Yah yah this was because of "Discipline, Conditioning" but they couldn't invade germany that even don't have any regular army . Huns just swept out entire germany without Roman's super advanced discipline, conditioning, tactics (and weapons )
@@bekirbekirbekirbekir They invaded Germania whenever they wanted and almost always won (Caesar, Drusus, Germanicus, Maximinus Thrax...) and created a province up to the Elbe river from 7 BC to 9 AD. The later débacle at Teutoburg was further confirmation that the land wasn't worth investing in a second time; they never tried to settle it again because of the region's social, economic, and urban underdevelopment. But whenever they needed to invade those regions for slaves or retaliations they did and were successful. Besides, why are you criticizing the Huns ? They had advanced discipline, tactics and weapons and "conquered" those regions just as the Romans had done, by winning battles; but they never settled it nor supplanted the populations living there. These myths you wrote about need to stop, they are kind of cringe.
@@alessandroiorio6248 Exagerating roman army need to be stop.Thousand year history full of massacring primitive tribes. Just couple of fight against some regular armies and most of them failed. Despite possessing vast resources derived primarily from an enslaved populace, their repeated defeats in individual battles ultimately culminated in victory in the overall conflict. Romans was not invading anywhere to settle down as like France, Britain, Egypt, Anatolia etc. The simply want to invade Germany but failed. Oh ok they just dont want to invade.
@@bekirbekirbekirbekir The German victory was led by a leader named Arminius, who fought in the Roman military and learned their tactics. It was a great shock to the Roman empire, but it was hardly a situation of disorganized Germans who fought. As far as the Huns are concerned, their victories came about when the Roman empire had more foreigners fight in their legions than actual Romans, and the discipline was not the same.
Caesar wrote a book about some of his military campaigns. The chapter about a campaign always started about the same: food supplies were purchased. The Romans became very good at securing food and transportation of supplies.
Not entirely true. For example, the Japanese Army in WW2 mostly ate rice with little else. It was a key to rapid mobility. As the British troops in Singapore found out. Japanese troops that defeated the British in Singapore, used bicycles to bring their food with them.
@@raywhitehead730 The Japanese army in WWII was eating rice but also was much more adaptable toward some food sources that the British simply never had in mind as something edible, for instance, some types of bamboo...They were in a much better position when it comes to logistics then British.
In De Bello Gallico Caesar makes frequent mention to detouring from his line of march to get supplies of grain for the army to grind into flour for making bread.
Yes wheat (probably like spelt, einkorn, emmer or even oats or barley) was the source of energy for the Roman army. Light and high density starchy food. They baked bread en route every day. I have made Roman bread from an ancient recipe. Its leavened basically by a sourdough fermentation and takes several days before it is ready then keep adding flour, water and salt each day and taking a 50% portion out to bake but leaving 50% for next day to make the next batch. Quite dense and probably quite rough ground. The bread had honey in it which is a natural antiseptic and health food. I was told by a British special forces soldier that honey is still used by armies in the Middle East to keep troops healthy in the field.
Decimation was rarely used. Decimation was a punishment that the Romans inflicted on soldiers who had collectively abandoned their posts, acted like cowards in battle, or fomented some kind of rebellion in the ranks. This video makes it sound like a defeat in battle meant decimation.
I respect your comment; however, I didn’t get that impression and understood it to be only used as you’ve described. 2:49 The narration referenced, “Decimation, while rare….”
@@henrikg1388 Your comment is correct. Crassus was the last one who used decimation. And largely it failed. Roman legionairies were citizens, and Crassus was just another aristocratic snot who bought his political offices including the consulship. Spartacus's revolt was crushed in the end by Gnaeus Pompeius.
@@BeckVMH I'll grant that's what he wrapped up with but he started 1:25 with , "Imagine being a Roman soldier in the heat of battle, knowing that failure could mean the death of not just you, but one in every 10 of your comrades. Especially after a devastating defeat." The Romans suffered a number of defeats, some more serious than others. They didn't all resort to decimation. Perhaps he should have led with how rare it was, as that was actually the case.
Excellent. Honest, succinct analysis. I played a lot of rugby football in the UK as a boy and young fellow. One of the best, best pieces of coaching advice is: "Do the simple things well".
Same in martial arts. Music too. Exceptional martial artists and musicians commonly put a great deal of time and effort into mastering and re-mastering the basics.
Better explanation... The Romans observed the armors, weapons and tactics of their enemies... In this way they were always able to best evaluate the most correct countermeasures to destroy their enemies, but they had the intelligence to gain experience from each enemy they faced and if an enemy helmet, an enemy weapon or an enemy war tactic was valid they included it among their resources (but NOT simply copying it as you say) but ALWAYS improving it considerably and adapting it to the Roman army with intense training!!!!... By just copying they would certainly NOT have become one of the largest empires in history...
At sea, the Roman solution was train troops on land using mockups and to make ships using previously manufactured parts that were numbereD or marked in a way that could be easily constructed. A flatpack navy if you will. Rome's real secret was engineering and legions full of artisans.
All because they were ahead in political technology. While most of their neighbours were still organised as disjointed tribes, Rome had built a centralized federation/confederation that could pull its entire resource pool in a single direction very fast. Even during the First and Second Punic Wars, when they suffered crushing defeats in several key battles, they were able to quickly make military reforms with the war still going on, raise new legions, and ultimately defeat the Carthaginians.
It's quite mind-blowing that the tribes of Italian Peninsula are highly adaptive in terms of survivability. The Romans in turn also possess that. They also learn from their defeats, often copying to a varying degree the tactics and strategies of their enemies. It sounds like a stretch but I think Romans stopped being underdogs when they defeated the Samnites and in turn complete their conquest of the peninsula. It's like Cao Cao becoming a superpower after defeating Yuan Shao at Guandu. The legionary and maniple system in their military is in fact "inspired" by the Samnites. The practice of employing mercenaries and subsequently auxilary troops comes from the defeat of the Successor Kingdoms and Greek powers. Especially, Pyrrhus and Hannibal in which the Romans learn to better employ such tactics and logistical capabilities.
I think you're absolutely right that the Samnite Wars were pivotal. The Samnites were tough opponents, which forced the Romans to learn how to adapt and innovate. I don't know enough about Chinese history to comment on the comparison with Cao Cao, but now I'll have to read up on it!
True, however they also proved to be students who surpass their masters in how they added their own spins when copying someone else. For example the Romans had the correct idea about not filling your armies with mercs, which was how Carthage raised their armies, but they also realised that they had inherent weaknesses like the lack of horses and therefore cavalry in Italy made them seek out auxiliary forces in the neighbouring lands to fill up these roles in their armies.
1. When you fail, eliminate some things 2. Maximize your strengths at all costs 3. Use technology to strengthen a weakness and to isolate your enemy 4. Be friends with everyone. Complement people and give gifts. Play people against each other. Find a way to isolate your enemey.
You don't mention that Corvus really only worked once. It was a secret weapon that lost its potency once no longer a secret. It would not have been too hard to avoid if you realize what the roman were up to, leaving them with a less maneuverable vessel overloaded with infantry. Still, for that one battle, it was a brillant tactic and key to winning the first Punic war as you said.
