A big thanks to Roel for joining us once more! And thanks to Ground News for supporting us. Go to ground.news/invicta to understand how conflict influences politics through global and local perspectives. Subscribe for $1/month or get 40% off their unlimited access Vantage plan.
I'm a huge fan of Roel after watching his commentary on Historical Battles on other RUclips videos. Thanks for inviting him over and I hope he'll show up more frequently for next videos.
Introduction of battle management style become possible, when you have competent sub-commanders who lead by example. This way actual person in charge can focus on tactics. We in fact do know that Romans use this method.
Dear Invicta, do You know that not only Hollywood made historical films with great battles? Are You going to make the same mistake as Insider? Where's Waterloo (1970), where's Knights of the Teutonic Order (1960)? Watching experts rate the same five movies over and over again has become boring a long time ago. No upvote this time.
As Roel mentioned, understanding how different cultures used their commanders to manage a specific battle during an exact era, etc. The leader is either fighting up front or simply at the back, managing his lieutenants to conduct the battle, etc. Ex: Thrawn in Star Wars knew the particular styles of each commander inside the rebel resistance/New Republic due to their race & art.
I especially hate the 2nd one. Formations look so cool and cinematic, they should be a main reason to recreate pre-modern battles on film! You could do so much to dramatize the flow of the battle by showing formations moving, colliding, stretching, almost breaking, pulling together and reforming etc. The "just run, scream and then everyone pairs up" style looks like crap and doesn't really tell you anything, it's just unrealistic without a real upside. (Except I guess that it's kind of simple to do.)
I worked on Gladiator, Rome, Troy and Alexander, Alexander was the best job I'd ever had and it paid so fkn well too, it was a joy. Last year I worked on Gladiator 2, you'll see it when you see it, I dont expect great things from it. What did I do, I made all the crest plumes, everyone of them, every plume you see from Brad Pitt's to Colin Farrell's and all the background artists was made by me and my workers. That is our speciality at The Plumery.
The Dutch Ditch man. It all makes sense, our country was made by dikes, ditches and canals (which are just big ditches). And a fun fact his name literally translates to roel 'Bunnydike'. Which is super fitting.
“There is one certain means by which I can be sure never to see my country’s ruin: I will die in the last ditch.” Stadtholder Willem III (aka King of England, Scotland etc.)
The saddest part from Rome is that when you are first introduced to two best characters in the entire series, Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus, they actually made a huge effort on a tactical level to show the Roman linear formations at work. When they went to the bigger scale, all that detail went right out the window.
A lot of shows do this. Early episodes show a lot of attention to things. Take Vikings. A lot of shield walls, etc in the early seasons. Later seasons are just armed mobs charging at each other.
I really liked the opening of Rome with lucius blowing his wistle and shouting commands to keep his men in formation like a centurion might had done. The whole changing the front guy to the rear and the next guy in line fights keeping the rotation going like a war machines fits so nicely with the perception of order and discipline of the roman legion. The drunk pullo fighting on his own and getting pulled back was lol and really sets the scene well.
@@JayzsMr personally I think it's partly laziness on the part of the movie makers. It's much easier to just tell a bunch of guys to go at it however they want than it is to actually portray the flow of battle through maneuver and counter maneuver. It's also likely that they feel like the giant melee is more visually compelling, and since movies are about visual storytelling most movie makers will prefer to go with that option.
@@AlarKemmotarAnd I wonder if it sometimes come down to safety for the actors/stuntmen. Like, why is it that whenever we see a cavalry charge in movies, they always end up hacking at people with swords? No lances? They clearly could do it, but don't for some reason.
Hollywood. There are no battlefield flares, lights and such, any enemy can sneak close to another enemy and find ditches. Hollywood would have you believe that they were all dumb, when the opposite is true. It is estimated that middle ages people for example were about 10pts higher on average than today's people. Draw your own conclusions as to why. Start with "The Bell Curve".
I am so happy the historian appreciated Alexander. That battle scene, combining two historical battles, is greatly underappreciated in its technical authenticity.
Too bad he didn't make a review of all the movie! The battles were so good (for once, the historians were the one given full control, not marketing or the moviemaker wanting lot of badass scene for his trailer and then the whole movie boring. - as you already watched all important scenes in the trailer😅), yet they made the movie so boring with so much useless talking. I remember sleeping a few times until I got woke up before such accurate action scenes😂 But maybe it was accurate too, all the talking for hours.
It's a pity the movie has such a bad rep. it really is one of the best historical movies out there because it's about the actual history. I found all of it fascinating.
HBO Rome -- Oddly, in the very first episode of Season 1, they show a very disciplined battle. The Roman unit is well ordered in files, Vorenus blows a whistle and the front soldiers move to the back, and the next ones step up, and continue the fight. In fact, Titus Pullo gets in serious trouble when he breaks formation, and fights the Gauls independently. Vorenus tries to get control of him, and Pullo strikes him. He is tried, and sentenced to death. That is how the story starts It is very well done. Highly recommend it.
Phillipi was clearly shown as an example for a battle where discipline got out of hand (and as a part of the character relation buildup between Octavian/Augustus and Marc Anthony - the show's grip on history is this kind of highlighting, building around this Forrest Gump character Titus Pullo, it's just not a documentary
I'm glad Dr. Koninendijk rightly pointed out the problem of the Roman soldiers going into a "confused melee" instead of staying in formation, because in the pilot episode of Rome, the soldiers actually STAY in formation, and soldiers (particularly Titus Pullo) get their asses chewed out by their commanders if they break formation. What's more, that episode also shows Centurions blowing whistles every few minutes (about every five to six minutes, according to some Roman historians) to signal for the men at the front of each row in the maniple/cohort to move to the back of his row, and let the soldiers standing directly behind them take their place at the front of the lines/rows, which is how the Roman legion ACTUALLY FOUGHT. So it was really disappointing to see the show depart from that level of accuracy in this particular episode.
The thing is, the Battle of Philippi WAS that chaotic of a mess. Both sides were disorganized with Brutus' men charging without orders but routing a big chunk of Octavian's forces while Antony flanked Cassius' camp and due to the lack of communication, he killed himself despite suffering far less losses.
The thing is, we actually don't know for sure how the roman soldiers fought within the battle line. Although whistles have been found in excavations of roman army camps, there is no written source and also no archeological evidence of the use of whistles on a battlefield. Furthermore we don't know exactly how the roman army cycled through the line. It is evident, that they had to use some sort of swapping, because noone can fight longer than a few minutes straight. The way the pilot episode of Rome depicts it, is therefore just an imagination of the director without a real source backup. Although it is a very plausible depiction, it is in no way "how the roman legion actually fought", as you wrote. Simply, because we don't know it.
To summarize ancient battles, you dig ditches, then prepare your soldiers, dig ditches, then plan the battle formation, and dig more ditches. Before engagements dig even more ditches. Dig ditches before, during, and after the battle to maximize your chance of victory
funsies aside, digging ditches is what we were taught to do, as well, like, all the time. If you're a soldier, and you've just finished your tenth anti tank ditch, and now you're done and have nothing to do? Well done, now start the eleventh... "Schweiß spart Blut", "sweat saves blood", as they say.
The big change they make with the battle of Philippi is that it was actually two battles that took place three weeks between eachother rather than one big decisive engagement that took place over a single day.
@@wedgeantilles8575I somewhat disagree, but I'm personally more lenient when it comes to balance historical authenticity against storytelling and cinematography. Let's also keep in mind that it was only a TV show, long before the times of GoT's monumental success. Overall, Rome Season 1 was significantly better than Season 2. S01 had still been "properly" produced, but since success didn't come as fast as they expected, it was deemed a flop and S02-S05 (I think) were summarized into what we know as Season 2. Then the show was cancelled. Unfortunately, after that decision had already been made and after parts of the set were broken down (some of it even burned down I believe), THAT'S when the series saw sudden enormous success and popularity. But alas, it was too late. For me, I think it was very, very enjoyable to watch, very immersive and enjoyable. Was is historically inaccurate? Did it mash together events and grossly mischaracterize historical figures? Sure. But it was *_good enough_* for people like me to then start looking into the actual history behind the show and put hours upon hours into it. That's probably the best one can expect from a TV series that's completely focused on entertainment.
@@wedgeantilles8575 Please elaborate ? I think they did a good job considering the show was cut from 5 to 2 seasons, they made some choices to streamline the narrative but I can't think of anything particularly outrageous
@@ethienosinsky5186 They never really elaborate, let alone explain how they would have written it any better especially knowing how the writers for Rome were forced to end the show prematurely (as you mentioned). People hating on HBO's Rome don't know history nearly as well as they think they do. Most historians love the show, overall and consider it the best depiction of Roman life of any Hollywood production.
Yes, I like that he understands movies are there to entertain. (dumb things to make it easy to understand in a 2 hour theater movie, and then make another more complex version of 5 hour for those who want the more complex version, where you can act a more accurate version) Especially Hollywood. He helped some movies (or games?) apparently, so he gets that historians like him are just present to give an accurate take on past events (as much as can be proven) and then try to get it accurate on screen, and then, movies maker want massive scenes to impress the theater paying spectators (and later people renting the movie or buying it, buying a DVD or Blu-ray, watching it on Netflix or another platform etc), lot of special effects, a good versus evil easy to understand story (because spectators can't have the brain to understand a complex story where there is no evil versus good. - just like ww1, no evil Germans vs good allies, just a complex system of alliance and countries forced to abide by those or get dishonored and have their words no longer taken as official) so his voice quickly disappear when it comes to 'badass scenes' which can bring money. (you often got most of those scenes in the trailer, then you watch the movie and wonder where is the rest?) Hollywood just want actual historical events (no matter the period, from 300 to Napoléon, to modern battles to future space battles etc), things which really happened, then they make everything right until they just want their big brawl to make sure the spectator get the massive idea that it is historical and really fun to watch (fun or at least impressive due to the number of soldiers on screen (even more if it is scripted for security, with a real trained crew of hundred of actors/stunts rehearsing for months for a scene of less than 5 minutes where no one got hurted)
I'll watch anything with Roel Koninendijk in it. I'll also listen to anything with him in it. And read anything he's written. I think that covers the main senses.
