great way to get young people to be interested in it.
We had a great bit of luck in Highs School with our history teacher. One of the first things he said to us was:"If you want to know history, start with history weapons. There is a weapon for every time and every weapon will be different in every period because if there is something humans do across ages a lot, it is fighting."
And he was right. We were in Sweden and there was old multipart costal fortress....just by looking at it defences and windows etc I was able to guess the century of those certain parts....and as I found out later, quite correctly.
There's also a strong bias agairt military history in general in the modern community of historians, due to an overemphasis on it by previous generations of historians. Many of today's historians studied under teachers who taught nothing but military and political history and they got sick of it, there's a swing back towards it in the last 20 years or so as the same thing happened in reverse, with a huge glut of social and cultural historians. There's also a generally lower number of experimental historians than research historians, though with this guy saying one of his fields was archeology, he's likely to have at least some field experience, if only at digs rather than practical reconstruction. Professional history is largely about studying texts, both primary and secondary, to expand our understanding of the people of the past, anything more detailed than that is specialty.
Generally yes, but he specifically mentioned he is a roman military historian 31:21 , so he should have known all those details pretty well
@@osek64 most of history is not fighting and wars, its juts often how its taught and what some people focus on. People spent much more time not fighting than fighting. There are people who can tell you about the battles in a period of history but not about what life was actually like for people during that time, what did they do, what did they think or believe, wear, eat, work etc.
Military history also tends to be tied to thr great men approach to history which concentrated on important figures who were often military leaders, but that fell out of favour and more broad social and economic factors are often studied rather than the details of battles and equipment. For example it's important to understand Rome had the resources to equip its troops well, but you don't really need to understand exactly how all their weapons worked when learning history. Likewise learning key battles won or lost without knowing all the details of how.
Personally I do like the weapons and armour and battles, I expect most viewers of this channel do, but its just a small slice of a much bigger picture that some people seriously overemphasise.
@@ksubota Roman history goes on for centuries and its military was completely entwined with its politics. I can totally see someone studying aspects of Roman military for years without learning or needing to know exactly how a gladius wounds someone.
most hisrotically factual movie should be Life of Brian
Another fantastic video. Thank you for the honest (as always) review of this video. I often find that the experts people get for these reviews (they being the various channels that do videos like that) often seem to believe a lot of myths alongside their actual knowledge. I do wonder how much of that is an editor taking too many liberties though. Who knows.
Also, I love the linguistic anecdotes! Language is such a fascinating aspect of culture and I love your insight on it!
The rant about fullers reminds me of the bronze sword that Skalgrim was asked to test. The guy who made it said its probably the best test of a bronze weapon ever done since most people who "test" them are academics who know nothing about the non-theorical use of swords and tools.
Skall is good about testing. Especially rough, practical testing to see how it holds up in use and abuse.
@@AnotherDuck I like his mordhau test, specifically made to shit on non-believers. Yes, he cut his hands, but it's way less than haters say it would.
@@TheKarabanera That test really showed what reality usually is like. Neither camp is entirely correct, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. It works as a technique, but it's not something you'd use if you have better options.
@@AnotherDuck That is a complete and dangerous logical fallacy that the middle ground is correct.
@@carbon1255 It's only a logical fallacy if you think it's the right answer because it is in the middle.
It's not a logical fallacy if it's an observation based on what we've seen, because that's not something that pretends to use logical reasoning. Or at least not in that manner.
It's also not a middle ground fallacy because it doesn't fit the structure of the fallacy. The fallacy is about reaching the best solution in the middle. This isn't about a "best solution" at all, so the fallacy doesn't apply.
As soon as I saw the original video the only thing I could think was, "Ooh, Metatron is not going to like this, hope he gets the last word so I can watch it." :) You're a legend, thank you.
Glad to hear!
Man, you are so freaking smart and knowledgeable, love your channel!
I'm so excited to come across your channels. I'm very interested in this kink of stuff & I want to start learning more.