Indeed. It was the element of surprise- at that time. Later on this idea was abandoned due to contributing to the instability of the vessels (think high center of gravity leading to easily turn over of the ship).
Here’s a tactic for ye, “During a battle at sea in 264 BCE, a Carthaginian ship was captured by Roman forces. The Romans examined the ship carefully and used it as a model for their own new vessels. By stealing the Carthaginian ship the Romans were able to improve their own technology and increase their naval power.” I’ve seen a video about this but alas, I couldn’t find it.
Lol, so we don't agree on what tactic is, I guess. Their divide and conquer approach to diplomacy counts not as a tactic. A diplomatic strategy maybe? But absolutely an understated key to the longevity of the empire that you are right to point out.
That was fascinating! Many thanks. I’ve wondered about these Roman battle tactics, and the discussion about divide and conquer was very exciting for me. Good show, mate!!
@@TheLegendaryLore drop the comedy i reckon . it was distracting and not that funny imo . you had some great still pics in this video . were they from a movie ? if so which movies ?
Dr. Zip, it was done because the imperial army had become too large with too many military emergencies on its assorted frontiers. Diocletian divided the Empire because it could not be effectively administered only from Rome. Thus there were a number of new capitals established as indicated here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian All of this came about after the crisis of the 3rd century. The Empire had become too large to be defended, and Diocletian abandoned the province of Dacia (Rumania), and some very difficult to defend areas such as Assyria. Also, by having four rulers in the form of the Tetrarchy, the Empire was to some degree protected from loss of a sole Emperor by assassination.
@@colinhunt4057 Wich led to the fall of the western part of Rome in 476 AD by the German King Odoacer. Byzantium simply abandoned them. Dividing a Empire is not the answer to survive.
@@hansjorgkunde3772 The western half of the empire was doomed regardless long before 476 AD. Increasingly the Roman army was composed of foreign mercenaries. The financial expense was enormous, and the army was increasingly immobile and unable to move large numbers of troops to another theatre to support military operations. Very simply, the Roman Empire was too large to defend itself. Increasingly also, the army was fighting itself as the Empire was wracked by a series of internal civil wars as various generals sought to seize the Purple. Some of the best and most prosperous of Roman provinces were sacked, never to recover, by the Gothic invasion of 250 AD and a succession of Roman military disasters during that time. If you accept the thesis of Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity was a key development in bringing on the collapse of the Western Empire.
Bravo! Categorisation is important. In our age major advantage goes to those that can categorise properly and not move the goalposts, but can anticipate others inabilities. In our age it is clear the innumeratti (innumerate people) control the world - through their vast numbers. But they can’t profit nor control their place in it. But those that can do the above have a tremendous advantage. The first flaw of the innumerate is that they can’t categorise.
It could be classed as a battle tactic. Whilst not directly used in battle as a tactic, the threat of decimation made the roman infantry less susceptible to routing or ineptitude making them far more efficient on the battlefield.
All of these tactics and disciplines were dependent on something we have lost today in the west -- belief in and loyalty to the things that make us the civilization we are.
Thanks for this examination of Roman strategy and tactics that helped build an empire. I don't know as much about Rome's history as I should - so I was a bit surprised to hear talk of Roman forces being outnumbered. In other words, establishing an empire wasn't a slam dunk. I had to comment because I haven't much cared for, "the Romans," over the years. Yet I do give them credit for the positive legacy they left - law, engineering, organization - yes, even their military. It's the history of conquest and oppression that I hate.
First you had training, so you knew that your troops would do has you had told them. Then a combat system that favoured close combat. No wild slashing but instead a mobile shieldwall where soldiers worked together, not as individuals. With a battleline relief system that stopped the soldiers from becoming over tired. Then build field fortifications to give your forces an advantage. And finally the knowledge that Romans never gave up. Lose 80,000 men, well build a bigger army and try again.
Add two other items to your list: the Romans were the first nation to ever institute a standard system of training. Mostly this was done in the training bases around Capua. Also new was the retention of very long service professional soldiers as centurions or non-commissioned officers.
During the First Punic War in 264 BC, the Romans captured a Carthaginian ship and used it as a model to create their own fleet. The Romans were able to adapt to their enemy's tactics and improve their own technology by reverse engineering the ship. This helped them make up for their lack of shipbuilding expertise and increase their naval power In his "Stratagems of War," Polyaenus recounts the use of incendiary pigs during a siege by the Roman general Crassus. According to his account, the defenders of a town under siege attempted to scare off the Roman war elephants with squealing pigs, but Crassus ordered the pigs to be set on fire. The squealing and burning pigs were then driven towards the enemy elephants, causing them to panic and trample their own troops in their haste to escape the fiery pigs.
The Roman divide and conquer strategy also worked in reverse during Romes decline. When Barbarian invaders often made big gains, when the Romans were fighting each other, in a civil war, or in a slave rebellion.
The battle of Alesia sends chills up my spine. That’s how I learned of a Roman weapon used against cavalry. It was some kind of metal ball with three sharp spikes sticking out.No matter how you threw them, one spike would be sticking straight up!
It would need 4 spikes to function that way; 3/4 spikes act as legs, the last 1/4 sticks up. As the other commenter said, it "would" be (is) a caltrop.
I am surprised that you don't include the huge earthwork Ramp used by the Romes at the Siege of Masada from 72 to 73 AD. But still can't wait for Part 2?
Decimation was an extremely affective tactic. Wo much so that it was rarely needed but just the existence of it as a threat was enough to foster obedience.
Hm, Important to show the instances of ingenuity within Rome's panoply of measures and means, but lacking a clear distinction between tactics and strategy. Adding that and providing clear examples would make this in and of itself well made production into an excellent one.
(@4;35) Caesar was not the first to use double wall envelopment tactics. By the time of siege of Alesia in 52 BC this tactic was well known and documented. There is no doubt that Caesar would have been well familiar with this type of fortification. During the Peloponnesian war in 434 BC to 404 BC, Sparta built double walls during the siege of Platea in 429 BC.
This leaves out Roman fighting strategies like the testudo and how they locked shields with the short sword poking out. The effectiveness of the short sword and how the legions used their spears and their block formations.
Nice commentary. However, I wonder how the Roman army, while besieging Alesia, obtained supplies. Military historians rarely elaborate on the supply factors that affect ancient strategy and field operations. For example, almost every field army was supplied by foragers (looters), supply depots, and the main camp. Battles were won by the army that captured the opponents main camp or disrupted its contact to supply depots. In another context, the victory of the English and American armies in France in 1944-45 was based on their overwhelming advantage in supplies of weapons, ammunition, fuel, and food.
I am impressed how the Romans divided enemies to conquer them. It took some skilled and resourceful diplomats to earn trust, learn the culture, and learn the language of people they were trying to conquer.
It sounds like decimation was commonly used. But in fact during Roman history from kingdom to late antiquity only few occurrences have been documented. It was too ineffective to lose trained soldiers and there were other means of punishment (interestingly threating them with not including them in a battle)
@@brettmuir5679 Calm down :) With my comment I am just supporting the point you made and added the exclusion from battle. Not every comment is an offence ´k
I was curious about the practice of decimation, but it was never really explained what was involved other than it was a form of punishment for cowardice in battle. I wish you had gone into some detail.
