From what I understood, Perseus was a vassal king with permission from the Roman Republic. The Romans were enraged by his growing independence and actions and despite his protestations of loyalty, Rome declared war on him knowing full well that Macedonia has no chance.
If your a student of History you'll notice that the Macedonians were missing a key component of their winning formula Alexander used to conquer the World. The Hypaspists. These were the Silver Shields in Alexander's time and they were flexible Hoplite Styled Swordsmen who fought on the flanks of the Sarissa Phalanx and prevent it from being enveloped. After the Diadochi Wars took place with Death of Alexander these troops types fell out favor in place of an emphasis on Pike Warfare because of the Hellenistic Civil War. Hypaspists were more expensive to equip and train, and thus were neglected if not outright abandoned as a troop type in later centuries. This is why when the debate of Roman vs Macedonian Armies comes up often you will hear some mention that the later Macedonian Armies that Rome fought were hollow shells of their former glory, far less adapted to combined arms warfare. These late Macedonians Armies were nothing like Alexander's, just a shadow of the former. They had lost their combined arms approach to warfare, so when faced with a non-Hellenistic foe they suffered greatly.
in this battle Roman Cavalry decimated macedon left wing force of peltast and Cavalry tho like the video said.make Romans can initiate pincer attack, also The Macedon army kinda have low moral because of Lunar Eclipse before while lucius tell their man is just nature phenomenon also He choose uneven terrain knowing is phalanx weakness. the battle clearly favor to roman side i believe
This is the first time that I have heard about this change. It would explain the outcome of this and other battles. May I ask you where this information is from? Is there any historical source?
@@andresalphie5400 You can find descriptions of them in Historical Literature but it will require some digging and it's not light reading. If your looking for something without citation, more of a reader friendly book that talks on them briefly I highly recommend Ghost on the Throne.
@@andresalphie5400 The author of Ghost on Throne includes citations I'm pretty sure, it's been a bit since I read it. Perhaps one of those specifically references them. I've been nerding out the Macedonian and Diadochi Conflicts my whole life so over time I pick up this bits and pieces of information. I remember when Rome 2 dropped I was disappointed because the closest thing to the Hypaspists we got were those Royal Peltasts unit which were a later adaptation from the Diadochi Wars. True Hypaspists from Philips and Alexanders time were basically Elite Hoplites that would fight with a Sword and sometimes throw their main Spear when things got dicey in combat but otherwise were traditionally like a Hoplite in open Battle, if a Night Assault or Fortress Assault took place they dropped their Heavy Hoplite Armor for Lighter Armor. They became such Elite Shock Troopers that Alexander covered their Shields in Silver before marching into India. They were the best of the best, the first Professional Army in recorded History.
super produziertes kampfepos Video Sowas können nur Spezialisten! Thankyou es war sehr interessant und ein persönliches Erlebniss so einen Super Kampf mit anzusehen . 🙋♀️🙏👍👍😚🇩🇪Hattmir toll gefallen 👍👍👍😘
Very funny ( and weird ) that the fleeing Phalangites keep their Sarissas - normally a fleeing unit would let go all of their weaponry and often even the armour. Beside that nice and mostly correct depiction of the battle.
@ZoomerStasi First of all: Those Sarissa bearers always had a secondary weapon. What counts most here at such flight is speed and a cumbersome 5 meters long spear designed to be used in a formation will certainly not help much in self defense or single combat. So yes, we can assume most of them would throw away that weapon.
@ZoomerStasi What is your comment supposed to tell us, mate ? That you have a problem with German people, referring to them with an acronym from long gone times ? Or that you have no clue about history at all as Macedonians were no Greeks, in fact they were even despised and considered barbarians by the Greeks at those times.