32:37 my understanding is that fancy spear play is how Alexander got his army out of his first sticky situation in the west Balkans. Outnumbered and surrounded by a small force they made a show of coordination that was terrifying enough to make the enemy hesitate long enough for them to cross the river.
I’m no philosopher but I can confirm this also as I have watched a very similar documentary on Alexander and his conquests ( RUclips channel called Kings and Generals )
Moreover, I would argue that directing extras would be quite close to directing actual conscripts on the battlefield, so the weird tricks to help with coordination and make sure everyone knows what they should be doing feel quite realistic.
I actually thought it was going to be Alatriste, even if I'm not sure if it is more accurate than Alexander. Expected the latter, sure, but a list such as this missing the chance to show off that depiction of the Battle of Rocroi?
I remember the fighting in that movie being heavily criticized at the time for being boring. Apparently if it does not look like Braveheart a lot of people find it boring.
@@brunokopte1347dont speak a lick of Spanish but saw Aragorn fighting in the 30 years war and decided it was worth suffering through the subtitles. No regrets, one of my favorite movies now. The sword duels and sapper scene are just 😮💨🤌🏼
The Spartacus (1960) is somewhat a non-argument, since the Third Servile War was post-Marian Reforms, so the manipular/triplex-acies/checkerboard formation has been replaced. Overall, I like this sort of assessment, keeping cinematic spectacle under consideration.
oh my gooness is the Ditch guy!! We LOVE this guy!! I've been digging hundreds of ditches in preparation for his return on the other channel, but omgoodness you got him on the Invicta channel!? Well done Invicta
At 36:53 for whatever reason the Greek word Aulos (Latin Tibia) is consistently mistranslated as "flute". The Aulos was nothing like the instrument we call a "flute" (a sideblown instrument sounded by breath alone). The Aulos was a reed instrument, the grandfather of Mediaeval and Renaissance shawm and great-grandfather of the modern orchestral Oboe. Shawms are still played in the Balkans such as the Zurna, incredibly loud, which would have been necessary on the battlefield. Flutes (had they existed) couldn't have been heard more than a few feet away.
sort of like the purposeful mistranslation of the "virgin" mary from a "young girl" to "virgin". Ya just can't trust some old weird guy who studies ancient languages in a dark room all his life, too much.
Just a request. Could you guys make an animated battle format that shows an accurate construction of how a battle works? I just have a hard time visualizing what it looks like when they fight. What is it looking like when you are part of the shield wall. Too mcuh hollywood stuff mixed in.
Well this what i imagine when iam thinking what it must have been being a soldier in battle. Just imagine youre standing in line with some guys. You're in full armour and you're holding in your left hand a big shield up to your lower jaw. In your right hand, you have a sword that is either placed on top of the shield or is just being pointed toward the enemy with your arm relaxed by the side of your body. Your vision is similar to when you have a hood on so you can see only in front of you and barely some sides the only thing that makes you sure there are comrades beside you are the tips of their shields next to your shield. Then you just regularly in synch with formation walk through no man's land and if you have you throw a javelin on the enemy. In a fight, you are sticking your shield up to the front and hacking with your sword over the shield at the enemy. That's basically all, no fancy swordsmanship, no heroic charge etc. just you exchanging hits with the enemy until your left-hand hurts so much that you can no longer block with the shield and your head is smashed with enemies sword/club or pierced with a spear if you are lucky your helmet may save you a few times but you're basically fighting to your exhaustion and death. That's the reason why vanguard units had crazy death rates as not only did they ate all the missiles but the soldiers couldn't even get replaced as it could potentially destabilize the front line. Also take in account that humans did not changed that much so what you can and would do they probably did. Real fight is just straight barbaric with zero heroism beauty or nobility. Just animals fighting for survival using all means necessary.
My main issue with Alexander's battle of Gaugamela is when they show the Persian infantry blindly charging at the Macedonian phallanx at high speed and literally impalling themselves on the long sarissas. There's even a few seconds in the scene when you see a sarissa penetrating through several bodies at the same time, making a literal human kebab. Which is stupid. Like really stupid. As you well said, those thick pike formations main use was to put pressure and hold the enemy in place, being impenetrable and advancing step by step. One movie that, oddly enough, does a decent job at portraying the initial moments of a clash of irregular infantry against a phallanx(a Greek phallanx in this case), is 300. Only the initial clash though. I'm talking about the steadyness, the enemies faces being centimeters away from each other, the screams and the hoplites pushing against their own shields, hold the line, ankles on the ground. They don't even use their spears yet because the pressure is way too heavy. Of course, their depiction of the Othysmos is still way too absurd and exaggerated. The moment that does it for me is when the entire line of Spartans do a doordinated shield swing and literally manage to push away the entire enemy line just to follow up with a spear thrust to their bellies. Like damn, that is some serious shoulder strength.
At least one oddity here. In Spartacus (1960) you praise the battle preparations of the slaves but then mark the scene down to 2 because it become a melee, which is the same criticism you leveled at every other film here, despite the fact that the slaves make an attempt to break up the Roman formation first with burning logs. Also, from a filmic POV I can't really see how battles can be portrayed with any degree of dramatic urgency in the ways you're describing. A parallel line poking spears at each other is not going to get bums on seats. Also, Plutarch tells us that Spartacus died attempting to reach Crassus after killing two centurions who fell on him together. This to me sounds more like a movie script than most movie scripts, and definitely suggests that the battle did indeed turn into a melee.
he specifically said "stop it before the brawl and it is an 8/10, maybe more, but AFTER THAT 2/10" so it's on the editor for taking his rating of half the scene as the final rating.
From one historian to another, many thanks. As a historian of American colonialism through the civil war, these videos are quite enlightening. I’m not a military scholar so I only scratch the surface when it comes to battle formations and strategy. But there are so many parallels between ancient battles and early colonial battles. I would really like to see a video relating to war infrastructure…focusing on reinforcements, supply chain, feeding and clothing troops, etc.
Regarding retreats from an active front, (at about 20:00), Herodotos says this about the Spartans at Thermopylae: They were skilled warriors against unskilled; and it was among their many feats of arms, that they would turn their backs and feign flight; seeing which, the foreigners would pursue after them with shouting and noise; but when the Lacedaemonians were like to be overtaken they turned upon the foreigners, and so rallying overthrew Persians innumerable; wherein some few of the Spartans themselves were slain. Book 7, p.529 Loeb edition, A.D. Godley translator.
Sounds kind of suspicious re-writting of history....the battle field at Thermopylae is very narrow and there is not much room for 300 Spartans and 2,000 greeks on the hills to run back and forward. Even with the tide out... I've always wanted to go there about 50 yards off shore scuba diving with a metal detector!
@@mutteringmale Herodotus writes very close to the actual events. And while he had a bad reputation amongst many greeks, his account is by far the best of the persian wars. There is zero chance of finding something there scuba diving with a metal detector. Alluvial deposits have moved the coastline multiple km's. There is now about 3km of coastal plain between the mountains and the sea.
About the Romans not being spearmen: They absolutely were. While, yes, the Principes and Hastati (the first and second tiers of legionaries) were armed with pila and gladii, the Triarii (third tier) never gave up their spears. (Incidentally, the very term "hastatus" means "spearman", reflecting the fact that, originally, all Roman legionaries were armed with spears.) Excluding cavalry, auxiliaries and missile troops, 1/5 of the infantrymen of a Roman legion consisted of spearmen.
Not to mention, rome levied recently granted citizens from nearby cities so they may had retained their local traditions for a while. They are in Manga graecia so yeah, they could be armed with spears to save time as they still need to build them if they were to be standardized.
Literally all peoples of all cultures throughout all time were spearmen. Literally every culture used them from the time of the dawn of mankind when we figured out how to sharpen the side of a stick. It is the most effective weapon that humans have ever created and will continue to be so. It's easy, cheap as fuck to make, and takes literally zero skill to use effectively. You can equip trained soldiers, or peasants from the field with them, and you will have some measure of good success. If anyone...ANYONE disputes this, they are no one to listen to. There is a reason that you can find spears on the battlefield of every single battle from ancient times to modernity: they fking work. Even now, sharp points on a stick are effective: wtf do people think bayonets are? it's literally just a spear tip on a gun (stick). When you run out of bullets for a gun, you're kind of screwed unless you use the weapon as a club, which isn't as effective, but still possible as a bludgeoning instrument, but it will damage the gun's components. A Spear? You just sharpen it again with a rock or cut off the bad part and resharpen it.... or just grab another stick with a rock and sharpen it. It's actually insane how dumb people are to not know these things lol. Spears are GOATed for being weapons.