Alesia the building of the original wall was a tactic called circumvallation. The second outer facing wall was called contravallation. The discipline and flexibility of the legion was tantamount to their succesd
You never see about this tactics on Hollywood movies...Really wonder why. Also have to say, the memes were a huge surprise, but certainly a welcome one heheh
You make it sound like Caesar decided to build both walls at Alesia, at the same time. Instead, he had already built the wall of circumvallation around Alesia when he heard about the enormous relief forces en-route. Rather than abandoning the siege and allowing Vercingetorix to escape, Caesar decided to maintain his siege on the city and the best way to do so, would by building an entirely new wall (series of fortifications), to protect the besiegers from the relief forces.
It was still pretty unheard of at the time, or since then to actually build a secondary line of defense to protect a siege line. Such things have been done numerous times when defending, building multilayered defense lines has probably been standard practice since then, but to do it in order to maintain a decisive siege was probably one of the most ridiculous, and successful, strategic decisions of all times.
I realize that the title was MILITARY TACTICS but it would be nice to mention that some lands surrendered just by the romans telling them about the security that the roman army will provide for them, and the trade with the rest of Rome. Some lands surrendered just by diplomatic threat from Rome. Big part of the answer why roman military worked was because it was a part of well working diplomatic, taxation, legal, financial, political, governmental and private manufacturing system. I heard a historian say that roman soldiers were very good per soldier but also very expensive per soldier. That any army could accomplish what romans had accomplished if they could find the money. The romans were very good at finding money. Tax evasion almost did not exist in Rome.
I think you misses an important one. The substitution, at the command of the centurion, of each man fighting ih the front in a line of battle, to be swapped by the one directly behind him.
And then, almost 2000 years later, when Mussolini tried to recreate the Roman Empire, he instead led one of the most inept military forces in history. (Afterwards he ended up on a meathook.)
Part of the Roman philosophy about making was was that they believed they didn't need to win every battle...just the last one. That's what allowed them come back after catastrophic defeats like Cannae ,Carrhae , and Teutoberg. Destroy 2 legions and they'll be back with 4.
Schoolboy summary of Caesar's Gallic Wars: 'After a forced march the soldiers fortified the camp with a wall and a ditch. They then sent envoys, & awaited corn and supplies. After that Vercingitorix threw his arms at Caesar's feet.'
Yeah no shit, who could've guessed that the people who were most influenced by this great empire share so many similarities with them? Next you're gonna tell us how all East Asian countries are somehow similar to China...
Decimation was a psychological enforcer more than a commonly used punishment. I guarantee just the IDEA of decimation motivated these troops to fight and die rather than be routed and perhaps be forced to club their best friend to death.
Decimation was not common, applied in cases of mutiny, cowardice or desertion of a whole unit. And decimation was NOT always execution! Flogging was a common punishment in the legions.
To everyone, yes decimation was rare but knowing it was an option did work. If they woukd do it more often, they effect would have been that they wouldn't be able to raise an army.
I saw a video about Rome vs. Carthage the other day in which a mercenary leader hired by Carthage soundly beat a roman army twice. The problem was, Rome could always gather more people from those they had subjugated and/or incorporated into their society. The mercenary leader, winning handily but losing troops every time, did not stick around for the oncoming third battle. He realized winning wasn't enough. Rome didn't always just slaughter or enslave the conquered, but did demand conscripts from them. Nobody can beat, once and for all, an army that never runs out of soldiers.
That's an excellent point, brother and it's funny you mention it - I've been thinking a lot about Roman conscription from conquered territories in relation to a somewhat related video I'm working on.
@@TheLegendaryLore I look forward to seeing it! By the way, I believe there is an interesting parallel there to the methods of Genghis Khan, leader of another world-conquering country. He would let the conquered keep their customs and religions, and incorporate them, and their technologies, into his own armies. They thereby became a kind of learning machine not destroying those he conquered, but increasing his fighting numbers, resources, and know-how all along the way across a continent. (Of course he famously immediately destroyed everyone who wouldn't surrender, but ... his reputation preceded him, and plenty did.)
The Roman military defeated numerically superior forces the same way the Greeks did and every army ever has. Order and discipline defeats individual military prowess EVERY TIME EVER.
Order and discipline and training. This includes good supply, making certain your soldiers were properly fed and supplied on campaign with good boots, good garmets for campaigning and all the other thousands of items a functioning army needs in the field. This included a professional medical staff, mobile artillery for the legions where practical, and a properly organized transport service wiithin the legions for transporting everything.
I would not call 'decimation' a tactic by any useful definition of the word. It was discipline. And how well it worked is debatable and depend on the context. Though not an expert I know it was primarily used in the early to mid republican era, back when you were dealing with part-time legionaries who expected to go back to farming (or whatever) after a single season of campaigning. A lot of these guys really needed to be more afraid of their officer than the enemy to be motivated to risk their lives because they were not all gung ho volunteers. By the time of the late republic/early empire, as the army was quickly becoming professionalised, it might have still been 'on the books' but it was rarely used and only used at the general's own peril. I know Crassus revived it in his armies but his contemporaries Ceasar and Pompey never did. I'm sure we all know who has the best track record of these three, lol. Just because Crassus decimated a cohort and then went on to win against a slave army, it does not follow it was the right decision or that it played a key role. Ceasar and Pompey accomplished far more impressive feats without decimation. All in all Crassus is not to be regarded as a talented commander. It took all his spare change to put down a slave revolt and when faced by a real Army in Parthia he got crushed... A few generations later when Galba (of the 'year of the 4 emperors' fame) used it on a recalcitrant legion in 69AD it created shock and dismay more than anything else and contributed to him being extremely impopular with the army and one of shortest tenured emperor. I mean, if he was going to refuse to pay the expected bribes (aka donation) to the praetorian guard, he really hould have taken better care with maitaining the loyalty of regular legionnaires! LTDR As the army becomes more professional, decimation was phased out because it was becoming pretty much always a blunder. And I'm not convinced it was a smart choice even back in the days of the farmer soldier unless dealing with a fullblown mutiny (which did happen). A good commander should always be able to find a better solution than killing off 10% of his own men IMO!
It happened only in legions raised very quickly with poorly trained soldiers. It happened only when those legions were very poorly led by incompetent or amateur commanders. Your comment about Galba is quite right. Please note that Galba came to a very quick and sticky end, deserted by everyone. I agree with your comment about Crassus. Unlike Caesar or Pompey, Crassus had no military command experience whatsoever. He was simply a plutocrat with no redeeming military qualities whatsoever. He went on to suffer Rome's worst military disaster in two centuries at the Battle of Carrhae in Syria in 53 BC. Crassus led his army into an impossible situation, cut off from any water supply. Appropriately, Crassus did not survive his defeat but was killed on the field. The only comment I disagree with is about soldiers' mutinies. These were unheard of during the Republic and rare during and after Augustus. Roman legions never mutinied. They might be persuaded to revolt against the Emperor by their General who wanted to be Emperor. But the legions rarely revolted. There were a few spectacular murders of Roman emperors by Praetorian guards but no real revolts of an entire legion against their officers.
The corvus was only used in the first few battles, it was too top heavy and after a couple accidents it was abandoned in favor of boarding planks, or outright sinking enemy ships.