I first heard the funnel described as a "blood groove" in HS from a history teacher. It was years later from my own reading outside of a school setting that I learned the design was about reducing weight while still keeping strength in the blade. (Like an I-beam used in skyscraper construction.)
yes like an I beam it stops the flexing of the blade caused by compressive loads on the tip of the stabby object whist reducing weight aka longer blade for the same weight thats more ridgid with longer reach which is superior than one without a fuller
Honestly the term "Blood Groove" is the funniest thing in the entire world to me
@@DatBoiOrly One important thing to be careful of here, is that the fuller does not add structural rigidity. It simply is made in a way that maintains much of the rigidity while reducing the weight. Were you to fill in the "empty" space of an I-beam, the resulting solid steel bar would be far stronger, just a lot heavier.
I'd say the reason you'd use a Latin term is to be more specific: if you say banded or segmented armor, one won't have as much of a clear picture in their mind as when you say lorica segmentata, which instantly signifies ROMAN segmented armor.
But then he is discussing, ah, ROMAN soldiers
The Bible is truth.
The key to understanding that is in combining personally reading the Bible with putting the teachings Jesus Christ gave us into action in your own life. Start with forgiveness, parents are easiest, they’ve loved you. That’s a very important step in understanding all this. You have to work though your inner drama and forgive. Also, make sure you at least read three books of the Bible, Genesis Mathew and one you chose yourself.
Jesus Christ is the way truth and life,
@Metatron - I think the real Spartacus showed us how military vs.gladiatorial skills did not cross over. One way the director of Gladiator DID help us to see how military training could be helpful was in the group combat scene, when Maximus implements teamwork skills he would have used in the field, too.
Your rant on the use of the word italy actually reminds me a lot of the same issue regarding germany. Because whilst the Federal Republic of germany or even just the german empire is still quite recent, you can go back a thousand years, look into the sources, maybe the "Annolied" from 1085 and you already find notions of a german language, a german people and a german country (though of course the language has gone through quite the evolution, and back then instead of the modern "deutsch" it would instead use the word diutisc).
I think a lot of people tend to miss that most nation states in europe actually are preceded by a sort of national identity that can reach back hundreds of years.
People completely gloss over that the concept of a German People/Region is what was used as an excuse by some of them to gradually claim the other nations within that sphere, yes. Wars typically involve an attempt to 'legitimize' the action, and one of them is that you're simply taking what's yours.
Obviously more or less speaking the same language creates a similar identity but let's take Italy, a man from venice although speaking the same language more or less as a man from genua I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have identified as both having the same nationality
@@tomz5704 the common people not so much (at least until the 1800s), but the noble people, the literary people and the people who traveled (including Dante, who clearly talked about Italy as a nation) definitely did.
@@tomz5704 Remember Machiavelli wrote his book in the 1500s specifically as a guide to create a unified Italy. To me I think Italy or Germany at this time were a lot like latin america is today, the people identified with their city states and local kingdoms over the region, and they sure didn't all love eachother (see Colombia and Venezuela...) but they still had some notion of a shared cultural identity, and that they had more similarities among eachother than with outside cultures
There was a shared cultural identity among the educated classes of both the Germanic world and Italic world but for the Lords and Serfs it wasn't the case as each Serf identified with its Lord and the Lord with his King.
Detritus is a top tier scientific word! Generally it’s used to describe dead or decaying organic materials
I really enjoyed this video. I gladly sit through your sponsor spots.
Nice video with great argumentations and anecdotes!
"terrible weapon, Gladius hispaniensis"
*laughs in Latin*
*Cries in Gallic*
A genuine answer to a genuine question: Honestly I don't think that it's necessary (or even desirable) to put on a mock-Latin accent when speaking English. Imagine if you were talking about your holiday to France (sorry fRoNs) in English and you said you went to paRee (Paris) and saw the eefell (Eiffel) tower. I mean you'd just sound like a spanner - and you would be a spanner. That's the behaviour of a spanner there. I myself did a degree in Sanskrit, and the word atman should be pronounced with a dental t and the a vowel should not be a schwa but closer to the u vowel in up. Just to take one example. But I don't complain that people pronounce it the English way when they speak English because they're speaking English. And I don't wonder why they use a Sanskrit word if they can't be bothered to learn to pronounce Sanskrit because it's a loanword, and it's used in English as a technical term for something non-English. So a loanword is appropriate, and when languages loan words they modify the pronunciation. The Romans themselves did it all the time. They didn't half butcher the Celtic word they turned into 'Britannia', but hey they were Romans, speaking Latin, so it's fine. You wait till you find out how 'Jesus' was pronounced in Aramaic!!