@ZoomerStasiGreeks haven't been relevant since before Jesus was born 😂. How many empires have trampled Greece over these years? Turks, Romans, Macedonians
@@Bryce911 Correct. As states solidified, becoming more centralized, organized, and populations larger, the armies they fielded became bigger. Drives up the casualties. Technology advanced, artillery, air power, guns, etc. made things worse. Industrialization from the 18th made it even worse as devastating weapons could be produced on a larger scale. Artillery and air power evolved and could cause casualties at a distance. European warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries became larger, costlier. The Napoleonic Wars turned the notch up as conscription was being used for mass levies. The Battle of Nations in 1813 had over 500k men in this 3 day battle, producing 110k killed, excluding wounded and captured. The 19th century brought technological advancements, making it far worse, eventually leading into what we'd see with World War I. And if WWI wasn't enough, The Sequel would take place 2 decades later with even more horrific deaths. Another big difference from ancient, classical warfare to 20th century warfare was that the older form of war was centered around cataclysmic, decisive, single battles that typically happened in one day, a matter of hours if even that. This key battle would determine the result of the campaign. 20th century warfare still had that, but it's battles could be drawn out to several days, several weeks, or even several months, producing endless agony. Even worse, states could absorb horrific battle results better than before, and keep on fighting. The Roman Republic absorbing the insane losses Hannibal inflicted on them during the Second Punic War, yet still insist on fighting was unheard of for that time. Tradition was something like 1-2 bad losses like what the Romans suffered would bring anyone to sue for peace. That the Romans refused, had the population and allied support to absorb those losses and keep on fighting dumbfounded the brilliant Hannibal, a problem he could never solve. But with modern wars with larger, centralized states, consolidated power, organization, losses could be absorbed easily and armies reformed, sent to the grinder. The Roman exception of the ancient world became the norm in modern warfare.
Titus Livius on the Battle of Pydna (168 BC) "At first the Thracians, like wild beasts, kept long in a cage, raised such a roar from the right flank, that the roman cavalry-men of brave character and long military experience-came into disarray."
If your a student of History you'll notice that the Macedonians were missing a key component of their winning formula Alexander used to conquer the World. The Hypaspists. These were the Silver Shields in Alexander's time and they were flexible Hoplite Styled Swordsmen who fought on the flanks of the Sarissa Phalanx and prevent it from being enveloped. After the Diadochi Wars took place with Death of Alexander these troops types fell out favor in place of an emphasis on Pike Warfare because of the Hellenistic Civil War. Hypaspists were more expensive to equip and train, and thus were neglected if not outright abandoned as a troop type in later centuries. This is why when the debate of Roman vs Macedonian Armies comes up often you will hear some mention that the later Macedonian Armies that Rome fought were hollow shells of their former glory, far less adapted to combined arms warfare. These late Macedonians Armies were nothing like Alexander's, just a shadow of the former. They had lost their combined arms approach to warfare, so when faced with a non-Hellenistic foe they suffered greatly.
Very good, one thing that is wrong is that the Phalangists although they have the correct shield the smaller 'Telamon' they are carrying and holding it with their left hand/arm like a Greek Hoplite would carry and then hold his larger shield the Aspis whilst in a Phalanx formation. This is incorrect, the Macedonian Phalangist had his shield hung or strapped over his left shoulder. He didn't hold it. He needed both hands free just to hold the 16 foot long Sarrissa which was twice the length of the Dory (pike/spear) the Greek Hoplites used.
In fact, the Macedonian cavalry did not engage in the battle. Yet, it was the inability to halt the Phalanx before the ruptured terrain that costed the battle.
After this battle, a century later Macedonia became the impoverished backwater that Brutus felt insulted to be sent to by Julius Caesar: ruclips.net/video/pqAled94R0w/видео.html
2 questions: - Why did the roman light inf and velites charge into the Phalanx when their allies were at the top of a hill? - Why did the Roman general decide to move his phalanx down the hill to save the light infantry only to then realise that h had the advantage on top of the hill?
1) they did so to buy time for main army 2) when the Romans charged down the Macedonian started charging them. By turning around the Macedonian thought they were retreating and pushed harder. It's more exertion going uphill so by the time they engaged the Macedonians would've been tired on top of the phalanx being broken.