The only two works that Roel highly praised for their ancient historical interpretation were the movies Alexander and Outlaw King. The Battle of Loudon Hill in Outlaw King for Roel was/is the best interpretation of how armies must use "ditches" to utilize works for your own army's advantage against an opponent, whether they are superior, outnumber you, etc
@@user-ur4nl6dq2x true. Roel admitted the show did a decent job with how they started the battle of the Teutoburg forest (mostly the overall costumes and premise setup of the battle) until the director decided that fire was needed during a downpour of rain to separate the formations, which actually didn't happen. Roel stated that the Romans were already in a low morale state due to the worsening conditions and their equipment being compromised. While having the fire lines does look great for entertainment purposes, it presents an unnecessary outcome of where the Romans will fight harder out of the fire lines into the Germanic warriors, and like Sun Tzu once said, "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free." - which does not mean that the enemy is to be allowed to escape, but you are forcing them to fight much harder to either live or die in the scene from the show being presented. The fire line separation strategy also presents pros and cons for the Germanic warriors, given if somehow a Roman segment holds out better and maneuvers around to aid other parts of the column with the fire dividing multiple groups. Hannibal Barca would have agreed with this assessment, seeing how, at Canne, he used the Roman formations of manpower against them by having the legions and the mandibles utterly so close & packed together that their unit cohesion was in much worse shape than what the Barbarian TV show is showing. Roel likely gave the show an 8 out of 10 because it highlighted the differences between the two groups-the sophisticated Romans and the unsophisticated German tribes-and with both groups speaking in their native tongue/language. Roel tends to favor how the cast/actors are dressed properly according to the period rather than how the military tactics are on point at times. Some historians have their niche in some elements of history.
in the 1960 version of Spartacus all battle scenes were filmed on a vast plain outside Madrid. Eight thousand trained troops from the Spanish army were used to double as the Roman infantry.
That's cool! One of the reasons I like the 1993 Chinese version of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the sheer amount of extras from their army is mind-blowing! Battles never looked so massive, CGI is not the same.
My favorite Spartacus story comes from when Kubrick was filming Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick apparently had a few hundred extras sitting out in a hot sun in full battle gear for a few hours while he was up on a crane with different lenses planning the shot. Eventually a few of the extras lost patience and started shouting insults up at him. When an angry Kubrick came down from the crane and demanded to know who shouted everyone kept quiet. Kubrick continued to rant until finally one extra stood up and said, "I'm Spartacus." He was followed by another and then others until Kubrick finally gave up and walked away.
famous ancient battles in history: nothing more than a buch of guys just kind of being told to meet each other in the middle and then when they get there, they're not really quite sure what to do...😂 Seriously - That is probably one of the most enlightening history lessons in my life...
Looking at the clips from the Spartacus tv show, I am kind of taken aback by how tiny all the shields are especially for the Roman scutums since those were quite big (as we see in HBO's Rome).
There was an unfortunate lack of ditches in this commentary. But that was somewhat deliberate as its been stated a ton already by Roel on other videos and that wasn't the focus of the episode.
Roel thought the Spartacus vs. Crassus final battle was good at first until the ladders. The strategy of using ramp ladders to bypass the trench you just made and fight the Romans with a single-file assault of Gladiators over into the Legions defeated the point of creating the trench that divided the two armies. Roel did an episode highlighting that scene further beyond what Invictus presented. Hollywood screwed that part up just for dramatic effect instead of utilizing the ditch efficiently. They only benefit Crassus more and make Spartacus seem like he had forgotten (or make him look like he lost his IQ) from his former experience in the Roman ranks in the Balkans. By that stage in the show, Spartacus was acting similarly to Crixus's rash charge into a situation without the tactical sense of using the ditch to limit the Roman advance. Constructing a defensible ditch that could have forced the Romans and Crassus into narrow killing zones, similar to the Battle of Loudoun for Scotland, is more logical given the manpower and technological disadvantage. The Scots defeated the English by utilizing ditches at specific key points and using the English's heavy armor and strength of cavalry against them in bogged-down terrain to compensate for the limited window of preparing their defenses. Roel recommended that scene in Outlaw King for its historical use of "ditches" when an outnumbered & potentially inferior army faces a larger opponent while finding the best terrain for minimizing the attrition of war.
@@aselliofacchio It was to highlight the last glimmer of Spartacus's military knowledge in the show before the emotion of Crixis & vengeance against Crassus overshadowed his tactical common sense. The show's directors thought that the impossible ditch early on would distract viewers from how Netflix's Spartacus would make the trench irrelevant in the next few scenes when they decided to use ladders to make that "great work" pointless to benefit the gladiators charging into the Roman legions with limited manpower without any unit cohesion or decent formation to counter the Roman's overall manpower. Logically, the real Spartacus, given his experience in the Roman ranks, would have potentially used ditches more efficiently in hard terrain (like swamps or river-like chokepoints to limit the advance of the Romans)
IMHO HBO's Rome wasn't really made to depict large battles, it was all about certain characters and politics. The forest battle in Germania in the very first episode looked and felt more authentic to me. Rome was such a great series which could have gone on for more than the 2 series produced.
I think in one of the insider videos he said that they're used during the bronze age as platforms for archers but got replaced by archers on horses after that period
@@nobody0118 depends on country... we used horse drawn chariots with Maxim machineguns... in 20th century Ukraine. They defeated the russian empire BTW...
One important thing, the armies weren't running into each other. Why would you do that? They walked carefully and tried to stab the guy in front of them. But they didn't leave formation. Only the people at the front were directly fighting.
Wasn't expecting to see The 300 Spartans here. Man, that movie has been largely forgotten and overlooked now. But I still really like it. It's one of my favourite of the old 50's and 60's period epics. Even if the Spartans do fight in a "thin red line". The battle scenes weren't the best, but the overall feel and atmosphere of the movie was great.
Always enjoyed that movie. I was told in High School that the Spartans were carrying their spears wrong. That they attacked from an overhead position not the underhand position shown in the movie.
Maybe, to keep the fusillade of arrows going on, without any delays. One shoots and arrow, moves aside to set up the next arrow, while the fellow archer who is already ready with the arrow drawn...
@@A0A4ful its not a crossbow, grabbing an arrow and pulling it back is literally 1 motion. It takes more time to switch places Also shooting in volleys wasnt really a thing, thats hollywood
@@A0A4ful Nah that's for muskets not for archers. Reloading a bow is faster than moving, it's tanegashimas used by Oda Nobunaga that were so slow, ranked fire became a thing.
I’d say it’s much easier to have an archer get into position, loose off a quiver of arrows and then rotate with another archer behind him as he reloads his quiver. From repeated firing of a 90lb bow, and also how you need to set up for target firing, which essentially is what they are doing in these battles, you want to stay in the same place for as long as possible so you can get your arrows on a target as much as possible.
I grew up digging ditches (and pouring concrete in them) as a child laborer. Ditch Guy is the man who knows the plan. He emphasizes how much you don't want to be stuck in a ditch.
Agree regarding accuracy, there's loads of films (which I have mostly enjoyed) that trade authenticity for spectacular cinematography and ultimately leave me feeling a little disappointed ...and when there is no real need. Two such films (which are otherwise a good watch): - Braveheart (so much wrong with this one) and King (missed the whole Agincourt thing and had me wondering when the real battle was going to start.) PS my wife gets very frustrated with me picking faults with all sorts of films, some historic and a lot involving the physics of things (I'm very likely autistic =-/).
Now please do one on cavalry charges. I always feel like cavalry charges in movies are garbage, but I really don't know for sure. I have no idea if any movie did do a particularly good job of a cavalry charge, but I would sure love to know. I'm particularly interested in this because it seems like all the big important cavalry charges we know were mostly the ones that failed spectacularly, with a few exceptions for the Polish hussars who had several very famous and very successful charges, and yet it seems likely that most cavalry charges, which seemingly have gone largely undocumented, must have been generally successful, otherwise why bother with the extraordinary expense and trouble of raising, training, and maintaining cavalry? So given that cavalry must have been worthwhile to field or they wouldn't have done it, what does the successful cavalry charge look like? Are there *any* movies out there that do a good job depicting it?
Battle of Pelanor Fields, Rohan is CARVING through the orcs, simply just knocking them down and trampling them effortlessly with the weight and force of the horses
@@fergusmccallum7751 Yeah, see, that's an example that strikes me as particularly unrealistic, even if it is exciting. There's a Polish movie about the Siege of Vienna 1683, "The Day of the Siege" , which has the hussars charging down the mountainside, which is correct to the history, but then the actual engagement the follows seems absurdly unrealistic. And not just in the sense that armor doesn't do anything and one hit-one kill and other insane Hollywood tropes like that, but the very tactic itself that is shown doesn't seem right. As best I understand it, the hussars start out in loose formation at distance, and close ranks until at the moment of impact they are nearly stirrup to stirrup, presenting a dangerous mass of lance tips at a concentrated point in the enemy line. Nothing remotely of the sort happens in the movie. It may seem like an exciting cavalry charge to witness on screen, but as soon as you give it even a moment of those, it's really pretty absurd. Hence the question: when do movies ever get cavalry charges correct? If ever?
I'm no expert but as I understand it one of the best uses of cavalry was just having it and not using it, or using it sparingly. The threat of potentially having to fight cavalry puts a lot of strain on people. No one wants to fight a horse, almost certainly not even well trained pikemen with big pointy sticks on account of the fact that killing a horse or its rider doesn't nullify their momentum. Not to mention the presence of enemy cavalry means a rout is going to be much more costly as you really can't outrun a horse.
@@cameronbreeze4029 Cavalry had to be used sparingly and wisely, these were very expensive units. Common battlefield use may only include hitting the exposed flanks, to exploit a gap, or charging a line which has been loosened. Head on charges must be done in a desperate situation. Then the most common use was, as you mentioned, to cut down a retreating enemy, chase them to cause even more casualties. And remember most casualties were caused during a rout, after the formation was broken. Also the psychological effects of facing a cavalry is too an important factor, imagine a 500 kilo horse, with a 70 kilo rider, charging at you at some 50-60 kilometre speed with all the energy of that charge focused on the tip of a lance pointed at you, it's surely going to impale you or send you flying if not properly defended. Even when a cavalry force is armed with a sword the speed will aid in causing massively powerful slashes. Also ... cavalry may disrupt the reformation of units anywhere closer, if your routed units are still in range of cavalry, then the chances are a commander would not stop and regroup nearby. Which is advantageous to drive away an enemy from strategic locations.