In the context of talking about the word from the language, it should be pronounced correctly.
no, that's a behavior of knowledgeable person and pronouncing names correctly should be promoted at all levels of society, especially when one claims to be an expert in the field
you wouldn't call a professor of french culture saying Paree instead of Paris a spanner.
@@wilhelmu to be fair, i still would. But maybe that's just me
@@wilhelmu But if you speak English then Paris isn't a French word, it's a loanword. It's the English word for the French city. The variations are even stronger with some words. You wouldn't pronounce Finland as Suomi, because that's another word. The same goes with Paris and Paris, when you are speaking English.
You also pronounce other loan words differently than the original, like angst or auto, or über, or sauna, and so on.
Pronouncing the name of a city the way it's pronounced by the natives and not the people speaking the language you are speaking is just pretentious. How would you pronounce Munich or Cologne?
@@GothamClive You make a fair point about some of the words, but if I saw munich and cologne, I'd pronouns it Munich and Cologne, and I'm pretty sure I'd use a correct pronunciation there as I don't even know how english people mangle these names(and I don't really want to know)
Kinda like I experienced a culture shock of sorts when I learned that Americans pronounce Schwarzenegger as Schuarzenegger and not Schvarzeneger. As for me, I'm not gonna mangle a fine Austrian surname when talking to American no matter what pronunciation he's used to. The only reason why these americans read it like that is because w is read as u in english language, and no one ever told them any better. Mistake repeated 1000 times is still a mistake, even if it becomes a "tradition". At any rate, there is a fine difference between mangling loanwords that functioned in the language for centuries, and mangling names.
I can even agree that for example Germany is a different word from Deutschland. I can also agree that Saber is a different word from Szabla.
But if a word is spelled exactly the same it's not a different word, it's mispronunciation. The various historians who pronounce names of armor and arms wrong don't do it because it's a "tradition" to mispronounce them in English language, they simply don't know any better. They are no different than people who say Arnold's surname wrong.
Man I love these analysations of "experts" and others. You go man, tell truth
I wonder if that guy ever responded.
Greetings from Netherland
I took a lot of courses in Roman-Greek history at the university. Anything military was kind of omissed there and the same goes for medieval or modern history. My final oral exam was frowned upon because I chose the Civil war, the Thirty Years war and the Allied invasion of Italy. The latter was officially changed into the economic history of my country’s food production.
The Bible is truth.
The key to understanding that is in combining personally reading the Bible with putting the teachings Jesus Christ gave us into action in your own life. Start with forgiveness, parents are easiest, they’ve loved you. That’s a very important step in understanding all this. You have to work though your inner drama and forgive. Also, make sure you at least read three books of the Bible, Genesis Mathew and one you chose yourself.
Jesus Christ is the way truth and life,
Interesting since most things I see covering history covers the military aspect of it.
@@jamesmayle3787 "The Bible is Truth"
Sorry no, it's no more truth than any other religious book, it's just the one that you're attached either because you were raised to believe in it or grew up in a culture surrounded by it, regardless of the evidence for its claims or its historical accuracy.
You went to university? And you never learned how to spell the word omitted? Or that there's no such word as "omissed"? Incredible!
Never mess with a Sicilian when historical accuracy is on the line. Edit: also hearing just the weird detritus and peculiar in the Italian version shows just how much Rome affected our Western language.
That historian has fallen victim to one of the classic blunders.
That went very badly for the Sicilian though.
@@jeremypnet You need to be Cary Elwes for this to end badly for Sicilian. And the historian has clearly never played Robin Hood in a parody.
@@daegnaxqelil2733 That's your problem then.
@@Fatherofheroesandheroines yours too.
I remember actually angrily yelling when my fiancée and I watched that nonsense about blood grooves or whatever.
Yeah I did a double take myself.
you were yelling? like you were yelling at the computer screen? have i got that right? there’s medication for what you have.
@@God-mb8wi It's basically the same thing you do just now, only he had his fiance next to him and he could talk to/with her.
God Yes, instead of him ranting about the movie with his fiancee, which he clearly states was there in his comment, he just has a medical condition. Amazing reading comprehension.
