quick correction: the original Ancient Greek phalanx did use spears some of the time, but as time went on, the Macedonian phalanx (created by Alexander the greats father) innovated things and tended to use a longer form of spear called a sarissa, or what is more generally referred to as a pike (I found out today that a spear that is about 3-7 meters long (or if it takes more than one hand to hold properly) is called a pike, and the sarissa was about 6 meters long)
Basically to elaborate it was phased out because it was inflexible. The Romans later introduced the maniple (described as a phalanx with joints) before replacing that with a cohort, which consisted of six centuria, each consisting of 80 legionaries, for a total of 480 legionaries I'd also add that with the introduction of early artillery like Ballista and catapults, mass infantry formations were very vulnerable to them.
A phalanx going up against a bunch of war elephants is like my foot going up against a bunch of toothpicks. no wonder the elephants won. Edit: it might hurt, but I would still probably win.
yeah, having elephants is a bit of a cheat code. I think I'll make a video about war elephants and some other things they were used for like torturing sometime soon
War elephants could also be a huge liability, like during the disastrous Battle of Zama, where many of them panicked and trampled their own Carthaginian troops. Romans also learned during the second Punic War that elephants won’t charge forward mindlessly and can be frightened: they created corridors between their maniples where the animals would pass through and they would throw their pilla at their sides and back. Even though the Romans captured the surviving war elephants after the fall of Carthage, they never adopted them as an unit, maybe because they saw first hand what a liability they could be. Besides Hannibal’s campaign in Italy and maybe in the Persians invasions of Greece, war elephants were never used in Europe again. They were still commonly used in the Indus River Valley until the 17th century, when powder became widespread and elephants mounted by generals became an obvious target for artillery.
@@w1z1w1z1Id assume elephants would strugle against pike walls unless they flank them Where the greeks using short spears instead of pikes? The Portuguese tended to have sucess in using pike walls against elephant charges in India and SEA
@@VincitOmniaVeritas7 This is what happened during the Battle of Magnesia. The Seleucid war elephants panicked from all the ranged Roman fire and trampled their own troops.
@@Tzizenorec an army can have 20 regiments in total, with an extra 20 as reinforcements if you have another neighboring army close enough to the battle (but that forces them to have to come in at the very edge of the map, and not pre positioned like your main army). The a.i really does not like being pelted with Artillery, and will charge into melee in a desperate attempt to stop being spammed with giant rocks. (yes, even if they too have artillery to hit you with. they will only stay in one spot if they are garrisoning a fort or a town. So what i like to do, is to have like, 2-4 (usually 3) regiments that is just catapults (i say sixteen because some Total War games have 4 artillery pieces in a regiment. sometimes 2, sometimes just 1.) , and then have like, 16-18 units of pikes, hoplites, or Roman Legions (including the general), and then just form a full, if sometimes thin circle around the artillery so i can't be flanked. With quality troops, Infantry and Calvary get wiped easy, especially if i am using pikes and have created a field of death the models can't push through. Obviously, the counter to this would be either spamming archers or artillery on my catapults. and my only answer to that is to just return fire and hope for the best. But 3 units is usually enough to decimate a unit of archers with 1 or 2 volleys, and if there rly is just an overwhelming number of archers then i can just break formation and send my circle to chase them...for hours because ai archers refuse to actually go into melee. Since the A.i is really bad at making armies just to counter a specific strategy, I usually win. and if the army gets caught in an ambush it is so fucking painful because i don't have time to form the circle the strat relies on. TL; DR: more fucking Hoplites.
@@Tzizenorec not everyone likes to play that way but I do. If I'm not charging across the battlefield then it's my enemy that has to deal with fatigue penalties first. I like heavy infantry focused armies anyway, so its more fun to me. and if its a fort, a city, or a town they will just stay there guarding the victory points (which i think are stupid) and the walls instead of coming out to fight me. so i can make the most out of my catapults before needing to go into melee. Of course my neglect of calvary and archers means I basically rely on having superior troops for attrition purposes. I would get totally wrecked in multiplayer. Greek calvary and archers suck anyway, and I suck using calvary so it's fine for me.
@@DoctorFail I play Rome TW II (recently re-installed it) and reading your comment makes me want to invite you in a multiplayer battle. It's been a tough ride finding decent multiplayer games there, I've either found a 6-player game where nobody is ever truly readied up, or I stumble upon a 6-man's party and get kicked out because their 6th friend joins in.