I love this video, but honestly, I'm a little sad to sea that you didn't feature the battle at the very beginning of the first season of Rome. I think it does a better job of showing the discipline of the roman troupe. I'd love to see his reaction to that one.
in ROME's defense, it did actually show the proper use of roman troops using formations to their advantage(the first 5 minutes of ep 1 s1), im surprised you didnt include that because its probably the most detailed footage of this
Alexander The Great, my favourite historical movie ever. Saw it the first day it was released on cinemas. Re-watched it multiple times through my life.
21:24 Sorry, have you ever heard of the boar's head formation, this is a formation that was used by the early Germanic peoples where three to five triangles were formed in which the middle
Just to add in that scene right there at 33:14 was the movie's inaccurate use of 4 company-square chilliarchies or thousand-strong battalions (1024 hoplites to be exact). Before the Macedonian reforms at Sittacene, the Macedonian phalanx at that time was a taxies of 6 companies, (1,536 hoplites) divided by three lochai or 512 hoplites. (Curtius Book 5, 43, 2) In the wake of the campaign against the eastern portion of the Achaemenid empire, Alexander had reform the Taxies of pike-armed hoplites into independent thousand-strong Chilliarchies in order to defeat in detail the fortresses, marauding mountain and horse tribes that were scattered all across the vast eastern domain. Furthermore, it is interesting to think about considering the concensus of the Macedonian Art of War, as modern historians would've said it, is that the pike phalanx had to be protected on both sides by the so-called hypaspists and yet historical accounts say otherwise, these thousand-strong battalions were capable of handling on their own.
Yeah that was something I always wondered: if youre standing there with an upright pike doing nothing and an enemy comes from your right, why wouldnt you just turn to your right and lower the pike? Its like how in an old ancient warfare book i have it used roman letters to explain that actually pike phalanxes werent easy to shoot at. Turns out all the pikes sticking out would catch arrows and javelins and stones, hence their lighter armour focused on just the vulnerable points
They were some of the most, if not the most, disciplined soldiers of their time. I would think they could do as you mentioned, flip the flanks to protect themselves. We can look at the tercio’s for some inspiration. Although quite different, the idea was the same as far as the pikemen were concerned. Highly trained volunteer professional soldiers. Tercios could change formations on the dime. No reason the Macedonians couldn’t do this as well. And they had a lot more manpower than the Spanish with competent generals that grew up together or were brought up by Phillip II
@@lobehold2263 i get the feeling the pop culture Phalangite Phalanx is based more on gamified versions that reality. In games they also move slower than much heavier armed and armoured troops, are easy to shoot at and never react to their sides or rear, when contemporary records don't describe them like this. It's like how people think of DnD dexterity rolls when thinking of archery and assume they were weak (when records and olympic and reenactment archers have all proven its great for the back muscles and professional archers would happily fight knights in melee)
I remember reading ancient accounts of Hawaiian warriors. Entire ‘battles’ could be fought without any casualties, basically shouting matches with thrown rocks and insults because rarely was anyone crazy enough to risk the slightest injury in a world without antibiotics!
Iirc Rome had a great scene with the two main characters Pullo and Vorenus operating inside a maniple as they switched men between the front and the backs to keep the slashing at the front going.
In the defense of Rome I would say that first minute of episode 1 you can see a perfect battle formation. When Vorenus whistle the front line goes to the back and the second row moves forward to wreck the chaotic push from the enemies. Just Pulo broke formation end overextended killing many.... Rome 10/10
My nephew was watching some old western and when someone got shot, my nephew piped up with "That looks so fake!!" So I asked him "How many people have you seen who were shot to death? And you do understand, don't you, that it's VERY rare to die instantly from gunshots?" He looked stumped, so I just carried on "So really, you don't know if it's fake, or if it's the most accurate death scene you've ever seen, right?" He kinda laughed then and admitted the point. Modern movies have filled us with such nonsense, that reality sometimes seems fake...
True, I noticed that a lot of gory movies and videogames were touted as exaggerated or unrealistic... have you seen drone footage? We had an invader's butt separated flying outside the tank. Bones get regularly blown off, guts spilled, almost no media shows HOW bloody actual war is, even most violent ones heavily downplay it. I probably seen more muskovite insides by this point than beef cuts.
Few things missing in the Battle of Gaugamela. Parmenion was depicted as leading the phalanx on the left when he actually lead the Thessalian cavalry that held the Persian right wing cavalry. Then the lack of archers and skirmishers on the Macedonian side. But apart from these, and the stupid acting from Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie then this film is definitely a gem.
A big thanks to Roel for joining us once more! And thanks to Ground News for supporting us. Go to ground.news/invicta to understand how conflict influences politics through global and local perspectives. Subscribe for $1/month or get 40% off their unlimited access Vantage plan.
the depiction of persians is highly eurocentric and higly greco centric dare i say highly herodote centric
I was waiting for so long to have "Ditch Man" review HBO's Rome Battle of Philippi.
I'm a huge fan of Roel after watching his commentary on Historical Battles on other RUclips videos. Thanks for inviting him over and I hope he'll show up more frequently for next videos.
Introduction of battle management style become possible, when you have competent sub-commanders who lead by example. This way actual person in charge can focus on tactics. We in fact do know that Romans use this method.
Dear Invicta, do You know that not only Hollywood made historical films with great battles? Are You going to make the same mistake as Insider? Where's Waterloo (1970), where's Knights of the Teutonic Order (1960)? Watching experts rate the same five movies over and over again has become boring a long time ago. No upvote this time.
There are 3 certainties in life. Death, Taxes, and me clicking on a video with The Ditch Guy.
What about advertisements?? Make that 4...😂
@@Gitsmasher No. Ad-Blocker!
@@marvinamann4969 its 5 seconds and you support the content creators, don't be a dick
@@Gitsmasheryoutube Premium.
My attention is valuable n
Ditch-man 😂😂😂
1) Dig ditches for defense.
2) Fight in formation.
3) Do not let archer hold the arrow.
Three most common movie mistakes.
As Roel mentioned, understanding how different cultures used their commanders to manage a specific battle during an exact era, etc. The leader is either fighting up front or simply at the back, managing his lieutenants to conduct the battle, etc. Ex: Thrawn in Star Wars knew the particular styles of each commander inside the rebel resistance/New Republic due to their race & art.
add 4) cavalry blindly charging pikes.
I especially hate the 2nd one. Formations look so cool and cinematic, they should be a main reason to recreate pre-modern battles on film!
You could do so much to dramatize the flow of the battle by showing formations moving, colliding, stretching, almost breaking, pulling together and reforming etc.
The "just run, scream and then everyone pairs up" style looks like crap and doesn't really tell you anything, it's just unrealistic without a real upside.
(Except I guess that it's kind of simple to do.)
Also, the order "fire" instead of "loose", or "shoot" given to archers.
@@Echo1234on that subject... Hollywood's mania for fire arrows...
I worked on Gladiator, Rome, Troy and Alexander, Alexander was the best job I'd ever had and it paid so fkn well too, it was a joy. Last year I worked on Gladiator 2, you'll see it when you see it, I dont expect great things from it.
What did I do, I made all the crest plumes, everyone of them, every plume you see from Brad Pitt's to Colin Farrell's and all the background artists was made by me and my workers. That is our speciality at The Plumery.
Damn!!! really nice work on the costumes i imangine it must have taken a lot of work. Keep it up👍
@@alicebokka9002 Thank you, most kind.
That's so cool!
amazing ❤ good job ❤
You did a great work in Alexander
I have dug so many ditches in anticipation for this man.
But did you burn through the witches and ride in the back of the dragula?
And I prepared a lot of rocks too, you know, they hurt and free.
I think we've found a serial killer's excuse for why he's dug so much in the south 40 on his farm....
The Dutch Ditch man. It all makes sense, our country was made by dikes, ditches and canals (which are just big ditches). And a fun fact his name literally translates to roel 'Bunnydike'. Which is super fitting.
We dutch sure love digging ditches and making dikes 😂
Ditch'n.
Lol I just left a comment about him liking ditches because “dijk” is in his name and sure enough I scroll down and see your comment here.
Roel is the best historian on youtube (commenting on pre-modern age strategy and tactics)
“There is one certain means by which I can be sure never to see my country’s ruin: I will die in the last ditch.”
Stadtholder Willem III (aka King of England, Scotland etc.)
I love this guy. As many a commander from antiquity to the present might have said: "I got 99 problems, but a ditch ain't one."
Unless ofc you were on the losing side of the ditch
"I got 99 problems, and ditches are all of them" - Losing Guy
No ditches? Get stitches!
😂😂😂
Ditches be trippin' 😂😂😂
The saddest part from Rome is that when you are first introduced to two best characters in the entire series, Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus, they actually made a huge effort on a tactical level to show the Roman linear formations at work. When they went to the bigger scale, all that detail went right out the window.
A lot of shows do this. Early episodes show a lot of attention to things. Take Vikings. A lot of shield walls, etc in the early seasons. Later seasons are just armed mobs charging at each other.
@@RandomStuff-he7luwhat is it with this fetish of turning every battle into a mob ? It’s not exiting at all
I really liked the opening of Rome with lucius blowing his wistle and shouting commands to keep his men in formation like a centurion might had done.
The whole changing the front guy to the rear and the next guy in line fights keeping the rotation going like a war machines fits so nicely with the perception of order and discipline of the roman legion.
The drunk pullo fighting on his own and getting pulled back was lol and really sets the scene well.
@@JayzsMr personally I think it's partly laziness on the part of the movie makers. It's much easier to just tell a bunch of guys to go at it however they want than it is to actually portray the flow of battle through maneuver and counter maneuver. It's also likely that they feel like the giant melee is more visually compelling, and since movies are about visual storytelling most movie makers will prefer to go with that option.