The main reason why Alexander's phalanx were better than later Macedonian's is that Alexander used cavalry n light infantry on the flanks of the phalanx to cover their exposed weaknesses. By leaving their flanks exposed with no support the later Macedonians often suffered loses.
So what is it, Makedon or Macedon? Both pronunciations are used at different points in the video. I also noted some apparent confusion/mixup between the Roman right and left flank in the latter part of the battle description.
There is no way only 100 Romans had died in Pydna. It is known that historian Plutarch was friend of the Romans or they forced him to write exagerrations about the Roman victory at Pydna.
It's possible but very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very rare
@@sumitkharbanda4565 I don't doubt that 25,000 Macedonians had died at Pydna because the Romans were about 45,000 like Macedonians, so if half the Romans had killed all those Macedonians, I guess by the same logic, 45,000 Macedonians would have killed more than 100 Romans during the whole battle. Ofcourse, much less than 25000 but not only 100. It seems impossible.
@@aryankhan3619 roman also had 25 or 20 elephants while the macedons have 0..the macedonian army also made up to 20k phalangites while the other 20k is levy troops from macedons, so its pretty much 20k phalangites will do the heavy fighting against veteran roman allied army..so when it comes to quality soldier in that battle the roman side probly had more quality troops than the macedon 20k phalangites, the phalangites were elite but the other half of its force are levy-farmer soldiers.
I agree with you. However, the actual accurate description of events is lost to time. The 'generalizations' are accurate (i.e. the Romans won), but the details are lost to bias of the author and his sources.
But guys isn't it interesting that the Seleucids and the Ptolemies fought at the battle of Panium in Judaea before Christ was born. Panium is also called Pan's Grotto where Jesus told Peter "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".
There are thousands of proves that macedonians are greeks BUT i will say none! I will say only one prove! The prove that will hurts you the most! Alexander the Great HIMSELF said to his letter to Darius "MACEDONIA AND THE REST OF GREECE". Alexander the great HIMSELF SAID IT!!! Does it hurts Monkey from fake north macedonia??? Does it hurts you? I hope it does and i am sure it does!
People love to embellish these ancient battles showing tens of thousands more troops than there actually were on both sides. And all of them having these iconic beautiful uniforms. I guess it sells movies and video games, but for some reason I suspect the soldiers likely looked more rustic, ragged, shorter, and not as beefy. Keep in mind that most people from the dawn of man until about 100-200 years ago didn’t get enough to eat most of the time. And life expectancy for men was around 40 back then. But, I guess skinny, short, ragged soldiers don’t make for fun movies and games so carry on. Fantasy is fun.
However, there was pride and discipline. What unit commander would want his troops to look like trash? In this battle, the Macedonians were on home soil, so they would look pretty good, but smell like skunks, haha! The Romans would be even more ripe, but their kit would be good or their commander would be sacked!
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you to Kaisa for assisting with the editing and cinematography = www.youtube.com/@KaisaMachinimas
From what I understood, Perseus was a vassal king with permission from the Roman Republic. The Romans were enraged by his growing independence and actions and despite his protestations of loyalty, Rome declared war on him knowing full well that Macedonia has no chance.
If your a student of History you'll notice that the Macedonians were missing a key component of their winning formula Alexander used to conquer the World. The Hypaspists. These were the Silver Shields in Alexander's time and they were flexible Hoplite Styled Swordsmen who fought on the flanks of the Sarissa Phalanx and prevent it from being enveloped. After the Diadochi Wars took place with Death of Alexander these troops types fell out favor in place of an emphasis on Pike Warfare because of the Hellenistic Civil War. Hypaspists were more expensive to equip and train, and thus were neglected if not outright abandoned as a troop type in later centuries. This is why when the debate of Roman vs Macedonian Armies comes up often you will hear some mention that the later Macedonian Armies that Rome fought were hollow shells of their former glory, far less adapted to combined arms warfare. These late Macedonians Armies were nothing like Alexander's, just a shadow of the former. They had lost their combined arms approach to warfare, so when faced with a non-Hellenistic foe they suffered greatly.