@@christiancinnabars1402 read more to me like he was shouting at a youtube video while his fiancee watched. not a very fun time for her, i imagine
This channel is very helpful for some parts of the book series im writing.
So happy you addressed this particular video.
Concerning the fuller: that "specialist" evidently doesn´t know that especially in stabbing swords the fuller was often replaced by a rib. ;-)
Based on the historian, I'm assuming a sword with a double fuller is meant for fighting hemophiliacs
On the subject of pronunciation, for me at least, its largely a result of linguistic inertia. We also mispronounce Caesar all the time (as well as basically all the words English takes from Latin), and, despite knowing how it is supposed to be pronounced, I have to actively remind myself to do it. And if I do, people will be confused by it, because it's not how that word is pronounced in English.
Edit: and while I would absolutely watch a video about how to pronounce a bunch of Latin words, it will do very little about how I actually pronounce them.
Yeah, as a brazilian, when i speak some common english words to non-english speakers, i generally pronounce it like someone with a strong brazilian accent would, so it's easier to understand.
Pronounced Kaiser
@@alexwinter6720 Kai-zar actually.
In the study of Latin and Greek, the British have been lazy with pronunciation. The aim was always to read and to understand, not to speak it... because nobody speaks them any more. To use an Italian, or Greek accent/inflection would be seen as affectation and would be ridiculed.
Metatron is just going to have to continue to be irritated.
@@graceygrumble Actually if you are British you maybe might want to look further into this topic.
In the area of today's British Islands the kowledgeable people, high aristocracy and clergy - later also science "caste" spoke Latin much longer than in the Continental countries. The whole correspondance was in Latin for hundreds of years and yes kings and queens, princes and princesses, priests and "nobles" spoke in Latin with each other. It was much like English is today, if some people meet each other, who speak two totally different languages they most of the time turn to speak English with each other.
And it must be some new trend not to care about the "correct" pronunciation for Latin, because 30 years ago it was a sign that one did not have a "high quality" education... maybe there was an idea not to be elitist anymore and the British just threw away their impressive Latin tradition. 🤷🏻♀️
Weird, I like it that I learnt it at school, it helps with the pronuciation with a lot of languages, very much helps with learning French. 🙂
Brilliantly done, Metatron!
I think it's fine to give him a pass for misidentifying a gladius as a spatha. What he said about the differences in use makes sense and seems to be accurate enough since Metatron didn't comment on it. Anyone can see things wrong on occasion.
Also, I think you can give most of these commentators a pass for not mentioning something since it might just have been cut out of the video. There's usually a lot of stuff that gets cut out for length or because it wasn't interesting enough to the editor.
Detritus we use a lot in the aquarium hobby. It means fish waste and non soluble organics settling out from the water column. Not gonna lie I probably use it almost every day lol.
@Igor Miele that makes sense why we use it the way we do then lol.
The video in this popped in my suggested so I started it, then saw this in the videos under it and was here so fast xD
Welcome!
And here I am again, re-viewing metraton reviwing the review.
Metatron, would you look at the historical accuracy of the film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum? Hilarious film based on Ancient Roman theatrical conventions, particularly comedy ones.
It's literally derived from Plautus' farce "Miles Gloriosus."
@@dougwickstrom9870 I didn’t know that, that’s interesting.
“I, subduer of the weak, oppressor of the meek, degrader of the Greek, destroyer of the Turk, must hurry back to work!”
I sokt expect the slightest bit of historical accuracy from that movie, although I absolutely love it. :-)
Dr Simon Elliott is a capable classicist historian from the books I've read of his. I recommend his Septimius Severus in Scotland: The Northern Campaigns of the First Hammer of the Scots book. It's quite a good overview of Septimius's later military campaigns in Caledonia.
Great video again! I would love to see a video on the proper pronunciation of latin terms. I would be chuffed if that was made. Cheers
37:07 in my eyes thus far you have nothing to apologize for...your credentials are your wisdom of words and videos you put forth...your voice and accent is pleasing to hear...looking forward to another of your videos in truth of times past...
mary j
@Metatron I've been watching your channel since 2013 and just re-joined because I lost my channel, you are the best and you have really educated me over the years, so happy to see you looking so healthy! Thankyou so much for educating people in depth for free.