@@AlarKemmotarAnd I wonder if it sometimes come down to safety for the actors/stuntmen. Like, why is it that whenever we see a cavalry charge in movies, they always end up hacking at people with swords? No lances? They clearly could do it, but don't for some reason.
"Ah, yes, the ancient technique of ditchception, which is a ditch inside a ditch, nice to see it, as it is often overlooked"
“I have a cunning ditch”
@@euwalkIs it so cunning that you could pile dirt opposite it and call it a mound?
Hollywood. There are no battlefield flares, lights and such, any enemy can sneak close to another enemy and find ditches. Hollywood would have you believe that they were all dumb, when the opposite is true.
It is estimated that middle ages people for example were about 10pts higher on average than today's people. Draw your own conclusions as to why. Start with "The Bell Curve".
Isn't that a ditch on a ditch?
@@curiositycloset2359 similar, that's a fairly common mistake
I am so happy the historian appreciated Alexander. That battle scene, combining two historical battles, is greatly underappreciated in its technical authenticity.
I remember seeing this movie when it came out and I loved the formations. This was after the game Total War: Rome. Great times.
Too bad he didn't make a review of all the movie!
The battles were so good (for once, the historians were the one given full control, not marketing or the moviemaker wanting lot of badass scene for his trailer and then the whole movie boring. - as you already watched all important scenes in the trailer😅), yet they made the movie so boring with so much useless talking. I remember sleeping a few times until I got woke up before such accurate action scenes😂
But maybe it was accurate too, all the talking for hours.
I agree, it's actually the Gaugaissus battle combo. Still the most accurate ancient battle in the history of the cinema.
It's a pity the movie has such a bad rep. it really is one of the best historical movies out there because it's about the actual history. I found all of it fascinating.
Thanks to Robin Lane Fox, they got something as much accurate as they could for Hollywood.
Dr. Koninendijk is by far my favorite critic of movies.
Holy moly, you got Koninendijk on this channel?
He's actually been helping to research and write scripts for many years. He even did some ride along commentary on our AC: Odyssey historical tours
@@InvictaHistoryYet you can't get his name right in the description.
@@doowappable Oh no! A typo! How terrible!
@@Agentcoolguy1Twice, on a name.
@@Agentcoolguy1 typo says more than just it being a typo. it shows the level of care and professionalism.
HBO Rome -- Oddly, in the very first episode of Season 1, they show a very disciplined battle.
The Roman unit is well ordered in files, Vorenus blows a whistle and the front soldiers move to the back,
and the next ones step up, and continue the fight.
In fact, Titus Pullo gets in serious trouble when he breaks formation, and fights the Gauls independently.
Vorenus tries to get control of him, and Pullo strikes him.
He is tried, and sentenced to death.
That is how the story starts
It is very well done.
Highly recommend it.
Phillipi was clearly shown as an example for a battle where discipline got out of hand (and as a part of the character relation buildup between Octavian/Augustus and Marc Anthony - the show's grip on history is this kind of highlighting, building around this Forrest Gump character Titus Pullo, it's just not a documentary
I'll watch literally anything with Dr Konijnendijk in it, honestly
Same here
I'm glad Dr. Koninendijk rightly pointed out the problem of the Roman soldiers going into a "confused melee" instead of staying in formation, because in the pilot episode of Rome, the soldiers actually STAY in formation, and soldiers (particularly Titus Pullo) get their asses chewed out by their commanders if they break formation. What's more, that episode also shows Centurions blowing whistles every few minutes (about every five to six minutes, according to some Roman historians) to signal for the men at the front of each row in the maniple/cohort to move to the back of his row, and let the soldiers standing directly behind them take their place at the front of the lines/rows, which is how the Roman legion ACTUALLY FOUGHT. So it was really disappointing to see the show depart from that level of accuracy in this particular episode.
The thing is, the Battle of Philippi WAS that chaotic of a mess. Both sides were disorganized with Brutus' men charging without orders but routing a big chunk of Octavian's forces while Antony flanked Cassius' camp and due to the lack of communication, he killed himself despite suffering far less losses.
The thing is, we actually don't know for sure how the roman soldiers fought within the battle line. Although whistles have been found in excavations of roman army camps, there is no written source and also no archeological evidence of the use of whistles on a battlefield.
Furthermore we don't know exactly how the roman army cycled through the line. It is evident, that they had to use some sort of swapping, because noone can fight longer than a few minutes straight.
The way the pilot episode of Rome depicts it, is therefore just an imagination of the director without a real source backup. Although it is a very plausible depiction, it is in no way "how the roman legion actually fought", as you wrote. Simply, because we don't know it.
To summarize ancient battles, you dig ditches, then prepare your soldiers, dig ditches, then plan the battle formation, and dig more ditches. Before engagements dig even more ditches. Dig ditches before, during, and after the battle to maximize your chance of victory
You definitely want to dig ditches after the battle
@hrantk2060 Sorry I forgot to emphasize the importance of digging ditches
funsies aside,
digging ditches is what we were taught to do, as well, like, all the time.
If you're a soldier, and you've just finished your tenth anti tank ditch, and now you're done and have nothing to do? Well done, now start the eleventh...
"Schweiß spart Blut", "sweat saves blood", as they say.
WW1 in a nutshell. Get digging!
After the battle, you dig more ditches (graves) for the fallen.
The Ditch Man! He's expertise and knowledge of ancient warfare totally roasted many mainstream war movies. I love him so much!
This guy is awesome! Fantastic to see him on the channel.
We've actually been working with Roel for about 7 years now. But this may indeed be the first time he appears on camera
@@InvictaHistoryget him on more often please!
@@InvictaHistoryplease make more videos with him, please. He's amazing.
@@InvictaHistory make more videos with him if u can lol it is really interesting please
@@InvictaHistory Film him digging a ditch!
Yep, Alexander was a phenomenal movie. It was my first introduction to Alexander the Great and helped kick-start my fascination with ancient history.
The big change they make with the battle of Philippi is that it was actually two battles that took place three weeks between eachother rather than one big decisive engagement that took place over a single day.
@@wedgeantilles8575I somewhat disagree, but I'm personally more lenient when it comes to balance historical authenticity against storytelling and cinematography. Let's also keep in mind that it was only a TV show, long before the times of GoT's monumental success. Overall, Rome Season 1 was significantly better than Season 2. S01 had still been "properly" produced, but since success didn't come as fast as they expected, it was deemed a flop and S02-S05 (I think) were summarized into what we know as Season 2. Then the show was cancelled. Unfortunately, after that decision had already been made and after parts of the set were broken down (some of it even burned down I believe), THAT'S when the series saw sudden enormous success and popularity. But alas, it was too late.
For me, I think it was very, very enjoyable to watch, very immersive and enjoyable. Was is historically inaccurate? Did it mash together events and grossly mischaracterize historical figures? Sure. But it was *_good enough_* for people like me to then start looking into the actual history behind the show and put hours upon hours into it. That's probably the best one can expect from a TV series that's completely focused on entertainment.
@@wedgeantilles8575 Please elaborate ? I think they did a good job considering the show was cut from 5 to 2 seasons, they made some choices to streamline the narrative but I can't think of anything particularly outrageous
@@ethienosinsky5186 They never really elaborate, let alone explain how they would have written it any better especially knowing how the writers for Rome were forced to end the show prematurely (as you mentioned). People hating on HBO's Rome don't know history nearly as well as they think they do. Most historians love the show, overall and consider it the best depiction of Roman life of any Hollywood production.
@@ethienosinsky5186 at Philippi they threw no pila, for example...
Why no pila?
In Kenya waaay past mdinight and i just had to binge on this last one before sleeping! just awesome
Sleep tight and don't let the Mau Mau bite....seriously!
Roel is a great informer, he's never openly antagonistic towards the films tv etc but more of a "just... why?" sort of softer approach
True, I think he is more than generous with his 1-10 scoring too.
I wish so bad I could master this way of speaking myself.
Yes, I like that he understands movies are there to entertain. (dumb things to make it easy to understand in a 2 hour theater movie, and then make another more complex version of 5 hour for those who want the more complex version, where you can act a more accurate version)
Especially Hollywood. He helped some movies (or games?) apparently, so he gets that historians like him are just present to give an accurate take on past events (as much as can be proven) and then try to get it accurate on screen, and then, movies maker want massive scenes to impress the theater paying spectators (and later people renting the movie or buying it, buying a DVD or Blu-ray, watching it on Netflix or another platform etc), lot of special effects, a good versus evil easy to understand story (because spectators can't have the brain to understand a complex story where there is no evil versus good. - just like ww1, no evil Germans vs good allies, just a complex system of alliance and countries forced to abide by those or get dishonored and have their words no longer taken as official) so his voice quickly disappear when it comes to 'badass scenes' which can bring money. (you often got most of those scenes in the trailer, then you watch the movie and wonder where is the rest?)
Hollywood just want actual historical events (no matter the period, from 300 to Napoléon, to modern battles to future space battles etc), things which really happened,
then they make everything right until they just want their big brawl to make sure the spectator get the massive idea that it is historical and really fun to watch (fun or at least impressive due to the number of soldiers on screen (even more if it is scripted for security, with a real trained crew of hundred of actors/stunts rehearsing for months for a scene of less than 5 minutes where no one got hurted)
I'll watch anything with Roel Koninendijk in it. I'll also listen to anything with him in it. And read anything he's written. I think that covers the main senses.
I'll taste anything that Roel has cooked.
The ditch master is finally here. If you haven't seen him then you should go watch his trilogy on digging ditches on Insider
Link please
ruclips.net/video/xPGdOXstSyk/видео.htmlsi=mVvhab5Gse0g22LM
kind of sad that he became famous for the ditches and not for "just throw rocks, they are everywhere and they are free"
@@tommerker8063well I mean, did you dig a ditch?