Thanks for your interesting contribution. Where can I find out more information about Alexander's campaigns?
in this battle Roman Cavalry decimated macedon left wing force of peltast and Cavalry tho like the video said.make Romans can initiate pincer attack, also The Macedon army kinda have low moral because of Lunar Eclipse before while lucius tell their man is just nature phenomenon also He choose uneven terrain knowing is phalanx weakness. the battle clearly favor to roman side i believe
This is the first time that I have heard about this change. It would explain the outcome of this and other battles.
May I ask you where this information is from? Is there any historical source?
@@andresalphie5400 You can find descriptions of them in Historical Literature but it will require some digging and it's not light reading. If your looking for something without citation, more of a reader friendly book that talks on them briefly I highly recommend Ghost on the Throne.
@@andresalphie5400 The author of Ghost on Throne includes citations I'm pretty sure, it's been a bit since I read it. Perhaps one of those specifically references them. I've been nerding out the Macedonian and Diadochi Conflicts my whole life so over time I pick up this bits and pieces of information. I remember when Rome 2 dropped I was disappointed because the closest thing to the Hypaspists we got were those Royal Peltasts unit which were a later adaptation from the Diadochi Wars. True Hypaspists from Philips and Alexanders time were basically Elite Hoplites that would fight with a Sword and sometimes throw their main Spear when things got dicey in combat but otherwise were traditionally like a Hoplite in open Battle, if a Night Assault or Fortress Assault took place they dropped their Heavy Hoplite Armor for Lighter Armor. They became such Elite Shock Troopers that Alexander covered their Shields in Silver before marching into India. They were the best of the best, the first Professional Army in recorded History.
I am overwhelmed by the sheer number and cannot look away.
This was the first video game I ever owned, it's nice to see the battle tactics that I had no idea about when I was a kid. Awesome job!
this is rome 2 you know that
@@pa5287 I think he means that it TWR 2 or 1
@@pa5287 He might just be that young..
@@pa5287hey not everyone who plays game is a fossil
who said im a fossil @@loowick4074
Very good camera work! Exciting combat scenes. Excellent video! 👍
Someone make this channel viral.
Good video, as usual. Keep them coming!💯❤️
More to come!
super produziertes kampfepos Video Sowas können nur Spezialisten! Thankyou es war sehr interessant und ein persönliches Erlebniss so einen Super Kampf mit anzusehen . 🙋♀️🙏👍👍😚🇩🇪Hattmir toll gefallen 👍👍👍😘
Great job man
I really enjoyed the podcast.
Well written
Thanks
Great work keep it coming
Super great as always!
Great video! Crazy to imagine what it must have been like back then, marching and taking part in such a battle.
Да,это точно,мы бы с нашей физ подготовкой бы быстро от усталости свалились🤔
I love your videos❤❤ keep making them
Thank you!
Very nice video :D Really enjoyed listening to the deatil of the battle :)
The video was as colossal as the battle!!!
4:51 - Soldier just busy going about his business, didn't have the time to be distracted by the carnage,... 🤣
Nice video!
Thanks!
Thanks for the history lesson . Always wondered about this
Nice as always
Very funny ( and weird ) that the fleeing Phalangites keep their Sarissas - normally a fleeing unit would let go all of their weaponry and often even the armour. Beside that nice and mostly correct depiction of the battle.
Game limitations
@ZoomerStasi First of all: Those Sarissa bearers always had a secondary weapon. What counts most here at such flight is speed and a cumbersome 5 meters long spear designed to be used in a formation will certainly not help much in self defense or single combat. So yes, we can assume most of them would throw away that weapon.
In reality they left their sarissa while they retreat.
@ZoomerStasi What is your comment supposed to tell us, mate ? That you have a problem with German people, referring to them with an acronym from long gone times ? Or that you have no clue about history at all as Macedonians were no Greeks, in fact they were even despised and considered barbarians by the Greeks at those times.
@ZoomerStasiGreeks haven't been relevant since before Jesus was born 😂.
How many empires have trampled Greece over these years?