In my opinion, in addition to discipline, the military organisation and administration, standardised team equipment and continuous training should be mentioned first and foremost.
Their percistance was the real strength of the Roman empire. No matter how catastrofic defeats they endured, which they did sometimes over the centuries. They allways came back, for a millenium at least..
The most important Rome advantage, usualy overlooked it`s the Logistics. Romans could quickly relocate legions across the Empire exactly where needed while Gaul or Germanic chieftains still arguing who`s in charge and rallying their tribes. Captain Obvious suggests, that Rome had an Army, not milirant forces like all powers who opposed them (except maybe Greeks, defeated in 2nd century BC). That means that they had their troops ready 365/30/7/24 and could deply them anywhere needed anytime needed. After fall of Rome no one could have something like that until Renessaince. Vast numbers of Romans` opponents were usualy quite exaggarated, by the way. Usually it could be quite opposite - some Belgii could just started thinking about forming alliances with neighbors to challenge Rome, but two or three fresh legions directly from Italy already knocking at the door, asking "wuzup guys?"
Romans built a supply chain that was unmatched. And gained them victory, as they comparatively had unlimited resources to the point of battle, even if outnumbered. Even if they lost a battle....they kept coming and coming and coming......their logistics allowed that. Not much has changed since then. This is how the US operates today, worldwide. Rome did the equivalent in the known world back then.
Your comment about logistics is bang on. This was particularly true for their use of water transport, the Mediterranean, the Rhine, Rhone and Danube rivers. A Roman army was never more than about 100 miles from large scale water transport (ships or barges). Rome really was the Empire of the Middle Sea. It was made possible by superb logistics, unmatched by anyone until about the 18th century AD.
Was in discipline and organization. Like a good rugby team. They knew what to do. And how to do it. When to do it and do it faster than the rabble. They were the first professional army.
and he did not even mention caltrop's or Manu-Ballista's (which are like hand held ballista's in case you fighting cataphracts) ... the alliance thing was a bit simpler though .... just ally with the weakest local ... being the punchbag for several generations and getting offered an opportunity for payback usually does not require much convincing... the constant copying of their enemy ...the swords were spanish, the mail celtic and the helmets gaulic .... and of course since the empire was founded ...half of all troops were auxiliaries recruited from all sorts of people across the empire, making the conquered people feel part of the empire, while also Romanizing them, while also mixing unique tactics
It would be more interesting to analyze why the German Wehrmacht was extremely successful even against superior forces. There was no such thing as decimation. There were no collective punishments either and few cases of indiscipline that were suspected by a court martial, even when it was foreseeable that the war was being lost.
The Bronze Age and Iron Age (5000BC - 600AD-ish) had the coolest history and stories and characters. Arguably, many armies and tactics of the Iron Age (the Romans and Greeks/Hellenic states like Epirus and Macedon and Successor Kingdoms of Alexander) could MOP the floor with Medieval armies before gunpowder was involved. I would even argue the equipment was more suited to the task of melee and ranged combat, but I will admit the trebuchet is a very effective artillery. I wonder what the stories of the deep past of humanity are though, but it would be impossible to know in a place as fragile and vulnerable as Earth. There could be remnants of ancient human technology on the Moon and Mars and beyond for all we know. Us "normal" people would never be able to find out, anyway. Not the way we behave.
The secret of roman legions was the use of youngsters wearing a wolf fur, they launched rocks , light lances and provocated the enemy. Then they run away to hide behind the hard atmoured infantry. Barbarians tried to chase those young men and then arrived to the hard line, that first attacked them with pilum lances, then were helped by roman cavalry that attacked with lances the side areas... then the legion took the form of a pocket, that closed and killed every enemy inside with the gladium swords.
The reason why the Romans were so successful was simple: Discipline, Conditioning, and tactics.
Decimation was rarely needed.
Sad that what they were also mainly about was about coninually screwing over everyone else.
Yah yah this was because of "Discipline, Conditioning" but they couldn't invade germany that even don't have any regular army . Huns just swept out entire germany without Roman's super advanced discipline, conditioning, tactics (and weapons )
@@bekirbekirbekirbekir They invaded Germania whenever they wanted and almost always won (Caesar, Drusus, Germanicus, Maximinus Thrax...) and created a province up to the Elbe river from 7 BC to 9 AD. The later débacle at Teutoburg was further confirmation that the land wasn't worth investing in a second time; they never tried to settle it again because of the region's social, economic, and urban underdevelopment. But whenever they needed to invade those regions for slaves or retaliations they did and were successful.
Besides, why are you criticizing the Huns ? They had advanced discipline, tactics and weapons and "conquered" those regions just as the Romans had done, by winning battles; but they never settled it nor supplanted the populations living there.
These myths you wrote about need to stop, they are kind of cringe.
@@alessandroiorio6248 Exagerating roman army need to be stop.Thousand year history full of massacring primitive tribes. Just couple of fight against some regular armies and most of them failed. Despite possessing vast resources derived primarily from an enslaved populace, their repeated defeats in individual battles ultimately culminated in victory in the overall conflict. Romans was not invading anywhere to settle down as like France, Britain, Egypt, Anatolia etc. The simply want to invade Germany but failed. Oh ok they just dont want to invade.
@@bekirbekirbekirbekir The German victory was led by a leader named Arminius, who fought in the Roman military and learned their tactics. It was a great shock to the Roman empire, but it was hardly a situation of disorganized Germans who fought. As far as the Huns are concerned, their victories came about when the Roman empire had more foreigners fight in their legions than actual Romans, and the discipline was not the same.
Caesar wrote a book about some of his military campaigns. The chapter about a campaign always started about the same: food supplies were purchased. The Romans became very good at securing food and transportation of supplies.
Any army march on their stomach, right.
Not entirely true. For example, the Japanese Army in WW2 mostly ate rice with little else. It was a key to rapid mobility. As the British troops in Singapore found out. Japanese troops that defeated the British in Singapore, used bicycles to bring their food with them.
@@raywhitehead730 The Japanese army in WWII was eating rice but also was much more adaptable toward some food sources that the British simply never had in mind as something edible, for instance, some types of bamboo...They were in a much better position when it comes to logistics then British.
In De Bello Gallico Caesar makes frequent mention to detouring from his line of march to get supplies of grain for the army to grind into flour for making bread.
Yes wheat (probably like spelt, einkorn, emmer or even oats or barley) was the source of energy for the Roman army. Light and high density starchy food. They baked bread en route every day. I have made Roman bread from an ancient recipe. Its leavened basically by a sourdough fermentation and takes several days before it is ready then keep adding flour, water and salt each day and taking a 50% portion out to bake but leaving 50% for next day to make the next batch. Quite dense and probably quite rough ground. The bread had honey in it which is a natural antiseptic and health food. I was told by a British special forces soldier that honey is still used by armies in the Middle East to keep troops healthy in the field.
Decimation was rarely used. Decimation was a punishment that the Romans inflicted on soldiers who had collectively abandoned their posts, acted like cowards in battle, or fomented some kind of rebellion in the ranks. This video makes it sound like a defeat in battle meant decimation.
True. I believe that the use of decimation by Crassus in the Spartacus-rebellion, was the last documented use of it anyway, but I may be wrong.