Just a reminder that the phalanx is not unbeatable and has been beaten throughout history way before like the Battle of Leuctra where Epaminondas utilized an echelon formation where his army would advance diagonally to smash the right wings of the Spartan phalanx first by amassing most of of his soldiers on his left wing, breaking tradition. It was like ~12 columns deep for Spartans vs ~50 columns deep for the Thebans during the clash. (The phalanx tends to drift right, another weakness of it that was exploited due to the fact that soldiers carried shields on their left hand side. So the way commanders were to counter this is to put their best and most battle-hardened troops on the right wing to prevent or mitigate the right-hand drift). Saying the phalanx was unbeatable is like saying tanks are unbeatable where in fact they've been beaten in occasions where they would come upon their disadvantage. Even the battle cited IN THIS VERY VIDEO, the Battle of Magnesia, the Seleucid phalanx actually held their own against the Roman infantry but everything was already going tits up with their left flank already completely being decimated when the Romans engaged it (the fleeing troops disorganized the troops behind them which the Romans took advantage of before they could re-organize themselves) while the left flank of the Roman line was holding their own despite being pushed back all the way to their camp.
I think the maniple system of the romans is better as a whole but we also need to keep in mind that a phalanx has skirmishers and cavalry on its sides to cover each others weaknesses, and can be used on a hammer and anvil strategy. That nowadays be called combine arms warfare. Though flashy, the romans conquered the Greeks not in the battlefield but in diplomacy, considering they were a shell from its former self. And war elephants are somewhat gimmick weapons, being good against un-discipline foes and can even be a hazard to ones own if the opponent manage to rout it back to its lines.
When I heard how the romans flanked the phalanx from a documentary. The historian stated how the Macedonians soldiers couldn't turn around as he had a 40 foot pike and had to raise it up and turn around to confront the enemy. I always have this funny image where a Macedonian with a long spear would turn around without thinking and simply cause the entire battalion to turn over and fall by his quick action to enemies attacking him.
Quick Correction: The Phalanx weaknesses are the sides and the back, especially the back. Cavalry is most effective at charge attack the back of the Phalanx to maximize the damage. Roman Legions uses swords, later long swords, and long rectangular shields. So that they can turn and face the oncoming enemies from the sides and the back. Because of the Phalanx weak spots on the sides and the back. The Phalanx evolved into a square, a circle, a Schiltron, a pentagon, a hexagon, etc.
And then the Spanish put a bunch of early guns in the middle of the phalanx and called it a Tercio. So the Dutch said "MORE GUNS" until everyone had guns. So they put pointy bits on the end of guns called bayonets and created the Napoleonic Square.
imagine having to rotate to your side with a big spear in the middle of battle when your spear is already sitting between two dudes. Sure you can stick it up and then rotate, but it takes coordination to do so with other soldiers. The sticks might entangle with each other.
In any case, they werent stupid. Flanks were protected with light infantry and cavalry, and yes phalanxes could defend the flank if needed, though this meant fewer ranks pointing to the front (you know where the main bulk of enemies are)
That is exactly what the medieval swiss army did many years later when they implemented the use of Square pike walls wich had pikes all around the formation and it was indeed very effective even marking an end to cavalry in general
@@theminuskai7453 an end to *shock cavalry, and even then only in the west. In eastern europe and the balkans shock cavalry remained a key unit. More accurate to say that heavy cavalry became less useful (light cavalry continued retaining its usefulness, adopting the hussar model among others up to WW1) and even then they adapted once firearms came, with pistoliers and dragoons
The real death of the phalanx was at the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC between the Romans and Philip V of Macedon. The battle was fought on a hill and one wing of the Roman line was giving away to the Macedonian phalanx while the other wing of the Roman line was pushing forward against the Macedonian phalanx, causing a gap to appear. A Roman tribune, seeing that his wing was essentially in the rear of the other Macedonian wing's phalanx due to the gap, dispatched a number of troops to attack the rear of the advanced Macedonian phalanx and won the battle. But you are right, the phalanx was not very maneuverable and required other troops or terrain features to protect it's exposed wings.
going around and hitting phalanx on the side was not easy, the phalanx had ways of dealing with that. but especially on uneven terrain, or with quickly changing battlefield conditions, it could be difficult to keep the phalanx working perfectly and prevent enemies from hitting your sides. as others have mentioned, it wasnt as flexible and so it failed to the more flexible roman formations. but spearman/pikeman lived on into the age of gunpowder, as a way to deal with cavalry charges, until around 1700 CE. So the phalanx wasn't just ancient history, its been around even into fairly modern warfare. You could even consider "squares" formed by napoleonic era and american civil war era musket infantry with fixed bayonetts as phalanxes to a degree. so really only the machine gun and high explosive artillery finally put an end to the massed long stabby weapon formation.
