How did the Romans swap units around mid-battle?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 ноя 2024
- Great Courses Plus free month offer: ow.ly/gAEv308jLrJ
How did the Romans replace hard-pressed units with fresh troops during battles? The theories on this are legion.
Course featured, "Greek 101: learning an ancient language" taught by Hans-Friedrich Mueller, Ph.D. of Union College, Schenectady, New York.
"The Great Courses Plus is currently available to watch through a web browser to almost anyone in the world and optimized for the US market. The Great Courses Plus is currently working to both optimize the product globally and accept credit card payments globally."
The spelling of 'optimise' in that statement was optimised for readers in the USA.
Here I exercise my right to speculate about how Romans swapped maniples from the second line (principes) with units of the first line (hastati) during a hard-fought battle. I am confident that no one knows how it was done, so we can all give it a go.
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
Pre-order my book on Hannibal and the Second Punic War: www.InSearchofH...
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.ban...
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
/ user "Lindybeige"
I was lucky to have a history teacher at school who was as interesting and informative as this chap.
@Epoxygleu dear god
When I started high school my history teacher was amazing. He’d been all around the world and had worked on loads of archaeological digs. He was like Lineybeige in that he just wouldn’t stop talking, but your would never get bored
I’m jealous...my geography teacher was hot though lol
Me too, I found history so boring a school, that i picked Geography instead. I don’t understand what I was thinking, I’ve been fascinated by history my whole adult life. Unfortunately, I can’t decide what part of history I want to learn about, so just hop around.
@@sian2337 I found it quite boring because I just want to learn stuff not bother backing up points, this is why I chose Geography and watch Lindybeige and Drachinfel
The Romans solved this with the help of their (for the time) advanced engineering skills. They set up a large wooden crane with a long beam across (like a capital T) with leather loops fastened to the beam behind the century. On order, the crane lowered the beam towards the hastati, who each grabbed a loop and was lifted up by the crane. The principes would advance under their dangling legs, and then the crane would retract slightly and set the hastati down behind them.
Bro l, WHAT??? That’s not true
I believe the first half lol
That's funny :)
I know so little about roman history that I have no idea if this is a joke or not
@@spook407 the Romans were good engineers but this is a joke.
I open this video because it sounds interesting, and I see a man who looks like he hasn't slept in a day, despite having bed hair, explaining roman tactics to me.
*Sighs, Subs.*
FWIW he wrote a pretty darned good book on the second Punic war. 'Punic' that is. Not 'Picnic'.
He never looks any different an any video
@@camerongleason5390 Legends say, he will sleep when the Roman Empire rises again :)
Welcome to Lindybeige. Where have *you* been?
I'd struggle to believe or trust any kind of British historian/lecturer who didn't look and sound exactly like this. This is the sound of a British man talking about something he loves, and it's a wonderful sound.
15:24
"What's so funny about 'wegular twoops', centuwion?"
i shall have you know i have a fwrend in wome named biggus dickus
Do you find it wisable... When I say the words... Wegular Twoops!?
@@bosanskirambo4066 don't laugh
Fwow hwim to tha fwoor
owo uwu
What I most take from this video is just how complicated warfare was even in antiquity. Modern historians and military professionals still can’t figure out exactly how Romans actually fought in battle. That is wonderful to me.
My take on the maniple swap is that it wasn’t a single maneuver but any number of maneuvers a century could perform based on the needs of the moment.
On the quincux: if an enemy line wraps around the edges of your two leading formations and fills the gaps between them, the practical affect is the same as if you had smashed through their line. Yes, the poor leading formations are getting poked at from the sides, but here comes the next 3 formations to poke the Gauls, Greeks, Carthaginians or what ever in THEIR sides...
Exactly and imagine throwing pila and arrows or sling in this bunch of enemies that are exposed from the flanks. You dont have to bulge in the ennemies formations if they do it for you. And then you can charge these weakened enemy troops with fresh and better troops (Principes compared to hastatii)
Hastati and Principes also carried pretty large shields, so the men on the flanks could form a bit of a shield wall and be relatively safe. The only thing you can do to break through is a cavalry charge, so as long as you keep your gap too narrow for cavalry, you are pretty safe until the next line advances.