32:37 my understanding is that fancy spear play is how Alexander got his army out of his first sticky situation in the west Balkans. Outnumbered and surrounded by a small force they made a show of coordination that was terrifying enough to make the enemy hesitate long enough for them to cross the river.
I’m no philosopher but I can confirm this also as I have watched a very similar documentary on Alexander and his conquests ( RUclips channel called Kings and Generals )
Absolutely right!
Moreover, I would argue that directing extras would be quite close to directing actual conscripts on the battlefield, so the weird tricks to help with coordination and make sure everyone knows what they should be doing feel quite realistic.
The Ditch Professor is back
🤣🤣
More ditches win the battles.
I loved it when he said ''it's ditching time'', truly one of the moments of ancient history
Let's be honest. Honestly.
You knew Alexander was gonna be the final boss.
I actually thought it was going to be Alatriste, even if I'm not sure if it is more accurate than Alexander. Expected the latter, sure, but a list such as this missing the chance to show off that depiction of the Battle of Rocroi?
@@brunokopte1347 I agree. The 2 best movies showing history.
-Pour le roi!
- Espagna!
I remember the fighting in that movie being heavily criticized at the time for being boring. Apparently if it does not look like Braveheart a lot of people find it boring.
@@GhostBear3067 People are dumb. That's why Marvel works so much.
@@brunokopte1347dont speak a lick of Spanish but saw Aragorn fighting in the 30 years war and decided it was worth suffering through the subtitles. No regrets, one of my favorite movies now. The sword duels and sapper scene are just 😮💨🤌🏼
The Spartacus (1960) is somewhat a non-argument, since the Third Servile War was post-Marian Reforms, so the manipular/triplex-acies/checkerboard formation has been replaced.
Overall, I like this sort of assessment, keeping cinematic spectacle under consideration.
You're right about the change in Roman formations. But most scholars today don't believe that the "Marian Reforms" actually existed as such.
I learned two things from this guy:
1. I should have at least 14 ditches surrounding my house
2. I will never pronounce Dutch names properly
@@Pan_Blazej to be honest it is not that hard, just train a lil.
@@gerardv.dgalien Nah, I don't even have a house to dig a ditch around. Thanks anyway.
Roel Koninendijk's reviews are my favourite :D
oh my gooness is the Ditch guy!! We LOVE this guy!! I've been digging hundreds of ditches in preparation for his return on the other channel, but omgoodness you got him on the Invicta channel!? Well done Invicta
At 36:53 for whatever reason the Greek word Aulos (Latin Tibia) is consistently mistranslated as "flute". The Aulos was nothing like the instrument we call a "flute" (a sideblown instrument sounded by breath alone). The Aulos was a reed instrument, the grandfather of Mediaeval and Renaissance shawm and great-grandfather of the modern orchestral Oboe. Shawms are still played in the Balkans such as the Zurna, incredibly loud, which would have been necessary on the battlefield. Flutes (had they existed) couldn't have been heard more than a few feet away.
sort of like the purposeful mistranslation of the "virgin" mary from a "young girl" to "virgin". Ya just can't trust some old weird guy who studies ancient languages in a dark room all his life, too much.
Fifes were on the battlefield for centuries.
@@2adamast And war ships.
@@2adamast but were they on the battlefield for a millennia? Different octaves I'd imagine
What really helped battlefield discipline and coordination: colorful uniforms, Unit Standards, and Audible Signals, as well as distributed authority.
This guy is a legend. Love seeing him talk about history. People in the past weren't that different from us, it was mostly common sense what they did.
Just a request. Could you guys make an animated battle format that shows an accurate construction of how a battle works? I just have a hard time visualizing what it looks like when they fight. What is it looking like when you are part of the shield wall. Too mcuh hollywood stuff mixed in.
That was actually the inspiration for our True Size series. So far we have focused on army organizations but do plan to recreate battles
@@InvictaHistory That's amazing. I'm looking forward to it.
Well this what i imagine when iam thinking what it must have been being a soldier in battle. Just imagine youre standing in line with some guys. You're in full armour and you're holding in your left hand a big shield up to your lower jaw. In your right hand, you have a sword that is either placed on top of the shield or is just being pointed toward the enemy with your arm relaxed by the side of your body. Your vision is similar to when you have a hood on so you can see only in front of you and barely some sides the only thing that makes you sure there are comrades beside you are the tips of their shields next to your shield. Then you just regularly in synch with formation walk through no man's land and if you have you throw a javelin on the enemy. In a fight, you are sticking your shield up to the front and hacking with your sword over the shield at the enemy. That's basically all, no fancy swordsmanship, no heroic charge etc. just you exchanging hits with the enemy until your left-hand hurts so much that you can no longer block with the shield and your head is smashed with enemies sword/club or pierced with a spear if you are lucky your helmet may save you a few times but you're basically fighting to your exhaustion and death. That's the reason why vanguard units had crazy death rates as not only did they ate all the missiles but the soldiers couldn't even get replaced as it could potentially destabilize the front line. Also take in account that humans did not changed that much so what you can and would do they probably did. Real fight is just straight barbaric with zero heroism beauty or nobility. Just animals fighting for survival using all means necessary.
The audio at the end of the video around 36:04 is out of sync. Great video, nice to see Alexanders battle getting some love.
Seconded. Thank you for commenting. I thought it was my tv.
I figured, and wondered if I'm crazy or had a stroke.
My main issue with Alexander's battle of Gaugamela is when they show the Persian infantry blindly charging at the Macedonian phallanx at high speed and literally impalling themselves on the long sarissas. There's even a few seconds in the scene when you see a sarissa penetrating through several bodies at the same time, making a literal human kebab. Which is stupid. Like really stupid.
As you well said, those thick pike formations main use was to put pressure and hold the enemy in place, being impenetrable and advancing step by step.
One movie that, oddly enough, does a decent job at portraying the initial moments of a clash of irregular infantry against a phallanx(a Greek phallanx in this case), is 300. Only the initial clash though. I'm talking about the steadyness, the enemies faces being centimeters away from each other, the screams and the hoplites pushing against their own shields, hold the line, ankles on the ground. They don't even use their spears yet because the pressure is way too heavy.
Of course, their depiction of the Othysmos is still way too absurd and exaggerated. The moment that does it for me is when the entire line of Spartans do a doordinated shield swing and literally manage to push away the entire enemy line just to follow up with a spear thrust to their bellies.
Like damn, that is some serious shoulder strength.
As line infantry a few rows deep in a pushing contest, impaling more than one man may happen. And is bound to be mentioned after the fight.
At least one oddity here. In Spartacus (1960) you praise the battle preparations of the slaves but then mark the scene down to 2 because it become a melee, which is the same criticism you leveled at every other film here, despite the fact that the slaves make an attempt to break up the Roman formation first with burning logs. Also, from a filmic POV I can't really see how battles can be portrayed with any degree of dramatic urgency in the ways you're describing. A parallel line poking spears at each other is not going to get bums on seats. Also, Plutarch tells us that Spartacus died attempting to reach Crassus after killing two centurions who fell on him together. This to me sounds more like a movie script than most movie scripts, and definitely suggests that the battle did indeed turn into a melee.
he specifically said "stop it before the brawl and it is an 8/10, maybe more, but AFTER THAT 2/10" so it's on the editor for taking his rating of half the scene as the final rating.
From one historian to another, many thanks. As a historian of American colonialism through the civil war, these videos are quite enlightening. I’m not a military scholar so I only scratch the surface when it comes to battle formations and strategy. But there are so many parallels between ancient battles and early colonial battles. I would really like to see a video relating to war infrastructure…focusing on reinforcements, supply chain, feeding and clothing troops, etc.
Regarding retreats from an active front, (at about 20:00), Herodotos says this about the Spartans at Thermopylae: They were skilled warriors against unskilled; and it was among their many feats of arms, that they would turn their backs and feign flight; seeing which, the foreigners would pursue after them with shouting and noise; but when the Lacedaemonians were like to be overtaken they turned upon the foreigners, and so rallying overthrew Persians innumerable; wherein some few of the Spartans themselves were slain. Book 7, p.529 Loeb edition, A.D. Godley translator.
Genghis Khan would be proud.
Sounds kind of suspicious re-writting of history....the battle field at Thermopylae is very narrow and there is not much room for 300 Spartans and 2,000 greeks on the hills to run back and forward. Even with the tide out...
I've always wanted to go there about 50 yards off shore scuba diving with a metal detector!
@@mutteringmale Herodotus writes very close to the actual events. And while he had a bad reputation amongst many greeks, his account is by far the best of the persian wars.
There is zero chance of finding something there scuba diving with a metal detector. Alluvial deposits have moved the coastline multiple km's. There is now about 3km of coastal plain between the mountains and the sea.
Roel’s movie accuracy videos are the best videos on RUclips.
About the Romans not being spearmen:
They absolutely were. While, yes, the Principes and Hastati (the first and second tiers of legionaries) were armed with pila and gladii, the Triarii (third tier) never gave up their spears. (Incidentally, the very term "hastatus" means "spearman", reflecting the fact that, originally, all Roman legionaries were armed with spears.)
Excluding cavalry, auxiliaries and missile troops, 1/5 of the infantrymen of a Roman legion consisted of spearmen.
Not to mention, rome levied recently granted citizens from nearby cities so they may had retained their local traditions for a while. They are in Manga graecia so yeah, they could be armed with spears to save time as they still need to build them if they were to be standardized.
Literally all peoples of all cultures throughout all time were spearmen. Literally every culture used them from the time of the dawn of mankind when we figured out how to sharpen the side of a stick. It is the most effective weapon that humans have ever created and will continue to be so. It's easy, cheap as fuck to make, and takes literally zero skill to use effectively. You can equip trained soldiers, or peasants from the field with them, and you will have some measure of good success. If anyone...ANYONE disputes this, they are no one to listen to. There is a reason that you can find spears on the battlefield of every single battle from ancient times to modernity: they fking work.