Speaking of Gunpowder, explosives seem like a great way of disrupting a Phalanx formation. Is there any historical precedent of primitive hand grenades being tried against it?
They still go head to head with the phalanx sarissa but they use complement of maneuvers like cavalry side charges cuz rome always wins against macedon in cavalry battle
In honor of their progenitors, infantry even in the modern era will grasp their shafts while shoulder to shoulder with their comrades. The circumstances generally involve pornography instead of combat though.
During the wars of Rome and Greece, the Phalanx won many battles against the Romans. The hill terrain of Greece allowed the Phalanx to dominate where their sides were more protected. They also had lighter skirmish units to protect the sides. The reason Rome won was by playing politics in Greece, and manipulating the factions there.
@@annoyedbipolar7424 no, my point is that a formation of spearmen and pikemen are not the same. The entire point of the macedonian phalanx, for example, is using pikes instead of spears. Same for the tercio and the swiss square hundreds of years later. So saying that they used spears is simply incorrect
@@oihanlarranegi472 But there's no hard and fast rule about what the exact specifications are. There are numerous conflicting definitions that all end up being potentially nullified by any number of variables from era, to culture, to general health of the region, to purpose, to even the individual wielding.
Awesome video! A small suggestion (which is totally not needed - your style is great): put some additional audio in, like background music (which should be 33% of the volume of your voice), or even sound effects. Music and sound can set the tone, so experiment. Sometimes a goofy tune for a serious story can make it really entertaining. Sometimes it should fit the story more rigidly. Either way, this makes me think of Casually Explained (go check him out). Here's an upvote and a sub!
As someone who did GCSE history I can confirm Scottish schiltrons were shot at with longbows and guns later on. They couldn't even move quickly in that position so they were just sitting there and got blasted. Also pikes are not spears
quick correction: the original Ancient Greek phalanx did use spears some of the time, but as time went on, the Macedonian phalanx (created by Alexander the greats father) innovated things and tended to use a longer form of spear called a sarissa, or what is more generally referred to as a pike (I found out today that a spear that is about 3-7 meters long (or if it takes more than one hand to hold properly) is called a pike, and the sarissa was about 6 meters long)
Basically to elaborate it was phased out because it was inflexible. The Romans later introduced the maniple (described as a phalanx with joints) before replacing that with a cohort, which consisted of six centuria, each consisting of 80 legionaries, for a total of 480 legionaries
I'd also add that with the introduction of early artillery like Ballista and catapults, mass infantry formations were very vulnerable to them.
ah yes the man nipple system
it's 4800 legionaries, not 480
@@SamienBB not according to Wikipedia it's not. I think what your referring to is a legion which consists of 10 cohorts.
It was "phased out" for political reasons.
A phalanx going up against a bunch of war elephants is like my foot going up against a bunch of toothpicks.
no wonder the elephants won.
Edit: it might hurt, but I would still probably win.
yeah, having elephants is a bit of a cheat code. I think I'll make a video about war elephants and some other things they were used for like torturing sometime soon
War elephants could also be a huge liability, like during the disastrous Battle of Zama, where many of them panicked and trampled their own Carthaginian troops.
Romans also learned during the second Punic War that elephants won’t charge forward mindlessly and can be frightened: they created corridors between their maniples where the animals would pass through and they would throw their pilla at their sides and back.
Even though the Romans captured the surviving war elephants after the fall of Carthage, they never adopted them as an unit, maybe because they saw first hand what a liability they could be. Besides Hannibal’s campaign in Italy and maybe in the Persians invasions of Greece, war elephants were never used in Europe again.
They were still commonly used in the Indus River Valley until the 17th century, when powder became widespread and elephants mounted by generals became an obvious target for artillery.
@@w1z1w1z1Id assume elephants would strugle against pike walls unless they flank them
Where the greeks using short spears instead of pikes?