I respect your comment; however, I didn’t get that impression and understood it to be only used as you’ve described. 2:49 The narration referenced, “Decimation, while rare….”
@@BeckVMHa case of hearing what one only wants to hear.
@@henrikg1388 Your comment is correct. Crassus was the last one who used decimation. And largely it failed. Roman legionairies were citizens, and Crassus was just another aristocratic snot who bought his political offices including the consulship. Spartacus's revolt was crushed in the end by Gnaeus Pompeius.
@@BeckVMH I'll grant that's what he wrapped up with but he started 1:25 with , "Imagine being a Roman soldier in the heat of battle, knowing that failure could mean the death of not just you, but one in every 10 of your comrades. Especially after a devastating defeat." The Romans suffered a number of defeats, some more serious than others. They didn't all resort to decimation. Perhaps he should have led with how rare it was, as that was actually the case.
Excellent. Honest, succinct analysis. I played a lot of rugby football in the UK as a boy and young fellow. One of the best, best pieces of coaching advice is: "Do the simple things well".
"Better a simple limited plan ruthfully executed-than an elaborate one sluggishly"
George Patton 1943
Bummer. I thought your coached decimation, whatever that is since he chose not to explain it.
Same in martial arts. Music too. Exceptional martial artists and musicians commonly put a great deal of time and effort into mastering and re-mastering the basics.
Bro used "succinct" 😅
4:35 Vercingetorix: We have you trapped in here with us.
Caesar: I'm not trapped in here with you. You're all trapped in here with me.
I was actually typing this when I glanced at the comments. Great minds and all that. Cheers!
With Caesar holding the 🗝
The success of the Roman army lay in the fact that they were always ready to learn and also copy others.
Better explanation...
The Romans observed the armors, weapons and tactics of their enemies...
In this way they were always able to best evaluate the most correct countermeasures to destroy their enemies, but they had the intelligence to gain experience from each enemy they faced and if an enemy helmet, an enemy weapon or an enemy war tactic was valid they included it among their resources (but NOT simply copying it as you say) but ALWAYS improving it considerably and adapting it to the Roman army with intense training!!!!...
By just copying they would certainly NOT have become one of the largest empires in history...
Thanks!
Thank you so much, brother!
At sea, the Roman solution was train troops on land using mockups and to make ships using previously manufactured parts that were numbereD or marked in a way that could be easily constructed. A flatpack navy if you will. Rome's real secret was engineering and legions full of artisans.
And logistics
All because they were ahead in political technology. While most of their neighbours were still organised as disjointed tribes, Rome had built a centralized federation/confederation that could pull its entire resource pool in a single direction very fast. Even during the First and Second Punic Wars, when they suffered crushing defeats in several key battles, they were able to quickly make military reforms with the war still going on, raise new legions, and ultimately defeat the Carthaginians.
Nicely done - especially the 'divide and conquer' explanation.
Rome being able to build giant fleets time after time from scratch is absolutely incredible
It's quite mind-blowing that the tribes of Italian Peninsula are highly adaptive in terms of survivability. The Romans in turn also possess that. They also learn from their defeats, often copying to a varying degree the tactics and strategies of their enemies. It sounds like a stretch but I think Romans stopped being underdogs when they defeated the Samnites and in turn complete their conquest of the peninsula. It's like Cao Cao becoming a superpower after defeating Yuan Shao at Guandu. The legionary and maniple system in their military is in fact "inspired" by the Samnites. The practice of employing mercenaries and subsequently auxilary troops comes from the defeat of the Successor Kingdoms and Greek powers. Especially, Pyrrhus and Hannibal in which the Romans learn to better employ such tactics and logistical capabilities.
I think you're absolutely right that the Samnite Wars were pivotal. The Samnites were tough opponents, which forced the Romans to learn how to adapt and innovate. I don't know enough about Chinese history to comment on the comparison with Cao Cao, but now I'll have to read up on it!
What is funny is that the US can't beat farmers with all their money / firepower & have lost all but 1 war since WW2.
True, however they also proved to be students who surpass their masters in how they added their own spins when copying someone else. For example the Romans had the correct idea about not filling your armies with mercs, which was how Carthage raised their armies, but they also realised that they had inherent weaknesses like the lack of horses and therefore cavalry in Italy made them seek out auxiliary forces in the neighbouring lands to fill up these roles in their armies.
Copiaron las armaduras de los celtas, las espadas de los íberos, los escudos sammitas, los catafractos de oriente, etc. se adaptaron muy bien.
1. When you fail, eliminate some things 2. Maximize your strengths at all costs 3. Use technology to strengthen a weakness and to isolate your enemy 4. Be friends with everyone. Complement people and give gifts. Play people against each other. Find a way to isolate your enemey.
You don't mention that Corvus really only worked once. It was a secret weapon that lost its potency once no longer a secret. It would not have been too hard to avoid if you realize what the roman were up to, leaving them with a less maneuverable vessel overloaded with infantry. Still, for that one battle, it was a brillant tactic and key to winning the first Punic war as you said.
Yep then they hit the swell and all mysteriously disappeared for some unknown reason 😂.
Thanks for this. I found it difficult to believe that such an ungainly thing would have been such an overall benefit as suggested in the video.
Twice if you count Game of Thrones
The Romans also went on to win the second and finally the decisive third punic war.
Indeed. It was the element of surprise- at that time. Later on this idea was abandoned due to contributing to the instability of the vessels (think high center of gravity leading to easily turn over of the ship).
Here’s a tactic for ye, “During a battle at sea in 264 BCE, a Carthaginian ship was captured by Roman forces. The Romans examined the ship carefully and used it as a model for their own new vessels. By stealing the Carthaginian ship the Romans were able to improve their own technology and increase their naval power.” I’ve seen a video about this but alas, I couldn’t find it.
I’ve seen the same one 🤔 Good video too.
Seen it too.Think it's from the Historia Civilis channel. But I have to check.
@@evo1ov3 Nice! If you find it please share it here with us?
It BC , are you afraid of Christ.
Akin to Ukraine capturing new Russian tank and studying it's technology
Lol, so we don't agree on what tactic is, I guess. Their divide and conquer approach to diplomacy counts not as a tactic. A diplomatic strategy maybe? But absolutely an understated key to the longevity of the empire that you are right to point out.
Strength and Honor!
Fish and chips.
That was fascinating! Many thanks. I’ve wondered about these Roman battle tactics, and the discussion about divide and conquer was very exciting for me. Good show, mate!!
I think about videos like this often
Well presented and edited with nice use of comic humor. Very professional and informative, appreciated.
Thank you, brother!
@@TheLegendaryLore drop the comedy i reckon . it was distracting and not that funny imo . you had some great still pics in this video . were they from a movie ? if so which movies ?
@@sprintershepherd4359 I though it would be fun to add some memes for a change :)
Most of the non-attributed images are Midjourney.
@@sprintershepherd4359
I liked it.
@@TheLegendaryLore
It is fun. You show a brighter side with these illustrations.
Great video as always! Do you know how the Roman Empire was cut in half? -With a pair of ceasars (scissors).
😂😂😂
Who's the favorite philosopher among kids?