Roman soldiers on the flanks of the manipule who would have to deal with enemies in the gap attacking them from the side, could relatively easily turn 90 degrees and face them to protect the sides of the manipule until the reinforcing manipule could get into action
Slow down! Otherwise we'll get used to such frequent uploads.
Such long ones as well!
Some of us are used to waiting 6 months for a Dan Carlin episode.
What did the Romans ever do for us eh?
the aqueduct
Bigus Dickus jokes.
The letters you just used.
Really, man?
roads , hosptials....oh the wine!
As a roman, I approve this message.
i like your vids
Autism Is Unstoppable thanks :-) glad you do!
I second that man
Holy shit! It's Matsimus! I just watched your "Raytheon Upgrades M60A3" video before coming to this one. I love your videos. And you definitely have the best intro/outro I have ever seen in a youtube video.
Matsimus Gaming YOUR CHANNEL IS GREAT! I love your tank reviews.
Greeks often had a designated place that they would wage war on that was considered a "battlefield" But I'm uncertain if the ground was flat and devoid of trees.
Late to the party but I'll respond: greek city-states would often designate the battlefield with their rival city-states and set terms for the victor to let the defeated bury their dead, but I'm assuming that gradually warfare became more about tactics and less about tradition. Regardless, most battles would purposefully take place near cemeteries so they could bury their dead nearby.
So you're right about greek battlefields, however in southern Europe most plains are actually valleys, wide or narrow, with a river or many rivers at the centre, and large empty fields that did not need to be deforested for farming were not as common so most "plain grasslands" were usually already cluttered with villages and their fields and ranches, everything other region was either a sparsely forested pass or a dense woodland or a mountainous area really. What those movies fail to bring up is that oftentimes battles would take place in such irregular regions for one side to exploit such imperfect landscape, like narrow passes, steep hills or dense forests.
"Loads of quite objectionable, frankly, enemies." Favorite quote ever.
That ad-transition was pretty slick.
Still laughing :)
"You need a psycho, to be right at the point of the wedge." - I wonder if that was in the commander's manual of the day. lol
There's an amazing video floating around on youtube somewhere showing South Korea riot police tactics. They do something very much like maniple swaps, and shifting into different formations (columns into filles and then lines of different lengths and depths). It's all done effortlessly and brilliantly, with just whistle blows or shouted commands. Now consider the skill sets displayed by any decent University marching band, with all their choreagraphed movements. I would contend that the Roman legionnaires were just as skilled as the above if not more so, and could easily pull off complicated maniple swaps in battle.
have you seen south korean rioters!??
ajaxjs ive see it to,It look very good, to good actually, there is no way the soldiers can hear all the commands to clearly understand and react at the same time, not with those helmets and sweat in your ears,and the opfor ist doing anything other then some random pushing, and yes I have expierience in crc , 8 years in fact
They probably used whistles, or horns or such. But yes. I doubt it was identical, but I think the principle of a large body of trained men working much more fluidly together than most armchair historians think is possible, is quite believable. A Roman veteran with decades of experience must have been better drilled than your average top-tier college marching band.
You think they could do that mid-battle, with thousands more men on each side of them, while fighting other men with swords to the death (not bottles/rocks)? All that demonstration was was a show performance. Swapping a whole ass formation while pressed up against your own guys, and the enemy, is not going to be easy. Seems much simplier to put the Principes behind the Hastati and feed them in from the end of the file.
Now I'm playing Rome TW 1 again. Thanks Lindy
Lovely! Rome 1 was the best thing ever to roll out of Creative Assembly.
Try the Europa barbarorum mod, it's great. Probably a bit long in the tooth nowadays but they made another one for Medieval 2 as well
@@The_Real_Maxajax Gosh, in times when there is Warhammer 2 and Three Kingdoms Rome is definitely not the best TW game.
omg, I know right!!! I'm like oh let's play "insert game here" "sees lindybeige video"
*LETS PLAY TW ROME 2 !!!*
@@ArtificialFertilizer Ever played Third Age mod?
The maniple or rather the file swap at the beginning of the TV series Rome, mentioned here, certainly looks good. To set it in motion, the centurion blows a whistle. Worth watching.