One thing that a lot of people don’t mention with the Roman cavalry in Gladiator is the fact that their saddles have stirrups when in actuality their Gallic style saddles didn’t have any. Stirrups weren’t present in Europe until around the 6-7th century AD
I understand that the decision to use stirrups was made on health and safety grounds.
@@tonyoliver2750 Yeah, you cannot film a movie with cavalry without stirrups on most western countries.
That was an intentional decision
Pretty sure it was because they couldn’t get insurance without them.
Understandable because safety reasons.
Hopefully future historical filma portraying civilizations that used horses but without stirrups use _stirrups with green paint or green covering_ and CGI'd them out.
This would also apply to other forms of modern health and safety equipment, too.
With the whole Soldier vs Gladiator thing 1 thing to remember is Roman Soldiers were trained to fight in formation and that solid formation was the key to victory, where as to my understanding Gladiators although participated in team fights or in pairs they were more often duellist's fighting 1 v 1 being their speciality.
1 v 1 I'd side with the Gladiator to beat a veteran, however if it's a group of veterans vs a group of gladiators i'd choose the vets
I like your point.
The difference between a marine and a WWE wrestler basically
@@Ballin4Vengeance wwe wrestler are actor and not real fighters while gladiators k ewhow to fight. Not a good comparison
@@idirbouchdoug1567 Wrestlers are supposed to look like they’re fighting while they don’t. Gladiators were supposed to look like they’re fighting to death while they mostly didn’t.
Either way it was mostly an act
@@Ballin4Vengeance Not the same , gladiator actually know how to fight. They are basically an ancient version of an mma fighters + weapons.
They actually know how to beat the shit out of each other and i'm sure they can kill each other if they wanted to (in fact there were cases of deaths) While WWE fighters are just fit people that are basically doing acrobatic moves without actualy hurting each other. and they're doing moves that don' tactually work in an actual fight (a lot of them).
IT's like comparing WWE wrestlers to MMA fighters or actual real pro wrestlers. Not the same.
I love your videos and you being picky. Love the details.
Looks great. I will be torn between watching your Vids and playing it myself
I am a butcher, I use a 14 inch scimitar also known as a breaking knife for all my large cuts when processing carcasses. Never in my life have I had to twist or jerk my knife because it doesn't have a blood groove. That same knife has been used in ending the suffering of an Elk and once again no problems, I'll never understand this myth but I would be curious what caused it since ive heard it too many times to count
I've never heard the myth that fullers were to prevent blades from getting stuck in wounds. What I always heard was that fullers were to prevent blood from spurting onto the attacker.
Here in the comments I read that fullers make the blade more durable because of the not flat shape being resistant to twisting/bending.
Maybe its true dead carcasses are different than something alive
Glad the Metraton finally addresses the issue of standardization. It's something I rarely see mentioned, but level of standardization shown on tv is basically much more recent than medieval or even renaissance.
At the same time, it's some necessary, as it's cheaper to mass produce, and helps with continuity, as if one gets damaged it can be easily replaced.
Considering that Metatron is clearly fluent and an expert in English, as well as Japanese, I am surprised that he seems unfamiliar with the English (and Japanese) propensity towards loanwords. The reason lorica segmentata is mispronounced, is because it's not a Latin word (in this context), but a Latin-derived English loanword used to specifically denote this very specific type of Imperial Roman armor.
It's the same reason we say "sushi" and not "Japanese style raw fish on white sticky rice", or "burrito" and not "Mexican style rolled flatbread with refried beans and beef and Mexican style tomato sauce"
Japanese does this a lot as well, which I assume Metatron would know, though perhaps he just hasn't really thought about it much, but both languages use tons of loanwords which are "mispronounced", but the point of them isn't to be pronounced the exact same way, or even mean the exact same thing as the original word in the original language, but to denote a specific concept in the new language in which it is now a loanword, like "sushi" for English or "arubaito" (derived from Arbeit, German for "work", yet the loanword meaning a very specific type of work) in Japanese.
If you go up to an English speaker and ask if they know who Caesar is, but pronounce it the actual Latin way "kah-eh-sahr", they're at worst not going to understand what you're saying, and at best think you said "kaiser", because in *English* the word, despite its Latin origin, is pronounced "see-zer".