Play-Doh
Dr. Zip, it was done because the imperial army had become too large with too many military emergencies on its assorted frontiers. Diocletian divided the Empire because it could not be effectively administered only from Rome. Thus there were a number of new capitals established as indicated here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian
All of this came about after the crisis of the 3rd century. The Empire had become too large to be defended, and Diocletian abandoned the province of Dacia (Rumania), and some very difficult to defend areas such as Assyria. Also, by having four rulers in the form of the Tetrarchy, the Empire was to some degree protected from loss of a sole Emperor by assassination.
@@colinhunt4057 Wich led to the fall of the western part of Rome in 476 AD by the German King Odoacer. Byzantium simply abandoned them.
Dividing a Empire is not the answer to survive.
@@hansjorgkunde3772 The western half of the empire was doomed regardless long before 476 AD. Increasingly the Roman army was composed of foreign mercenaries. The financial expense was enormous, and the army was increasingly immobile and unable to move large numbers of troops to another theatre to support military operations. Very simply, the Roman Empire was too large to defend itself.
Increasingly also, the army was fighting itself as the Empire was wracked by a series of internal civil wars as various generals sought to seize the Purple. Some of the best and most prosperous of Roman provinces were sacked, never to recover, by the Gothic invasion of 250 AD and a succession of Roman military disasters during that time.
If you accept the thesis of Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity was a key development in bringing on the collapse of the Western Empire.
Outstanding job, thank you for the video and commentary
8:40 Very good comparison. Hit it on the nail.
Very good indeed. Essentially the Democrats’ primary campaign strategy. And this is coming from a lifelong Liberal.
Decimation is a disciplinary procedure not a battle tactic. Categorization is important.
Bravo!
Categorisation is important.
In our age major advantage goes to those that can categorise properly and not move the goalposts, but can anticipate others inabilities.
In our age it is clear the innumeratti (innumerate people) control the world - through their vast numbers. But they can’t profit nor control their place in it. But those that can do the above have a tremendous advantage.
The first flaw of the innumerate is that they can’t categorise.
True. It's as if though the gauntlet was used as a military tactic.
It could be classed as a battle tactic. Whilst not directly used in battle as a tactic, the threat of decimation made the roman infantry less susceptible to routing or ineptitude making them far more efficient on the battlefield.
@user-pr2ms4ol8x look up the definition of tactic and tell me if it fits your theory.
All of these tactics and disciplines were dependent on something we have lost today in the west -- belief in and loyalty to the things that make us the civilization we are.
Good video, thanks.
Thanks for this examination of Roman strategy and tactics that helped build an empire. I don't know as much about Rome's history as I should - so I was a bit surprised to hear talk of Roman forces being outnumbered. In other words, establishing an empire wasn't a slam dunk.
I had to comment because I haven't much cared for, "the Romans," over the years. Yet I do give them credit for the positive legacy they left - law, engineering, organization - yes, even their military. It's the history of conquest and oppression that I hate.
The Roman army won more battles with the spade than the sword.
Yea.That is smart.
Why fight an enemy when you can outsmart them
First you had training, so you knew that your troops would do has you had told them.
Then a combat system that favoured close combat. No wild slashing but instead a mobile shieldwall where soldiers worked together, not as individuals. With a battleline relief system that stopped the soldiers from becoming over tired.
Then build field fortifications to give your forces an advantage.
And finally the knowledge that Romans never gave up. Lose 80,000 men, well build a bigger army and try again.
Add two other items to your list: the Romans were the first nation to ever institute a standard system of training. Mostly this was done in the training bases around Capua. Also new was the retention of very long service professional soldiers as centurions or non-commissioned officers.
Great vid
Decimation was incredibly rare, I am very surprised you even mentioned it.
RUclipsrs only ever have a cursory knowledge of Ancient History.
Because it happened? History?
Rarely employed due to its effectiveness as a threat, well worth a mention.
You clowns he actually said it was rare.maybe you all better start to listen better
Maybe because the word is grossly misused nowadays. Today it is used interchangeably with devastating. We need to learn/ remember it means 0.1
That you thanked your supporters in the opening without detracting from the video......*chefs kiss*
It'a crazy how centuries will go by with only a few military innovations.
GREAT VID. SUPERB CONTENT, LIKED 👍 AND SUBSCRIBED !!
During the First Punic War in 264 BC, the Romans captured a Carthaginian ship and used it as a model to create their own fleet. The Romans were able to adapt to their enemy's tactics and improve their own technology by reverse engineering the ship. This helped them make up for their lack of shipbuilding expertise and increase their naval power
In his "Stratagems of War," Polyaenus recounts the use of incendiary pigs during a siege by the Roman general Crassus.
According to his account, the defenders of a town under siege attempted to scare off the Roman war elephants with squealing pigs, but Crassus ordered the pigs to be set on fire.
The squealing and burning pigs were then driven towards the enemy elephants, causing them to panic and trample their own troops in their haste to escape the fiery pigs.
That’s cruel🧐💁
The Roman divide and conquer strategy also worked in reverse during Romes decline. When Barbarian invaders often made big gains, when the Romans were fighting each other, in a civil war, or in a slave rebellion.
In particular the strategy of 'Divide and Conquer' was a Greek concept described by Thucydides in his History of the Polypennesian Wars.
The battle of Alesia sends chills up my spine. That’s how I learned of a Roman weapon used against cavalry. It was some kind of metal ball with three sharp spikes sticking out.No matter how you threw them, one spike would be sticking straight up!
Do you mean calthrops?
It would need 4 spikes to function that way; 3/4 spikes act as legs, the last 1/4 sticks up. As the other commenter said, it "would" be (is) a caltrop.
good video!!
I am surprised that you don't include the huge earthwork Ramp used by the Romes at the Siege of Masada from 72 to 73 AD. But still can't wait for Part 2?
Decimation was an extremely affective tactic. Wo much so that it was rarely needed but just the existence of it as a threat was enough to foster obedience.
Hm, Important to show the instances of ingenuity within Rome's panoply of measures and means, but lacking a clear distinction between tactics and strategy. Adding that and providing clear examples would make this in and of itself well made production into an excellent one.
That is a fair point. Thanks for the constructive feedback, brother.
(@4;35) Caesar was not the first to use double wall envelopment tactics. By the time of siege of Alesia in 52 BC this tactic was well known and documented. There is no doubt that Caesar would have been well familiar with this type of fortification. During the Peloponnesian war in 434 BC to 404 BC, Sparta built double walls during the siege of Platea in 429 BC.
Well I didn’t know about decimation until now thx
The Romans also has a knack for organization that might be surprising to observers of present-day Italy.
Good job
Powerful insights on "Divide and Conquer" 💯
This leaves out Roman fighting strategies like the testudo and how they locked shields with the short sword poking out. The effectiveness of the short sword and how the legions used their spears and their block formations.
Those would be considered (battlefield) tactics.
There seems to be a bit of confusion between “tactics”, operational organization, weapons technology, military/diplomatic strategy, and statecraft.
Nice commentary. However, I wonder how the Roman army, while besieging Alesia, obtained supplies.
Military historians rarely elaborate on the supply factors that affect ancient strategy and field operations.
For example, almost every field army was supplied by foragers (looters), supply depots, and the main camp.
Battles were won by the army that captured the opponents main camp or disrupted its contact to supply depots.