Even now, sharp points on a stick are effective: wtf do people think bayonets are? it's literally just a spear tip on a gun (stick). When you run out of bullets for a gun, you're kind of screwed unless you use the weapon as a club, which isn't as effective, but still possible as a bludgeoning instrument, but it will damage the gun's components. A Spear? You just sharpen it again with a rock or cut off the bad part and resharpen it.... or just grab another stick with a rock and sharpen it.
It's actually insane how dumb people are to not know these things lol. Spears are GOATed for being weapons.
I love this guy. It is genuinely great that you don’t cut the video down too much. Could watch this all day. Amazing video. ❤
I love Roel's videos. I could listen to him for hours.
Dr. Konijnendijk seems to have a lot of fun doing these videos. And I'm here for it!
The only two works that Roel highly praised for their ancient historical interpretation were the movies Alexander and Outlaw King. The Battle of Loudon Hill in Outlaw King for Roel was/is the best interpretation of how armies must use "ditches" to utilize works for your own army's advantage against an opponent, whether they are superior, outnumber you, etc
*and Barbarians TV show
@@user-ur4nl6dq2x true. Roel admitted the show did a decent job with how they started the battle of the Teutoburg forest (mostly the overall costumes and premise setup of the battle) until the director decided that fire was needed during a downpour of rain to separate the formations, which actually didn't happen. Roel stated that the Romans were already in a low morale state due to the worsening conditions and their equipment being compromised.
While having the fire lines does look great for entertainment purposes, it presents an unnecessary outcome of where the Romans will fight harder out of the fire lines into the Germanic warriors, and like Sun Tzu once said, "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free." - which does not mean that the enemy is to be allowed to escape, but you are forcing them to fight much harder to either live or die in the scene from the show being presented.
The fire line separation strategy also presents pros and cons for the Germanic warriors, given if somehow a Roman segment holds out better and maneuvers around to aid other parts of the column with the fire dividing multiple groups. Hannibal Barca would have agreed with this assessment, seeing how, at Canne, he used the Roman formations of manpower against them by having the legions and the mandibles utterly so close & packed together that their unit cohesion was in much worse shape than what the Barbarian TV show is showing.
Roel likely gave the show an 8 out of 10 because it highlighted the differences between the two groups-the sophisticated Romans and the unsophisticated German tribes-and with both groups speaking in their native tongue/language. Roel tends to favor how the cast/actors are dressed properly according to the period rather than how the military tactics are on point at times. Some historians have their niche in some elements of history.
What if y'all did an "Expert reacts to in game battle recreations" or something similar. Love the content!
in the 1960 version of Spartacus all battle scenes were filmed on a vast plain outside Madrid. Eight thousand trained troops from the Spanish army were used to double as the Roman infantry.
That's cool! One of the reasons I like the 1993 Chinese version of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the sheer amount of extras from their army is mind-blowing! Battles never looked so massive, CGI is not the same.
Hollywood: The army will approach in an impressive formation then suddenly switch to pub fight mode!
My favorite Spartacus story comes from when Kubrick was filming Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick apparently had a few hundred extras sitting out in a hot sun in full battle gear for a few hours while he was up on a crane with different lenses planning the shot. Eventually a few of the extras lost patience and started shouting insults up at him. When an angry Kubrick came down from the crane and demanded to know who shouted everyone kept quiet. Kubrick continued to rant until finally one extra stood up and said, "I'm Spartacus." He was followed by another and then others until Kubrick finally gave up and walked away.
Alexander is a fantastic movie for everyone who is interested in Alexander. Every single piece there can be traced back to a well known anecdote.
famous ancient battles in history: nothing more than a buch of guys just kind of being told to meet each other in the middle and then when they get there, they're not really quite sure what to do...😂
Seriously - That is probably one of the most enlightening history lessons in my life...
Looking at the clips from the Spartacus tv show, I am kind of taken aback by how tiny all the shields are especially for the Roman scutums since those were quite big (as we see in HBO's Rome).
Thank you for this. Roel Konijnendijk is amazing. His explanations are great!
Absolutely. He's a legend.
"Mama always said, life is like a ditch"
- Roel Koninendijk, presumably
That scene in the Spartacus tv show had a really nice deep ditch and you didn’t even show it to him and let him comment on it lol.
There was an unfortunate lack of ditches in this commentary. But that was somewhat deliberate as its been stated a ton already by Roel on other videos and that wasn't the focus of the episode.
@InvictaHistory Bring him back!!!Bring him back!!!!
Seriously though, he's great, please bring g him back.
Except that massive ditch made absolutely NO SENSE. It was waaay too big. Impossible to build and to hide.
Roel thought the Spartacus vs. Crassus final battle was good at first until the ladders. The strategy of using ramp ladders to bypass the trench you just made and fight the Romans with a single-file assault of Gladiators over into the Legions defeated the point of creating the trench that divided the two armies. Roel did an episode highlighting that scene further beyond what Invictus presented.
Hollywood screwed that part up just for dramatic effect instead of utilizing the ditch efficiently. They only benefit Crassus more and make Spartacus seem like he had forgotten (or make him look like he lost his IQ) from his former experience in the Roman ranks in the Balkans. By that stage in the show, Spartacus was acting similarly to Crixus's rash charge into a situation without the tactical sense of using the ditch to limit the Roman advance.
Constructing a defensible ditch that could have forced the Romans and Crassus into narrow killing zones, similar to the Battle of Loudoun for Scotland, is more logical given the manpower and technological disadvantage. The Scots defeated the English by utilizing ditches at specific key points and using the English's heavy armor and strength of cavalry against them in bogged-down terrain to compensate for the limited window of preparing their defenses.
Roel recommended that scene in Outlaw King for its historical use of "ditches" when an outnumbered & potentially inferior army faces a larger opponent while finding the best terrain for minimizing the attrition of war.
@@aselliofacchio It was to highlight the last glimmer of Spartacus's military knowledge in the show before the emotion of Crixis & vengeance against Crassus overshadowed his tactical common sense.
The show's directors thought that the impossible ditch early on would distract viewers from how Netflix's Spartacus would make the trench irrelevant in the next few scenes when they decided to use ladders to make that "great work" pointless to benefit the gladiators charging into the Roman legions with limited manpower without any unit cohesion or decent formation to counter the Roman's overall manpower.
Logically, the real Spartacus, given his experience in the Roman ranks, would have potentially used ditches more efficiently in hard terrain (like swamps or river-like chokepoints to limit the advance of the Romans)
IMHO HBO's Rome wasn't really made to depict large battles, it was all about certain characters and politics. The forest battle in Germania in the very first episode looked and felt more authentic to me. Rome was such a great series which could have gone on for more than the 2 series produced.
A career in the highest echelons of academia to be globally known as “the ditch guy”😂
But you HAVE heard of him
Amazing video honestly, always great to hear from an expert. I'd love to see more of this for other movies or time periods.
I'd love to see a video on chariots. How they were really used, how effective they were, and who used them best.
I think in one of the insider videos he said that they're used during the bronze age as platforms for archers but got replaced by archers on horses after that period
@@nobody0118 depends on country... we used horse drawn chariots with Maxim machineguns... in 20th century Ukraine. They defeated the russian empire BTW...
@@KasumiRINA oh yeah I was just remembering what he himself said
One important thing, the armies weren't running into each other. Why would you do that? They walked carefully and tried to stab the guy in front of them. But they didn't leave formation. Only the people at the front were directly fighting.
Yeeeesss, Dr. Roel is on again! I love listening to him and the meme name of "the Ditch guy" is so well earned. ❤
Wasn't expecting to see The 300 Spartans here. Man, that movie has been largely forgotten and overlooked now. But I still really like it. It's one of my favourite of the old 50's and 60's period epics. Even if the Spartans do fight in a "thin red line". The battle scenes weren't the best, but the overall feel and atmosphere of the movie was great.
Always enjoyed that movie. I was told in High School that the Spartans were carrying their spears wrong. That they attacked from an overhead position not the underhand position shown in the movie.
The archers on the wall trading places after shooting was so ridiculous to look at.
Why would you do that, just keep shooting 😂
Maybe, to keep the fusillade of arrows going on, without any delays.
One shoots and arrow, moves aside to set up the next arrow, while the fellow archer who is already ready with the arrow drawn...
@@A0A4ful its not a crossbow, grabbing an arrow and pulling it back is literally 1 motion. It takes more time to switch places
Also shooting in volleys wasnt really a thing, thats hollywood
@@A0A4ful Nah that's for muskets not for archers. Reloading a bow is faster than moving, it's tanegashimas used by Oda Nobunaga that were so slow, ranked fire became a thing.
I’d say it’s much easier to have an archer get into position, loose off a quiver of arrows and then rotate with another archer behind him as he reloads his quiver.
From repeated firing of a 90lb bow, and also how you need to set up for target firing, which essentially is what they are doing in these battles, you want to stay in the same place for as long as possible so you can get your arrows on a target as much as possible.
I grew up digging ditches (and pouring concrete in them) as a child laborer.
Ditch Guy is the man who knows the plan. He emphasizes how much you don't want to be stuck in a ditch.
Agree regarding accuracy, there's loads of films (which I have mostly enjoyed) that trade authenticity for spectacular cinematography and ultimately leave me feeling a little disappointed ...and when there is no real need. Two such films (which are otherwise a good watch): - Braveheart (so much wrong with this one) and King (missed the whole Agincourt thing and had me wondering when the real battle was going to start.) PS my wife gets very frustrated with me picking faults with all sorts of films, some historic and a lot involving the physics of things (I'm very likely autistic =-/).