Conversely, if I, an English speaker, go to a Japanese person and ask them for a camera (in Japanese), but pronounce the loanword for camera the same way I pronounce it in English (kam-ruh) they're not going to understand what I'm saying, because despite it being derived from the English word, in Japanese it is pronounced "kah-meh-rah"
Loved it. Good insights.
Get Matt Easton, Shad, and Metatron on a panel together... untouchable 💯
Everyone knows that among the greatest thespians of Ancient Rome was Jous Pescius. Herodotus and Pliny the Elder speak to us about his inimitable performances in such dramas as “Domo Solo”, “Domo Solo II”, “Boni Socii”, and “Cognatus Meus Vinitus”
As a layman I'm just guessing here, but is that "Home Alone", "Home Alone II", "Goodfellas" and "My Cousin Vinnie"?
Herodotus? Ahm... You sure about that?
@@velvetcroc9827 FATHER OF LIES!
Nice.
*Domi solus
Oh heck yeah please make a pronunciation video/series
"You love looking into Roman History"
From the video enclosed of you with a Roman spear, it looks like you "Pilum" up :)
Thanks for another excellent video Metatron, you noble one you!
I have to be honest, in some ways I like the Lorica Segmentata more than many sets of medieval armour.
From a structural integrity sense, I like how the leather straps holding the segments together on the segmentata are riveted to the INSIDE of the armour. But with many kinds of medieval armour, you have a lot of leather straps and cord being tied to the outside.
Yes, I know, "unlikely to get hit" and all that, but in my engineering obsessed eyes it just looks like an exposed weakness. An unlucky hit might cut a cord or a strap and suddenly you may find yourself in a situation where pieces of your armour begins to come loose in the heat of battle.
And this prospect is pretty terrifying.
I see where you are coming from but I tested this, and it took me 7 tries to fully cut a leather strap from a brigantine. I was using a very sharp knife. Now imagine that the opponent wouldn’t stand still, and many would be mounted (good luck reaching the Spaulders)
Ultimately, even if one strap is cut, most armour won’t fall. Medieval armour pieces are pointed, so unless you cut the points, even if you cut the straps, they’ll stay connected. The points are usually protected by mail
All armour has it's drawbacks and perks. If you look at the pinnacle of plate armour you can see how most (not all, but the vast majority) of clasps and straps are hidden behind steel. Behind the steel you can have a layer of mail and a layer of gambison below that. Practically impenetrable, you had to gang bang some knights and stilleto them through slits. So if it was so epic, whats the cons? Try moving freely in that getup. Plate, to a certain degree, was constrictive.
Lorica Segmentata allowed you much greater freedom of movement. It's a brawler's armor, for close combat, a legionary's preferred haunt. The con of the lorica, apart of no arm or leg cover? They tended to allow upthrusts to penetrate from time to time. That being said, if you get close enough to a legionare to get a proper up stab in on him, his gladius is already perforating something of you.
In short, both are perfectly designed for the strategy of their time. Anything else is knit picking in my opinion.
@@PrinceAlhorian I'd say that late medieval plate is definitely superior to Roman armor objectively. A Roman army equipped with plate would surely beat one equipped with Segmentata. In fact, neither Gladius nor Roman spears would be at all effective against infantry in full plate.
@@PrinceAlhorian Yes, but that's the pinnacle right? 😉
Took a couple of hundred years of trial and error to reach that point.
Hehe, imagine going back in time and bringing with you the secret of manufacturing velcro straps. 😁
I think this might be particular offensive because, as far as I know, there's no reason the straps would _have_ to be on the outside, other than maybe some degree of convenience.
Very educational! Thanks.
In my opinion you deserve so many more views, just one of the best RUclipsr's out there!
Commodus when he "fought" as a gladiator would give his opponent weapons made from Lead. To heavy to wield and to blunt to cut. He also would wound them and/or poison them before battle. He was a real piece of work.