The Portuguese tended to have sucess in using pike walls against elephant charges in India and SEA
@@w1z1w1z1 in Magnesia greeks (Seleucids) also had elephants, even more than rome. Also they had very varied army, not just phalanx
@@VincitOmniaVeritas7 This is what happened during the Battle of Magnesia. The Seleucid war elephants panicked from all the ranged Roman fire and trampled their own troops.
Guy who made spear: I'm INVINCIBLE
Guy who made the flank: Nah I'd win...
Guy who made the shield: Put the pointy stick down or suffer the thrust of my sword.
@@feudinggreeks3316 Guy who made the archery on horse back: Nah ama conquer half the galaxy
@@felixgutierrez993guy who lives in the jungle and burned all the food: Nah, I'd resist
Are you sure about that?
No bullshit, no filler, pure content. Good video bro
how to beat phalanx: face it when it's not being used properly.
me in total war: either charge my phalanx head on or eat rocks launched from 16 different catapults.
I haven't played Total War. What in that game prevents the enemy form going around the phalanx to attack the catapults?
@@Tzizenorec an army can have 20 regiments in total, with an extra 20 as reinforcements if you have another neighboring army close enough to the battle (but that forces them to have to come in at the very edge of the map, and not pre positioned like your main army).
The a.i really does not like being pelted with Artillery, and will charge into melee in a desperate attempt to stop being spammed with giant rocks. (yes, even if they too have artillery to hit you with. they will only stay in one spot if they are garrisoning a fort or a town.
So what i like to do, is to have like, 2-4 (usually 3) regiments that is just catapults (i say sixteen because some Total War games have 4 artillery pieces in a regiment. sometimes 2, sometimes just 1.) , and then have like, 16-18 units of pikes, hoplites, or Roman Legions (including the general), and then just form a full, if sometimes thin circle around the artillery so i can't be flanked. With quality troops, Infantry and Calvary get wiped easy, especially if i am using pikes and have created a field of death the models can't push through.
Obviously, the counter to this would be either spamming archers or artillery on my catapults. and my only answer to that is to just return fire and hope for the best. But 3 units is usually enough to decimate a unit of archers with 1 or 2 volleys, and if there rly is just an overwhelming number of archers then i can just break formation and send my circle to chase them...for hours because ai archers refuse to actually go into melee. Since the A.i is really bad at making armies just to counter a specific strategy, I usually win.
and if the army gets caught in an ambush it is so fucking painful because i don't have time to form the circle the strat relies on.
TL; DR: more fucking Hoplites.
@@DoctorFail So to deal with a fortified position, you bring a superior army and lay siege, forcing the enemy to come to you.
Makes sense.
@@Tzizenorec not everyone likes to play that way but I do. If I'm not charging across the battlefield then it's my enemy that has to deal with fatigue penalties first. I like heavy infantry focused armies anyway, so its more fun to me.
and if its a fort, a city, or a town they will just stay there guarding the victory points (which i think are stupid) and the walls instead of coming out to fight me. so i can make the most out of my catapults before needing to go into melee.
Of course my neglect of calvary and archers means I basically rely on having superior troops for attrition purposes. I would get totally wrecked in multiplayer. Greek calvary and archers suck anyway, and I suck using calvary so it's fine for me.
@@DoctorFail I play Rome TW II (recently re-installed it) and reading your comment makes me want to invite you in a multiplayer battle. It's been a tough ride finding decent multiplayer games there, I've either found a 6-player game where nobody is ever truly readied up, or I stumble upon a 6-man's party and get kicked out because their 6th friend joins in.
"Phalanx were less and less used" until they used phalanx again in medieval times in square formation
Just a reminder that the phalanx is not unbeatable and has been beaten throughout history way before like the Battle of Leuctra where Epaminondas utilized an echelon formation where his army would advance diagonally to smash the right wings of the Spartan phalanx first by amassing most of of his soldiers on his left wing, breaking tradition. It was like ~12 columns deep for Spartans vs ~50 columns deep for the Thebans during the clash. (The phalanx tends to drift right, another weakness of it that was exploited due to the fact that soldiers carried shields on their left hand side. So the way commanders were to counter this is to put their best and most battle-hardened troops on the right wing to prevent or mitigate the right-hand drift). Saying the phalanx was unbeatable is like saying tanks are unbeatable where in fact they've been beaten in occasions where they would come upon their disadvantage. Even the battle cited IN THIS VERY VIDEO, the Battle of Magnesia, the Seleucid phalanx actually held their own against the Roman infantry but everything was already going tits up with their left flank already completely being decimated when the Romans engaged it (the fleeing troops disorganized the troops behind them which the Romans took advantage of before they could re-organize themselves) while the left flank of the Roman line was holding their own despite being pushed back all the way to their camp.