Hollywood: *puts 100s of millions of dollars into massive movie productions with epic battle scenes*
Roel: "no ditches, 2/10"
🤣🤣🤣
Absolutely love this historians analysis, Great content
Now please do one on cavalry charges. I always feel like cavalry charges in movies are garbage, but I really don't know for sure. I have no idea if any movie did do a particularly good job of a cavalry charge, but I would sure love to know.
I'm particularly interested in this because it seems like all the big important cavalry charges we know were mostly the ones that failed spectacularly, with a few exceptions for the Polish hussars who had several very famous and very successful charges, and yet it seems likely that most cavalry charges, which seemingly have gone largely undocumented, must have been generally successful, otherwise why bother with the extraordinary expense and trouble of raising, training, and maintaining cavalry? So given that cavalry must have been worthwhile to field or they wouldn't have done it, what does the successful cavalry charge look like? Are there *any* movies out there that do a good job depicting it?
Battle of Pelanor Fields, Rohan is CARVING through the orcs, simply just knocking them down and trampling them effortlessly with the weight and force of the horses
@@fergusmccallum7751 Yeah, see, that's an example that strikes me as particularly unrealistic, even if it is exciting.
There's a Polish movie about the Siege of Vienna 1683, "The Day of the Siege" , which has the hussars charging down the mountainside, which is correct to the history, but then the actual engagement the follows seems absurdly unrealistic. And not just in the sense that armor doesn't do anything and one hit-one kill and other insane Hollywood tropes like that, but the very tactic itself that is shown doesn't seem right. As best I understand it, the hussars start out in loose formation at distance, and close ranks until at the moment of impact they are nearly stirrup to stirrup, presenting a dangerous mass of lance tips at a concentrated point in the enemy line. Nothing remotely of the sort happens in the movie. It may seem like an exciting cavalry charge to witness on screen, but as soon as you give it even a moment of those, it's really pretty absurd.
Hence the question: when do movies ever get cavalry charges correct? If ever?
I guess I'm meaning it illustrates how devastating cavalry charges can be simply with the horses alone in a panicked mass of people.
I'm no expert but as I understand it one of the best uses of cavalry was just having it and not using it, or using it sparingly. The threat of potentially having to fight cavalry puts a lot of strain on people. No one wants to fight a horse, almost certainly not even well trained pikemen with big pointy sticks on account of the fact that killing a horse or its rider doesn't nullify their momentum. Not to mention the presence of enemy cavalry means a rout is going to be much more costly as you really can't outrun a horse.
@@cameronbreeze4029 Cavalry had to be used sparingly and wisely, these were very expensive units. Common battlefield use may only include hitting the exposed flanks, to exploit a gap, or charging a line which has been loosened. Head on charges must be done in a desperate situation. Then the most common use was, as you mentioned, to cut down a retreating enemy, chase them to cause even more casualties. And remember most casualties were caused during a rout, after the formation was broken. Also the psychological effects of facing a cavalry is too an important factor, imagine a 500 kilo horse, with a 70 kilo rider, charging at you at some 50-60 kilometre speed with all the energy of that charge focused on the tip of a lance pointed at you, it's surely going to impale you or send you flying if not properly defended. Even when a cavalry force is armed with a sword the speed will aid in causing massively powerful slashes.
Also ... cavalry may disrupt the reformation of units anywhere closer, if your routed units are still in range of cavalry, then the chances are a commander would not stop and regroup nearby. Which is advantageous to drive away an enemy from strategic locations.
More history channels need commentary by Dr Roel Konijnendijk. I'd listen to this man read the ingredient list on a cereal box if I could.
YES!!!!! Roel returns!!!!!
I love this video, but honestly, I'm a little sad to sea that you didn't feature the battle at the very beginning of the first season of Rome. I think it does a better job of showing the discipline of the roman troupe. I'd love to see his reaction to that one.
in ROME's defense, it did actually show the proper use of roman troops using formations to their advantage(the first 5 minutes of ep 1 s1), im surprised you didnt include that because its probably the most detailed footage of this
Alexander The Great, my favourite historical movie ever. Saw it the first day it was released on cinemas. Re-watched it multiple times through my life.
I got 99 problems but a ditch ain't one!
21:24 Sorry, have you ever heard of the boar's head formation, this is a formation that was used by the early Germanic peoples where three to five triangles were formed in which the middle
Just to add in that scene right there at 33:14 was the movie's inaccurate use of 4 company-square chilliarchies or thousand-strong battalions (1024 hoplites to be exact). Before the Macedonian reforms at Sittacene, the Macedonian phalanx at that time was a taxies of 6 companies, (1,536 hoplites) divided by three lochai or 512 hoplites. (Curtius Book 5, 43, 2)
In the wake of the campaign against the eastern portion of the Achaemenid empire, Alexander had reform the Taxies of pike-armed hoplites into independent thousand-strong Chilliarchies in order to defeat in detail the fortresses, marauding mountain and horse tribes that were scattered all across the vast eastern domain.
Furthermore, it is interesting to think about considering the concensus of the Macedonian Art of War, as modern historians would've said it, is that the pike phalanx had to be protected on both sides by the so-called hypaspists and yet historical accounts say otherwise, these thousand-strong battalions were capable of handling on their own.
Yeah that was something I always wondered: if youre standing there with an upright pike doing nothing and an enemy comes from your right, why wouldnt you just turn to your right and lower the pike?
Its like how in an old ancient warfare book i have it used roman letters to explain that actually pike phalanxes werent easy to shoot at. Turns out all the pikes sticking out would catch arrows and javelins and stones, hence their lighter armour focused on just the vulnerable points
They were some of the most, if not the most, disciplined soldiers of their time. I would think they could do as you mentioned, flip the flanks to protect themselves. We can look at the tercio’s for some inspiration. Although quite different, the idea was the same as far as the pikemen were concerned. Highly trained volunteer professional soldiers. Tercios could change formations on the dime. No reason the Macedonians couldn’t do this as well. And they had a lot more manpower than the Spanish with competent generals that grew up together or were brought up by Phillip II
@@lobehold2263 i get the feeling the pop culture Phalangite Phalanx is based more on gamified versions that reality.
In games they also move slower than much heavier armed and armoured troops, are easy to shoot at and never react to their sides or rear, when contemporary records don't describe them like this.
It's like how people think of DnD dexterity rolls when thinking of archery and assume they were weak (when records and olympic and reenactment archers have all proven its great for the back muscles and professional archers would happily fight knights in melee)
@@Rynewulf great points! I agree
Yes. I mean: they also had frickn swords.
“Battle Manager”…. Hmmm…. What a cool role to have! 😂. Imagine seeing that on someone’s LinkedIn!
I love the movie Alexander, such an underrated flick that deserved so badly the LoTR treatment of 2-3 films. It's biggest crime was cramming.
There's 4 versions of that movie. Which one is worth checking out?
There's 4 versions of that movie. Are any worth checking out?
@@ricardoaguirre6126 the Ultimate cut is generally the easiest to find and I find is the best balanced. Cheers!
I remember reading ancient accounts of Hawaiian warriors. Entire ‘battles’ could be fought without any casualties, basically shouting matches with thrown rocks and insults because rarely was anyone crazy enough to risk the slightest injury in a world without antibiotics!
Ridley Scott should have got in touch with Roel and his buddies before making Napoleon. What a Disaster that was.
Iirc Rome had a great scene with the two main characters Pullo and Vorenus operating inside a maniple as they switched men between the front and the backs to keep the slashing at the front going.
One doesn't simply ditch the Dutch ditch guy.
Man, the scene from Rome HBO when they start in perfect formation and then the f it up completely😭
Actually, the 300 film was based on a graphic novel from Frank Miller.
People tend to forget that, A LOT.
Most dangerous weapon in history
For Hollywood: Sword, Bow, Spear
IRL: Shovel
Still most used implement in the war! Trenches are forever.
Maybe the trojans should have dug a ditch in front of their army?
Alexander by Stone is amazing, I agree it tops every other film in the list historically accurate wise even in the battles.
The Flying Ditchman strikes again
In the defense of Rome I would say that first minute of episode 1 you can see a perfect battle formation. When Vorenus whistle the front line goes to the back and the second row moves forward to wreck the chaotic push from the enemies. Just Pulo broke formation end overextended killing many....
Rome 10/10
This man got 99 problems but a ditch 'aint one
Romans would usually stop when in javelin range. Then throw the spears. Possibly more than one spear each.
Revenge is a ditch best served deep.
My nephew was watching some old western and when someone got shot, my nephew piped up with "That looks so fake!!" So I asked him "How many people have you seen who were shot to death? And you do understand, don't you, that it's VERY rare to die instantly from gunshots?" He looked stumped, so I just carried on "So really, you don't know if it's fake, or if it's the most accurate death scene you've ever seen, right?" He kinda laughed then and admitted the point.
Modern movies have filled us with such nonsense, that reality sometimes seems fake...
True, I noticed that a lot of gory movies and videogames were touted as exaggerated or unrealistic... have you seen drone footage? We had an invader's butt separated flying outside the tank. Bones get regularly blown off, guts spilled, almost no media shows HOW bloody actual war is, even most violent ones heavily downplay it. I probably seen more muskovite insides by this point than beef cuts.
Finally the Ditch guy is back! Bring more of him!
That intro is basically a sum-up of what I think of every Zombie movie or Series :) Ditches ! Ditches and Palisades and burning Ditches :)
Regarding Troy: You know its a fictional story since Sean Bean doesn't die in it ;)
Few things missing in the Battle of Gaugamela. Parmenion was depicted as leading the phalanx on the left when he actually lead the Thessalian cavalry that held the Persian right wing cavalry. Then the lack of archers and skirmishers on the Macedonian side. But apart from these, and the stupid acting from Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie then this film is definitely a gem.
Good to see Alexander getting a good score, always thought that movie got way too much hate.
Movie deserved all the hate it god, and battle was always righfully praised... First one, not river fight without a river.