Turks, Romans, Macedonians
Always great to watch
voice narration goes hard keep doing it
EPIC!🔥⚔
Übrigens hab ich denKanal schon seit langer Zeit auf ABO😀😀😀🇩🇪🙏
Great stuff. Keep it up.
love history, love video games, great vid
Damn, been waiting for this battle
The amount of casualties they used to have in some of these battles, makes it hard to believe why they all still kept on fighting each other.
Compared to modern battles this is nothing
@@Bryce911 Correct. As states solidified, becoming more centralized, organized, and populations larger, the armies they fielded became bigger. Drives up the casualties. Technology advanced, artillery, air power, guns, etc. made things worse. Industrialization from the 18th made it even worse as devastating weapons could be produced on a larger scale. Artillery and air power evolved and could cause casualties at a distance.
European warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries became larger, costlier. The Napoleonic Wars turned the notch up as conscription was being used for mass levies. The Battle of Nations in 1813 had over 500k men in this 3 day battle, producing 110k killed, excluding wounded and captured. The 19th century brought technological advancements, making it far worse, eventually leading into what we'd see with World War I. And if WWI wasn't enough, The Sequel would take place 2 decades later with even more horrific deaths.
Another big difference from ancient, classical warfare to 20th century warfare was that the older form of war was centered around cataclysmic, decisive, single battles that typically happened in one day, a matter of hours if even that. This key battle would determine the result of the campaign. 20th century warfare still had that, but it's battles could be drawn out to several days, several weeks, or even several months, producing endless agony.
Even worse, states could absorb horrific battle results better than before, and keep on fighting. The Roman Republic absorbing the insane losses Hannibal inflicted on them during the Second Punic War, yet still insist on fighting was unheard of for that time. Tradition was something like 1-2 bad losses like what the Romans suffered would bring anyone to sue for peace. That the Romans refused, had the population and allied support to absorb those losses and keep on fighting dumbfounded the brilliant Hannibal, a problem he could never solve.
But with modern wars with larger, centralized states, consolidated power, organization, losses could be absorbed easily and armies reformed, sent to the grinder. The Roman exception of the ancient world became the norm in modern warfare.
Epic !!!
Titus Livius on the Battle of Pydna (168 BC) "At first the Thracians, like wild beasts,
kept long in a cage, raised such a roar from the right flank, that the roman cavalry-men of brave character and long military experience-came into disarray."
The horses got scared probably.
More historical battles please 🙏
Great work on this.
Epic
Epic battle
I thought Kaisa did not post videos on RUclips anymore. I like their videos.
Romans destroyed Hellenistic era very well
👈👈😎 your welcome
As it was meant to be
sorry to inform you that the romans were quick to become hellenized
@@spyridon3089 Hercules is the reason
@@spyridon3089 😂😂 Best joke of the day
Have you ever thought about making one of the King of Babylon Nebucodonosor against the kingdom of Juda?
Amazing how that rare drone footage survived somehow.
They should have pivoted the phalanx on the flank toward the elephants.
Praktisch da man die Speere der Gegner wieder zurück werfen konnte.
Pullo Formation!
Without heavy Calvary I don't think an army can last, Blessed Be.
Do you usually play with someone else when you make this movie? THank you, great video
You never mentioned the mule.
We are the best one😂
Thracian ✋🏴☠️🇧🇬
Hahaha Thracian you
Pyrrhus of Epirus which was in Macedon region defeated the Romans in couple of battlefields.
cool vid, how do you do this aniomations?
Roman became the surrogate of Greece that today we are all enjoying. Philosophy Science democracy etc.
From the look of this battle, perseus had absolutely no idea what he was doing.