In another context, the victory of the English and American armies in France in 1944-45 was based on their
overwhelming advantage in supplies of weapons, ammunition, fuel, and food.
I am impressed how the Romans divided enemies to conquer them. It took some skilled and resourceful diplomats to earn trust, learn the culture, and learn the language of people they were trying to conquer.
It sounds like decimation was commonly used. But in fact during Roman history from kingdom to late antiquity only few occurrences have been documented. It was too ineffective to lose trained soldiers and there were other means of punishment (interestingly threating them with not including them in a battle)
It is clearly stated in the video that the practice was rare. Did you listen or just browse?
@@brettmuir5679 Calm down :) With my comment I am just supporting the point you made and added the exclusion from battle. Not every comment is an offence ´k
@@truecerium4924 not offended but annoyed by lazy viewers who misrepresent. Your comment was clear and blaring misrepresentation, just saying
Informative thank you 🙏
I was curious about the practice of decimation, but it was never really explained what was involved other than it was a form of punishment for cowardice in battle. I wish you had gone into some detail.
8:37 Oh wow! That is an amazing meme!
The Scientist say " nessecity is the Mother of all invention " when the Historians know that it is really Warfare .
Alesia the building of the original wall was a tactic called circumvallation. The second outer facing wall was called contravallation. The discipline and flexibility of the legion was tantamount to their succesd
You never see about this tactics on Hollywood movies...Really wonder why.
Also have to say, the memes were a huge surprise, but certainly a welcome one heheh
You make it sound like Caesar decided to build both walls at Alesia, at the same time.
Instead, he had already built the wall of circumvallation around Alesia when he heard about the enormous relief forces en-route. Rather than abandoning the siege and allowing Vercingetorix to escape, Caesar decided to maintain his siege on the city and the best way to do so, would by building an entirely new wall (series of fortifications), to protect the besiegers from the relief forces.
It was still pretty unheard of at the time, or since then to actually build a secondary line of defense to protect a siege line. Such things have been done numerous times when defending, building multilayered defense lines has probably been standard practice since then, but to do it in order to maintain a decisive siege was probably one of the most ridiculous, and successful, strategic decisions of all times.
I realize that the title was MILITARY TACTICS but it would be nice to mention that some lands surrendered just by the romans telling them about the security that the roman army will provide for them, and the trade with the rest of Rome. Some lands surrendered just by diplomatic threat from Rome. Big part of the answer why roman military worked was because it was a part of well working diplomatic, taxation, legal, financial, political, governmental and private manufacturing system. I heard a historian say that roman soldiers were very good per soldier but also very expensive per soldier. That any army could accomplish what romans had accomplished if they could find the money. The romans were very good at finding money. Tax evasion almost did not exist in Rome.
Very rarely used. When Ceasar is said to have decimated one of his legions it was the first time that happened in centuries
I think you misses an important one.
The substitution, at the command of the centurion, of each man fighting ih the front in a line of battle, to be swapped by the one directly behind him.
And then, almost 2000 years later, when Mussolini tried to recreate the Roman Empire, he instead led one of the most inept military forces in history. (Afterwards he ended up on a meathook.)
This is a lesson many times forgotten, and it applies to all walks of life. Discipline, ration...Alas, alas...
I can't believe they didn't mention the fire pigs.
Came expecting them, disappointed.
Part of the Roman philosophy about making was was that they believed they didn't need to win every battle...just the last one. That's what allowed them come back after catastrophic defeats like Cannae ,Carrhae , and Teutoberg. Destroy 2 legions and they'll be back with 4.
Decimation… now I know where Jack Welch got the idea of firing the bottom and squeezing the rest.
Schoolboy summary of Caesar's Gallic Wars: 'After a forced march the soldiers fortified the camp with a wall and a ditch. They then sent envoys, & awaited corn and supplies. After that Vercingitorix threw his arms at Caesar's feet.'
Looks a lot like modern day America & the European countries WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!
Yeah no shit, who could've guessed that the people who were most influenced by this great empire share so many similarities with them? Next you're gonna tell us how all East Asian countries are somehow similar to China...
"Insane tactics"? You've never heard the axiom "If it works, it ain't stupid."
I guess you could call it risky or seemingly insane.
Insane and stupid ain't synonyms so what's your point?
You lost me when you brought up decimation in under 2 minutes, for gods sake it was extremely rare and any real ancient historian knows this.
You obviously didn't watch this all... did you????**
Where is he saying its a common practice though?
2:50 decimation, while RARE…
Ooh ooh how about public deflowering? Spit roasting if you catch my drift... I bet that one's not mentioned.
Decimation was a psychological enforcer more than a commonly used punishment. I guarantee just the IDEA of decimation motivated these troops to fight and die rather than be routed and perhaps be forced to club their best friend to death.
Decimation was not common, applied in cases of mutiny, cowardice or desertion of a whole unit.
And decimation was NOT always execution! Flogging was a common punishment in the legions.
Decimation was rearly used. The pilum made the difference. And their Scorpio ballista. Which force the enemy down from any high grounds
Destination did not allow the Roman's to defeat my ancestors, they called them "picts"
The Roman's and their conscripts could not handle the weather.
The Picts gave the Romans a flogging many times.
The Romans couldn't handle your ancestors, the weather and terrain just made the beating sting more.
the other tactic not often mentioned was to declare support for republics.. then enforce their own.
The corvus was briefly used, when the roman fleet reached an higher skill level they turned.to a more conventional naval tactic.
To everyone, yes decimation was rare but knowing it was an option did work. If they woukd do it more often, they effect would have been that they wouldn't be able to raise an army.
I saw a video about Rome vs. Carthage the other day in which a mercenary leader hired by Carthage soundly beat a roman army twice. The problem was, Rome could always gather more people from those they had subjugated and/or incorporated into their society. The mercenary leader, winning handily but losing troops every time, did not stick around for the oncoming third battle. He realized winning wasn't enough. Rome didn't always just slaughter or enslave the conquered, but did demand conscripts from them. Nobody can beat, once and for all, an army that never runs out of soldiers.
That's an excellent point, brother and it's funny you mention it - I've been thinking a lot about Roman conscription from conquered territories in relation to a somewhat related video I'm working on.
@@TheLegendaryLore I look forward to seeing it! By the way, I believe there is an interesting parallel there to the methods of Genghis Khan, leader of another world-conquering country. He would let the conquered keep their customs and religions, and incorporate them, and their technologies, into his own armies. They thereby became a kind of learning machine not destroying those he conquered, but increasing his fighting numbers, resources, and know-how all along the way across a continent. (Of course he famously immediately destroyed everyone who wouldn't surrender, but ... his reputation preceded him, and plenty did.)
@@MarcIverson Old Genghis did have that one redeeming feature. But I'd argue that's probably his only one 😄
The Roman military defeated numerically superior forces the same way the Greeks did and every army ever has. Order and discipline defeats individual military prowess EVERY TIME EVER.
Order and discipline and training. This includes good supply, making certain your soldiers were properly fed and supplied on campaign with good boots, good garmets for campaigning and all the other thousands of items a functioning army needs in the field. This included a professional medical staff, mobile artillery for the legions where practical, and a properly organized transport service wiithin the legions for transporting everything.