I thought Philip II of Macedon invented the sarrissa phalanx. Unless you mean that the Spartans used a hoplite phalanx which works differently.
Decimated means "lost 10% of". I think you meant to write "destroyed".
@@joeboah6040 Yeah I meant that, still a type of phalanx.
To win with the phalanx all you need a big balls of cavalry and skirmishers Genius
the smiley face on the elephant cracked me up 😂
This is great explanation for a gamer with a two minute attention span and no knowledge of classical warfare.
I think the maniple system of the romans is better as a whole but we also need to keep in mind that a phalanx has skirmishers and cavalry on its sides to cover each others weaknesses, and can be used on a hammer and anvil strategy. That nowadays be called combine arms warfare.
Though flashy, the romans conquered the Greeks not in the battlefield but in diplomacy, considering they were a shell from its former self. And war elephants are somewhat gimmick weapons, being good against un-discipline foes and can even be a hazard to ones own if the opponent manage to rout it back to its lines.
When I heard how the romans flanked the phalanx from a documentary. The historian stated how the Macedonians soldiers couldn't turn around as he had a 40 foot pike and had to raise it up and turn around to confront the enemy. I always have this funny image where a Macedonian with a long spear would turn around without thinking and simply cause the entire battalion to turn over and fall by his quick action to enemies attacking him.
Roman ballista and scorpions were a big nail in the coffin. Dense battle formations are an easy artillery target..
Such riveting graphics!
Quick Correction: The Phalanx weaknesses are the sides and the back, especially the back. Cavalry is most effective at charge attack the back of the Phalanx to maximize the damage. Roman Legions uses swords, later long swords, and long rectangular shields. So that they can turn and face the oncoming enemies from the sides and the back. Because of the Phalanx weak spots on the sides and the back. The Phalanx evolved into a square, a circle, a Schiltron, a pentagon, a hexagon, etc.
And then the Spanish put a bunch of early guns in the middle of the phalanx and called it a Tercio. So the Dutch said "MORE GUNS" until everyone had guns. So they put pointy bits on the end of guns called bayonets and created the Napoleonic Square.
And later on in medieval times one of the formation for pike unit was just square with pikes pointing in every direction
the spirit Carried on though
imagine having to rotate to your side with a big spear in the middle of battle when your spear is already sitting between two dudes. Sure you can stick it up and then rotate, but it takes coordination to do so with other soldiers. The sticks might entangle with each other.
Depends on how big is spear
only way to beat a phalanx is if it is not properly used
For those wondering, the sides of a formation are called the "flanks". Going around to attack them is called "outflanking".
“AaAAOOOUuouGhH! Phalanx solos fiction!!1!”
Average Roman manipular enjoyer:
The phalanx was the Ancient World's Maginot Line
why couldnt they just have the soldiers on the sides also facing their spears outward?
Cant really march in formation if youre facing sideways
In any case, they werent stupid. Flanks were protected with light infantry and cavalry, and yes phalanxes could defend the flank if needed, though this meant fewer ranks pointing to the front (you know where the main bulk of enemies are)
That is exactly what the medieval swiss army did many years later when they implemented the use of Square pike walls wich had pikes all around the formation and it was indeed very effective even marking an end to cavalry in general
@@theminuskai7453 an end to *shock cavalry, and even then only in the west. In eastern europe and the balkans shock cavalry remained a key unit. More accurate to say that heavy cavalry became less useful (light cavalry continued retaining its usefulness, adopting the hussar model among others up to WW1) and even then they adapted once firearms came, with pistoliers and dragoons
Didnt phillip of macedon innovated by using longer spears and cavalry to support the flanks?
The real death of the phalanx was at the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC between the Romans and Philip V of Macedon. The battle was fought on a hill and one wing of the Roman line was giving away to the Macedonian phalanx while the other wing of the Roman line was pushing forward against the Macedonian phalanx, causing a gap to appear. A Roman tribune, seeing that his wing was essentially in the rear of the other Macedonian wing's phalanx due to the gap, dispatched a number of troops to attack the rear of the advanced Macedonian phalanx and won the battle. But you are right, the phalanx was not very maneuverable and required other troops or terrain features to protect it's exposed wings.