I would have thought it obvious that there must have been file rotation. No one could have fought hand to hand for more than a few minutes, the guys on the very edge of battle would be guaranteed to tire and then be wounded. Just a few minutes rest and you'd be ready to fight again. Imagine a 12 round boxing match when you're up against a fresh boxer each round, you would not have a chance.
I think in the same way. If there were no rotation the count of casualties would have been really high. That would mean that nearly all exhausted or wounded men would have have been slaughtered.
Not to mention the fact that the standard century formation with 6 files by 10 men deep really makes no sense otherwise. You can't just use all of those extra men in the rear ranks as added mass pushing on the men in front; the ones in front would be shoved forward so hard they'd never be able to do anything. The men in the rear ranks would just stand there with nothing to do until all the men in front of them are killed (at which point the rear ranks would probably break and run anyway). The only way such a deep formation makes sense is if the men were rotating in and out so they all could share in the fighting. Entire centuries, in turn, could then "swap" by having the men of the rear century join the back of the line formed by each file of the forward century, and then the men in the forward century could reform in the rear as they successively rotate out of the front line.
This also makes the importance of the optio, and his position in the formation, clear. Standing at the rear of the century, it would be his job to direct the men rotating back from the front line where to go. He would be responsible for directing wounded men out of the fight, making sure the able-bodied soldiers stayed in the fight, and redistributing men to shore up weakening files. Plus, he would likely coordinate with the centurion of the other century in the maniple regarding when a swap should occur; the optio would be able to observe the condition of men rotating back from the front and gauge casualties, and his own centurion could send brief messages back to him via the men rotating out regarding the state of the fighting.
The Roman fought in tight formations. Creating a shield wall that they would then stab over and around at the enemy . Seems logical to me that on a pre planned schedule or when the line looked like it might break an order would be given and the front line feeling a tap from the legionairy behind would throw the enemy in front off balance and step back allowing the man behind him to take his position .
Just like in 1:1 combat, when fighters get tired, they fall into a pattern. Same would happen for these soldiers. Eventually, one would be more tired than the other and the other will perish but you are still correct in the sense these fights were generally over within miniutes especially early history. Big battles were costly for the economies at the time. I also wonder because he never talked about calvary... Calvary can only operate if there are gaps so this setup of 5 would be best if used vs nonregular troops or troops lacking calvary. This setup would be total suicide if the enemy had calvary and that also explains why calvary became so dominant after the fall of rome.
@@PhilOCypher1 like this? ruclips.net/video/J7MYlRzLqD0/видео.html
two videos in two days? Where's the real Lindy you imposter?
Probably in some stuffy Frenchman's basement!
Michael Piperni forced to make a million beige shirts
Your promotions are almost as amusing to watch as your actual videos!
Ancient prophecies say that one day, the promotions will become the perfect blend of the topic discussed and the promoted material. And it will be glorious!
Old Time Radio had it down to a science. Fully integrated promotions that were entertaining and became part of the show. Maxwell House on Burns and Gracie was a 'running gag' with the sales guy. Same with Johnsons GloCoat on Fibber McGee and Molly. Done well it is more memorable.
I lost it when he segued into that.
Lets be honest here Beigeman. Just thinking about the logistics of the areas in which Romans fought, everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Hear me out. Lets take the small and extremely reasonable/probable assumption that the JOff's had local control to allow for issues regarding terrain and enemy formations/movements. With this being the case, you could very well have had within a single battle units that swapped such as the "Rome" TV show, as well as others that decided that putting the full centuries in a front/back formation was in order due to a fence/house/river or even the fact that maybe they were on a flank to contain the central mob of Barbarians.
I have a rather large and sneaking suspicion that if this "Maniple Swapping" in the way we understand it currently actually did happen, that it was in no way what-so-ever a single, un-adaptable, inflexible and strict manner for doing so. It just doesn't make sense logically when you take the "Hollywood Battlefield" out of the equation, to have a single way to refresh your troops in battle. If fact you could make a valid argument that it would harm and disrupt your own troops far more due purely to terrain, let alone the mongrel hordes attacking you, because the "one set way formation" would have to be maintained regardless of what massive tree, house or fence just happened to be nearby.