I would not call 'decimation' a tactic by any useful definition of the word. It was discipline. And how well it worked is debatable and depend on the context.
Though not an expert I know it was primarily used in the early to mid republican era, back when you were dealing with part-time legionaries who expected to go back to farming (or whatever) after a single season of campaigning. A lot of these guys really needed to be more afraid of their officer than the enemy to be motivated to risk their lives because they were not all gung ho volunteers.
By the time of the late republic/early empire, as the army was quickly becoming professionalised, it might have still been 'on the books' but it was rarely used and only used at the general's own peril. I know Crassus revived it in his armies but his contemporaries Ceasar and Pompey never did. I'm sure we all know who has the best track record of these three, lol. Just because Crassus decimated a cohort and then went on to win against a slave army, it does not follow it was the right decision or that it played a key role. Ceasar and Pompey accomplished far more impressive feats without decimation. All in all Crassus is not to be regarded as a talented commander. It took all his spare change to put down a slave revolt and when faced by a real Army in Parthia he got crushed...
A few generations later when Galba (of the 'year of the 4 emperors' fame) used it on a recalcitrant legion in 69AD it created shock and dismay more than anything else and contributed to him being extremely impopular with the army and one of shortest tenured emperor. I mean, if he was going to refuse to pay the expected bribes (aka donation) to the praetorian guard, he really hould have taken better care with maitaining the loyalty of regular legionnaires!
LTDR As the army becomes more professional, decimation was phased out because it was becoming pretty much always a blunder. And I'm not convinced it was a smart choice even back in the days of the farmer soldier unless dealing with a fullblown mutiny (which did happen). A good commander should always be able to find a better solution than killing off 10% of his own men IMO!
It happened only in legions raised very quickly with poorly trained soldiers. It happened only when those legions were very poorly led by incompetent or amateur commanders. Your comment about Galba is quite right. Please note that Galba came to a very quick and sticky end, deserted by everyone. I agree with your comment about Crassus. Unlike Caesar or Pompey, Crassus had no military command experience whatsoever. He was simply a plutocrat with no redeeming military qualities whatsoever. He went on to suffer Rome's worst military disaster in two centuries at the Battle of Carrhae in Syria in 53 BC. Crassus led his army into an impossible situation, cut off from any water supply. Appropriately, Crassus did not survive his defeat but was killed on the field.
The only comment I disagree with is about soldiers' mutinies. These were unheard of during the Republic and rare during and after Augustus. Roman legions never mutinied. They might be persuaded to revolt against the Emperor by their General who wanted to be Emperor. But the legions rarely revolted. There were a few spectacular murders of Roman emperors by Praetorian guards but no real revolts of an entire legion against their officers.
Divide and Conquer ? Lost the Odd Battle but Kept on Coming ? Ask Hannibal ? 🤔
The corvus was only used in the first few battles, it was too top heavy and after a couple accidents it was abandoned in favor of boarding planks, or outright sinking enemy ships.
Rival Faction: Occupy wall-street
Solution: Identity politics
Good one
In my opinion, in addition to discipline, the military organisation and administration, standardised team equipment and continuous training should be mentioned first and foremost.
The Roman general Concater constantly retreated until his troops encircled the enemy and annihilated it.
Their percistance was the real strength of the Roman empire.
No matter how catastrofic defeats they endured, which they did sometimes over the centuries.
They allways came back, for a millenium at least..
The most important Rome advantage, usualy overlooked it`s the Logistics. Romans could quickly relocate legions across the Empire exactly where needed while Gaul or Germanic chieftains still arguing who`s in charge and rallying their tribes. Captain Obvious suggests, that Rome had an Army, not milirant forces like all powers who opposed them (except maybe Greeks, defeated in 2nd century BC). That means that they had their troops ready 365/30/7/24 and could deply them anywhere needed anytime needed. After fall of Rome no one could have something like that until Renessaince.
Vast numbers of Romans` opponents were usualy quite exaggarated, by the way. Usually it could be quite opposite - some Belgii could just started thinking about forming alliances with neighbors to challenge Rome, but two or three fresh legions directly from Italy already knocking at the door, asking "wuzup guys?"
Not “insane”, brilliant.
Decimation was EXTREMELY uncommon
Relax. He just mentioned it... 😂
Is pointing your army at the enemy without having any consideration for your surroundings a tactic?
I wish the AI would get the Roman crest correct, instead of giving every soldier a parade crest on their helmet.
Romans built a supply chain that was unmatched. And gained them victory, as they comparatively had unlimited resources to the point of battle, even if outnumbered.
Even if they lost a battle....they kept coming and coming and coming......their logistics allowed that.
Not much has changed since then.
This is how the US operates today, worldwide. Rome did the equivalent in the known world back then.
Your comment about logistics is bang on. This was particularly true for their use of water transport, the Mediterranean, the Rhine, Rhone and Danube rivers. A Roman army was never more than about 100 miles from large scale water transport (ships or barges). Rome really was the Empire of the Middle Sea. It was made possible by superb logistics, unmatched by anyone until about the 18th century AD.
Corvus literally turn the tide
LOL, true 😁
Rome's legacy is immense, few civilizations after them, the Mongols maybe can be compared with their success.
And what exactly ís decimation?
Was in discipline and organization. Like a good rugby team. They knew what to do. And how to do it. When to do it and do it faster than the rabble. They were the first professional army.
and he did not even mention caltrop's or Manu-Ballista's (which are like hand held ballista's in case you fighting cataphracts) ... the alliance thing was a bit simpler though .... just ally with the weakest local ... being the punchbag for several generations and getting offered an opportunity for payback usually does not require much convincing... the constant copying of their enemy ...the swords were spanish, the mail celtic and the helmets gaulic .... and of course since the empire was founded ...half of all troops were auxiliaries recruited from all sorts of people across the empire, making the conquered people feel part of the empire, while also Romanizing them, while also mixing unique tactics
It would be more interesting to analyze why the German Wehrmacht was extremely successful even against superior forces. There was no such thing as decimation. There were no collective punishments either and few cases of indiscipline that were suspected by a court martial, even when it was foreseeable that the war was being lost.
The Bronze Age and Iron Age (5000BC - 600AD-ish) had the coolest history and stories and characters. Arguably, many armies and tactics of the Iron Age (the Romans and Greeks/Hellenic states like Epirus and Macedon and Successor Kingdoms of Alexander) could MOP the floor with Medieval armies before gunpowder was involved. I would even argue the equipment was more suited to the task of melee and ranged combat, but I will admit the trebuchet is a very effective artillery.
I wonder what the stories of the deep past of humanity are though, but it would be impossible to know in a place as fragile and vulnerable as Earth. There could be remnants of ancient human technology on the Moon and Mars and beyond for all we know. Us "normal" people would never be able to find out, anyway. Not the way we behave.
They would build and build some more. Every legionnaire was also an engineer.
The secret of roman legions was the use of youngsters wearing a wolf fur, they launched rocks , light lances and provocated the enemy. Then they run away to hide behind the hard atmoured infantry. Barbarians tried to chase those young men and then arrived to the hard line, that first attacked them with pilum lances, then were helped by roman cavalry that attacked with lances the side areas... then the legion took the form of a pocket, that closed and killed every enemy inside with the gladium swords.