Pike square
going around and hitting phalanx on the side was not easy, the phalanx had ways of dealing with that. but especially on uneven terrain, or with quickly changing battlefield conditions, it could be difficult to keep the phalanx working perfectly and prevent enemies from hitting your sides. as others have mentioned, it wasnt as flexible and so it failed to the more flexible roman formations. but spearman/pikeman lived on into the age of gunpowder, as a way to deal with cavalry charges, until around 1700 CE. So the phalanx wasn't just ancient history, its been around even into fairly modern warfare. You could even consider "squares" formed by napoleonic era and american civil war era musket infantry with fixed bayonetts as phalanxes to a degree. so really only the machine gun and high explosive artillery finally put an end to the massed long stabby weapon formation.
Speaking of Gunpowder, explosives seem like a great way of disrupting a Phalanx formation. Is there any historical precedent of primitive hand grenades being tried against it?
They still go head to head with the phalanx sarissa but they use complement of maneuvers like cavalry side charges cuz rome always wins against macedon in cavalry battle
and thus the pike square would be born
In honor of their progenitors, infantry even in the modern era will grasp their shafts while shoulder to shoulder with their comrades.
The circumstances generally involve pornography instead of combat though.
Let me guess you go around it
Edit: yea I was right.
I love these stick figures
During the wars of Rome and Greece, the Phalanx won many battles against the Romans. The hill terrain of Greece allowed the Phalanx to dominate where their sides were more protected. They also had lighter skirmish units to protect the sides. The reason Rome won was by playing politics in Greece, and manipulating the factions there.
subbed!
You just had to flank them... ...
...with elephants.
Cool video, short and straight to the point
Coincidentally, I watched a woman throw a pot of fire at one of these Phalanxes and it died fairly quickly
epic. 550 subs underrated channel
Once again Rome continues their favorite tradition of seeing what others did and taking "inspiration"; this time from Carthage and their elephants.
flanking maneuver
I'm pretty sure that side guards were a thing.
A pike and a spear are not the same thing
What is a pike if not a very long spear?
@@vitaliitomas8121 that doesn't change my point
@@oihanlarranegi472 so your point is semantics?
@@annoyedbipolar7424 no, my point is that a formation of spearmen and pikemen are not the same. The entire point of the macedonian phalanx, for example, is using pikes instead of spears. Same for the tercio and the swiss square hundreds of years later. So saying that they used spears is simply incorrect
@@oihanlarranegi472 But there's no hard and fast rule about what the exact specifications are.
There are numerous conflicting definitions that all end up being potentially nullified by any number of variables from era, to culture, to general health of the region, to purpose, to even the individual wielding.
pike and shot
Was here before he blew up
Do a video on how european crusaders defeated Arabian and mongol fast speed horse archers and speedy horseman by knights where as rome failed
I believe they used heavy cavalry charges ala the winged hussars.
Awesome video! A small suggestion (which is totally not needed - your style is great): put some additional audio in, like background music (which should be 33% of the volume of your voice), or even sound effects. Music and sound can set the tone, so experiment. Sometimes a goofy tune for a serious story can make it really entertaining. Sometimes it should fit the story more rigidly. Either way, this makes me think of Casually Explained (go check him out). Here's an upvote and a sub!
Archer
Yari wall
As someone who did GCSE history I can confirm Scottish schiltrons were shot at with longbows and guns later on. They couldn't even move quickly in that position so they were just sitting there and got blasted. Also pikes are not spears
The phalanx was macedonian not greek
ok
U forgor about ranged weapons
I dont know man, beaten it wasnt.
horrible description of the Battle of Magnesia lmao
My kind of video!
I reckon it wasn’t defeated. Line infantry is just a phalanx that you can shoot from long distances.
That version still got defeated by the Continental Army. And they did it. . . by goin' around the sides!
/rimshot
This is very inaccurate
As is most of RUclips.
Could you elaborate? What part of this video is inaccurate?
But this is very Funny :)
@@composedcapybara1113 the greeks were not stupid, their flanks were covered with other kinds of troops
@@oihanlarranegi472 But they still lost, beaten by Roman's flanking elephants tactics