Use my code METATRON to get $5 off your delicious, healthy Magic Spoon cereal by clicking this link: magicspoon.thld.co/metatron_0722
Very nice video! about the pronunciation, it happens everywhere, in LatAm we use a lot of english words but we don't pronounce it properly, I think it's like "yeah I know the concept but don't bother to really understand it"
También esta el factor de lo bien que suenan ciertas palabras aunque no sepas pronunciarlas completamente a la perfección. Y la palabras para clasificar el equipamiento, profesiones, rango militar y en general muchos aspectos cotidianos de los romanos, griegos, bizantinos y muchas otras culturas suenan extremadamente bien. Pero creo que la razón de que deba ser enmarcado como incorrecto en este caso es que no estamos hablando de los estándares cotidianos de una conversación con tus amigos sobre historia romana, tu opinión sobre algo o practicando juntos un idioma. Es un profesional al que verán miles o millones de personas pronunciando una palabra relacionada a su enseñanza de forma chapucera a muchos que no han revisado las fuentes o recién comienzan a aprender al respecto. Eso es mediocridad y verla con un estándar aceptable es lo que por ejemplo lleva a presidentes latinoamericanos a hacer discursos patéticos en un supuesto inglés a la cabeza de asambleas oficiales y en vivo para televisión internacional.
That’s ok because you’re not claiming to be an expert. That is the difference many people are missing in the comments. It’s like when a kid asks you to explain gravity. Most people would get it wrong, but it’s close enough for a kid. But if you were a physicist in a lecture hall that simple explanation would be bad.
Great as always. I learn so much, but today was happy to see you comment on something I thought years ago, was wrong. When I saw THE EAGLE, I too thought "why are the soldiers going into Testudo?" (your video at 31:00). In honesty, my opinion was that the director, or advisors to the directing team, were just looking for an excuse to show a cool formation.
Love the joke/paradox on the t-shirt.
I should get one.
26:14 Indeed, in fact, if I’m not mistaken, the Italian peninsula was a senatorial province, and its administrative borders changed frequently during the Roman period, sometimes annexing areas such as the Alpes maritimae or for example Istria under emperor Augustus.
However originally the Latins were only one tribe amongst many italic tribes in the peninsula…
So I’m not sure if later a form of “Italian identity” emerged, particularly during the Republican period, maybe associated with the fact that inhabitants of the peninsula could be granted the Roman citizenship.
It could perhaps be a topic for a future video !
There definitely had to be a strong sense of unity. It wasn't one tribe that went on to conquer Europe but the peninsula long together that fought and defeated the Carthaginians and Greeks.
@@thx1168 I’m not so sure, the Etruscans didn’t have much in commun with the early Latins. Italic tribes were assimilated throughout Rome’s expansion though
@@g.l207 Etruscan, Latins and other Italian tribes were all related as shown in the Villanova civilization.
Italic identity was a thing, it was a thing even before the Roman' unification of the peninsula as shown with the cultural differences italic tribes felt when in comparison to the gallic tribes in the pianura padana upper north. Under the long rule of the Romans the latin tribes of Lazio became the cultural hegemony of the peninsula and basically overwrote much from the other italic tribes as it was to be expected.
From Augustus’ time until Diocletian, Italy was actually considered to be some kind of an extension of the urban territory of Rome (I know the word in Italian, but not in English, sorry, but I think it might translate to “Metropolitan Area of Rome”), it had a special administrative status, although we still don’t know how exactly the Roman state governed Italia.
It’s hard to know what the historian said that the editor chose to cut. I always try to give the experts the benefit of the doubt, but it is interesting to see where their expertise begins and ends.
Agreed , i wouldn't be surprised if the 'expert' sometimes complains how its cut and edited and changed what he was trying to say.
My personal favorites are the ones that give low scores not because something is inaccurate, but because it is accurate in some places but not others and that is dangerous from a learning perspective if they rate it high.
Knowing you majored in language studies, it was pretty interesting hearing about where the divergence between the beast and its meat came from. I was a chef by trade for years, and always wondered about it. If it is any consideration, the person who brought cookery and cheffing out of the peasants trade was the French chef Auguste Escoffier with his book Le Guide Culinaire. When cheffing, my primary inspiration.
Love your passion
23:05 I like how he brought up that "some" I don't know if we can say "a lot" of people evacuated because they knew of the potential eruption. It's a myth that Romans were ignorant about volcanism. Yes, it's true many did believe it was the work of the gods. Yes, it's true that many were ignorant. But it's also true that they were not so naive. Living next to seismic and volcanic regions, humans generally adapt and learn to read the signs pretty quickly.