If your a student of History you'll notice that the Macedonians were missing a key component of their winning formula Alexander used to conquer the World. The Hypaspists. These were the Silver Shields in Alexander's time and they were flexible Hoplite Styled Swordsmen who fought on the flanks of the Sarissa Phalanx and prevent it from being enveloped. After the Diadochi Wars took place with Death of Alexander these troops types fell out favor in place of an emphasis on Pike Warfare because of the Hellenistic Civil War. Hypaspists were more expensive to equip and train, and thus were neglected if not outright abandoned as a troop type in later centuries. This is why when the debate of Roman vs Macedonian Armies comes up often you will hear some mention that the later Macedonian Armies that Rome fought were hollow shells of their former glory, far less adapted to combined arms warfare. These late Macedonians Armies were nothing like Alexander's, just a shadow of the former. They had lost their combined arms approach to warfare, so when faced with a non-Hellenistic foe they suffered greatly.
He was rookie in total war battles, lol.
Great Job one more time!! Cheers from @historyandgames
Very good, one thing that is wrong is that the Phalangists although they have the correct shield the smaller 'Telamon' they are carrying and holding it with their left hand/arm like a Greek Hoplite would carry and then hold his larger shield the Aspis whilst in a Phalanx formation.
This is incorrect, the Macedonian Phalangist had his shield hung or strapped over his left shoulder. He didn't hold it.
He needed both hands free just to hold the 16 foot long Sarrissa which was twice the length of the Dory (pike/spear) the Greek Hoplites used.
I bet the Roman casualties were higher than a few hundred , but there's no way to conclusively prove it . A Decisive Roman victory nonetheless .
👍🏻👍🏻
In fact, the Macedonian cavalry did not engage in the battle. Yet, it was the inability to halt the Phalanx before the ruptured terrain that costed the battle.
After this battle, a century later Macedonia became the impoverished backwater that Brutus felt insulted to be sent to by Julius Caesar:
ruclips.net/video/pqAled94R0w/видео.html
2 questions:
- Why did the roman light inf and velites charge into the Phalanx when their allies were at the top of a hill?
- Why did the Roman general decide to move his phalanx down the hill to save the light infantry only to then realise that h had the advantage on top of the hill?
Because this guy is an idiot
1) they did so to buy time for main army
2) when the Romans charged down the Macedonian started charging them. By turning around the Macedonian thought they were retreating and pushed harder. It's more exertion going uphill so by the time they engaged the Macedonians would've been tired on top of the phalanx being broken.
The main reason why Alexander's phalanx were better than later Macedonian's is that Alexander used cavalry n light infantry on the flanks of the phalanx to cover their exposed weaknesses. By leaving their flanks exposed with no support the later Macedonians often suffered loses.
So what is it, Makedon or Macedon? Both pronunciations are used at different points in the video. I also noted some apparent confusion/mixup between the Roman right and left flank in the latter part of the battle description.
Both terms are viable, “Makedon” to describe the faction and “Macedon” to describe the soldiers/citizens
Macedonia is in English makedonia is in greek
Makedon is the Greek word. The english word is Macedon. It is simbly a tranclation
Translation or not, be consistent. One or the other.
A short video on the Roman siege of Masada?
There is no way only 100 Romans had died in Pydna. It is known that historian Plutarch was friend of the Romans or they forced him to write exagerrations about the Roman victory at Pydna.
It's possible but very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very rare
@@sumitkharbanda4565 I don't doubt that 25,000 Macedonians had died at Pydna because the Romans were about 45,000 like Macedonians, so if half the Romans had killed all those Macedonians, I guess by the same logic, 45,000 Macedonians would have killed more than 100 Romans during the whole battle. Ofcourse, much less than 25000 but not only 100. It seems impossible.
Love the Roman’s
the romans at this battle had italians, greek, numidian and hispanic allies on there side, so its like the allies ganging up on the macedons.
In this battle macedonia have more troops them romans 43 thousend greeks and 38 thousend romans
@@aryankhan3619 roman also had 25 or 20 elephants while the macedons have 0..the macedonian army also made up to 20k phalangites while the other 20k is levy troops from macedons, so its pretty much 20k phalangites will do the heavy fighting against veteran roman allied army..so when it comes to quality soldier in that battle the roman side probly had more quality troops than the macedon 20k phalangites, the phalangites were elite but the other half of its force are levy-farmer soldiers.