While they weren't aware of a volcano's mechanism, they are aware of an eruption's effects. The mechanism itself is irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether the eruption is caused by increased geological activity or an angry deity, the effects remain the same. "Our ancestors are ignorant buffoons" is probably amongst the most annoying historical myths, right alongside the "it's a ceremonial item".
@@outis7080 Oh it's not just humans and volcanism, this myth of human naivete goes to all sorts of natural disasters. Like coastal people not knowing how to foresee the signs of tidal waves, tsunamis, or storms...or...continental people not knowing how to foresee a tornado, flood, or fire potential. Humans are a part of the natural world, and the further back we go, the more this mindfulness of nature becomes a matter of survival. But there's this weird modern desire to believe that because of their lack of technology or scientific knowledge base....they just couldn't have been able to perceive or understand the dangers of their environment.
English speakers are really arbitrary on how they pronounce the letter "i" so I think it's a little nitpicky to call him out on "lorica". After all, half the time I hear peope say "eye-talian". And I think armor and weapons are something people just like to overclassify, and I think some of that goes back to Victorian era and later tabletop or video games. They want to say what type of armor in a descriptive way, but at the same time sound authentic or exotic, when in contemporary periods people often would just call it a "sword" or "armor" without a need to specify what kind.
New to the channel , the accent slips into a kind of London twang from time to time
Great to see you back monetised btw 👍👏👏👏
My comment is that although you may know Latin pronunciation from the carved inscriptions- my thought is that to say their an he only one way of saying the same word in the same language is incorrect- e.g. in English the word for the stuff lawns are usually made of can be either ‘grass’ or ‘grahs’ (short a or long ‘ah’) - both are correct, no!?
Great to see the YT issue has been sorted😎
With regards to pronunciation, is it not the most efficient way of describing that kind of armour in English? Sometimes switching pronunciation can break the flow of speech and even come across as pretentious. Perhaps unrelated, but the same could also apply to the many mispronounced anglicisms that now pepper a language like Italian when perfectly good equivalents exist. Great video anyhow!
Dude literally describes himself as a Roman Military Historian (it's toward the end of the video). So all of this SHOULD be in his field of knowledge.
Hey man, I can confirm the sword he uses is a spatha as in several scenes prior to the battle it looks to be longer than the Gladius. His second sword drawn during the battle is likely a Gladius.
great video!
On the tutorial for pronouncing things: I want to see a video doing that for stock Latin phrases (even those non-Roman in origin) like "deus ex machina", "voir dire", "casus belli", "carpe diem" etc. (that one too).
I'm also sure as an Italian speaker you could also explain a lot of "complicated" french word to ... french people :). By the way I really appreciate your vidéo because, regarding the way you speak I can see that you are really keen, I love that!
Not exactly. French is a weird language. Pretty apart as romance languages go. I'd say people who speak romance languages in general can pretty much understand each other's words to a slight degree and be mutually rewarding in discussion.
Videos like this are a great way to show that not every historian knows everything they are talking about, or can notice everything. Plus, because these events are too long ago for anyone to remember, we are discovering new information and some historians can be stuck with old information. Metatron is more up to date and passionate about Roman history so he has an edge over the guy from the video. The historian from the video shows just how easily a historian can fall into myths that have since been clearly debunked, and can stick to what he once knew as truth.
Because of just how long and complex Rome's history is, it's no surprise that many historians can be so wrong at times. Videos like Metatron's are a good way to correct the inaccurate info.
Great video
I think the issue of pronunciation can be understood by this. Ask a dozen or so of your friends to read TLOTR and then ask about character names/places. You will get 5 or more different pronunciations.
Being able to read and write is not the same as being able to properly speak. I know non English speakers who can read and write English as well as any native. But they have serious problems with speaking in English. Unless there is a need or personal interest in the spoken part of the language historical scholars have no reason to be as knowledgeable as a linguist or translator. Thus they pronounce as they would their native language /dialect.
Just my two cents.
TLOTR is fiction, right?
@@japhfo It is but Tolkien was an Old English scholar and wanted to create a saga in English. I think the Rohirrim speak Mercian?