I say calvary sometimes, too. Even though I know that its "cavalry" I still say "calvary." Like my brain refuses to get it right lol.
Ok then. You are forgiven, but only reluctantly.
@@1167400 Thanks very much. Ill let everyone know 🤣
Long leave the legacy of Alexander the Great Macedon and He's Macedonian army👍👑☀️...newar Greek.
Always greek you bulgaroski trash 😂
Before the battle, the Greeks should hv employed archers to give them a headstart.
¿que mod utilizas para poder acercar tanto la cámara sin que se distorsione la imagen??
1212121 wiwiwiw wiwkq❤😂 1:43
See, you can say it!
say what lol?
Kalka river battle pls
Terrible defeat, could have been averted by more cohesion and flanks protected but poor generalship sealed their fate.
I agree with you. However, the actual accurate description of events is lost to time. The 'generalizations' are accurate (i.e. the Romans won), but the details are lost to bias of the author and his sources.
its ashame they went to war with macedonia, rome and macedonia couldve founded a alliance and conquered the world together but, it is what is it ig
But guys isn't it interesting that the Seleucids and the Ptolemies fought at the battle of Panium in Judaea before Christ was born. Panium is also called Pan's Grotto where Jesus told Peter "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".
vow
Macedonian Empire ( Greece))vs Roman Empire(Italy) ancient military wars battle of century.
Roma victor!
👍🌿😆🌿
Can you named the title of the Music instead of just a composer?
Which one?
@@WarAndHistory. every music
How many greek warriors have they?
А на мобилу есть
121212121 wiwwkw wkwwk❤😂 2:10
I don’t know how, Alexander the Great would have never lost 🎉. Btw: he lived in the 4th century bc, not 3rd century
Rhee eis np army arrivals but maybe the anser is i or the mitror not another
The Macedonians fighting at four fronts. . The phalanx had to operate alone not the best thing.
It’s annoying hearing the narrator say “Calvary” when it’s cavalry
Yes. It is....
No Greek-Macedonian Silver Shields/Hoplite,Archers/slingers spelled the doom of Macedons
Wolves are coming
Macedonians were always been different nation from greeks, even now and that is genetic proved!
😂😂nice joke bukgaroski why don't you offer us your proof ?
There are thousands of proves that macedonians are greeks BUT i will say none! I will say only one prove! The prove that will hurts you the most! Alexander the Great HIMSELF said to his letter to Darius "MACEDONIA AND THE REST OF GREECE". Alexander the great HIMSELF SAID IT!!! Does it hurts Monkey from fake north macedonia??? Does it hurts you? I hope it does and i am sure it does!
Rip kingdom of Macedon 🇬🇷😔
It has life by rress the wars bears end truths by facts life to be
Ако не се повлекла војската од Атина и го оставила слободно крилото ,Римјаните повеќе немало да стапнат на Балканот .
See a walk but if arruves in seats destroy
Mac a don 😂😂😂
მალადეც მძმაო შენ ✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌💪💪💪💪💪💪💪👍👍👍👍👍🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿
Who's bad ?! 👍🌿😆🌿
04:35
People love to embellish these ancient battles showing tens of thousands more troops than there actually were on both sides. And all of them having these iconic beautiful uniforms. I guess it sells movies and video games, but for some reason I suspect the soldiers likely looked more rustic, ragged, shorter, and not as beefy. Keep in mind that most people from the dawn of man until about 100-200 years ago didn’t get enough to eat most of the time. And life expectancy for men was around 40 back then. But, I guess skinny, short, ragged soldiers don’t make for fun movies and games so carry on. Fantasy is fun.
However, there was pride and discipline. What unit commander would want his troops to look like trash? In this battle, the Macedonians were on home soil, so they would look pretty good, but smell like skunks, haha! The Romans would be even more ripe, but their kit would be good or their commander would be sacked!
Im win in this battles im alive
🤌🏼🤌🏼
In the battle soldiers , never had their cloacks attached on them
No servants i want to be not i need anothee e to live