Roman's were brilliant in many ways, it just seems like the logistics would dictate how you move more than some set way, and I would think that they came to the same conclusion.
P.S. Found your videos randomly, Muzzle Brakes linked on a World of Tanks video, and have been hooked since. Love your work!
Barrel brakes you mean?
Great video as allways. Personally my own theory is that the maniple swap was accomplished by the checkerboard formation AND a Huge ammount of drilling of troops on various terrain long before they ever saw battle. Its both known that the romans used checkerboarding & were highly disciplined & well drilled. Lastly I believe that the romans brought in groups of skirmishers/velites to initialy plug any hole that a falling back maniple created & that the skirmishers themselves were drilled to fall back Through the maniple as it advanced to take its place. All this IS Possible if troops are very well drilled before ever going into battle & when excecuted on the battlefeild can seriously demoralize the enemy who witness such a flawless maneuvre. I admit that this is still all theory & all theories on this subject have fairly equal validity, TY for presenting such a good video on this well known but little agreed upon topic & keep up the good work as your channel is one of the few who I truely look forward to seeing all the new content you come out with as well as going through all of your previous videos.
"A Maniple Swap" was british slang for changing the magazine of a Bren gun.
#MadeUpHistory
shlibber for sigmar i will purge you caos.
:v
I honestly thought this was true until reading the bottom
We never used it
Love that hashtag
"A mandible swap" was when two elderly grasshoppers set down their dentures beside one another after dinner and accidentally picked up the wrong one before leaving a restaurant.
2 videos in 2 days? Huzzah!
Not only two videos, two half-hour videos! I swear, we're getting spoiled!
Yeah we are
...............Huzzah!
huzzah indeed
SubZeroCro huzzah!
"How did the Romans swap units around mid-battle" we never got an answer about that...
We did kinda. FIrst Row of Blocks charge in, fall back, then 2nd line charge in. (Checkerboard)
@@kelfablob9823 not so m8 you can't fall back. The enemy won't let you. That's called a fighting withdrawal. It's really hard to explain in text.
Since this is an area that we have found very little historical comments, diaries and journals there is a lot of room for speculation. I think they advance the second line( checkered boarded) at a key moment with no movement of the front line. The second line keeps advancing until they are the new front line making the enemy caught in the middle vulnerable with a third line at the ready.
@CipiRipi00 it could have been that way but flanking an opposing force is an old very successful practice. That is why I think it was used differently. An orderly retreat is called for when you are overwhelmed or flanked.
So you just ignored the entire video and nearly 90 morons thought that was clever
Matt Colville mentioned this channel and boy am I happy I found it
hi, i've watched a lot of your videos and wanted to say you remind me of the one visiting professor in college I actually found interesting. Listening to you in the background while working has improved my diction, organization, and, of course, gesticulation management. Thanks.
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I really enjoy your channel so I decided to become a supporter on Patreon, keep on being awesome!
No, no, no, no - you walk in a single line to hide your numbers, even sandpeople know this! ;)
Anyone in the military knows that column formation(single file line) is the easiest and fastest formation to control.
File*
*rasp
Maybe because they didn't have MGs back then?
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
He made a video on my question!! I feel honored. Thank you lindybeige.
The Roman Legions operated from 500 BC to 750(?)AD. They evolved three times over the course time with modifications to operational procedure. The final description with the file swap was used in the Battle of Watling Street with Boudicca of Iceni.
However, Roman commanders through the ages handled each field individually. I believe that units trained for swaps in a multitude of manners. This was not just for the Romans benefit but also the leaderships benefit. Rome was the first state to give low ranking field officers the latitude to make command decisions.
Romans Triple Acies were more fluid than the Phalanx. But to rigid for Calvary who can maneuver faster than the Roman units which ultimately lead to the end of the legions.
The roman empire fell in 410 AD I'm not sure what you mean by that are you talking about the Byzantines?
@@AbrahamLincoln4 the byzantines are Romans, they were the Eastern Roman Empire. All middle and medieval age kingdoms refer to them as Romans and their land as the Roman Empire. Modern historians call them the Byzantine Empire so not to confuse it with the well known ancient Roman Empire. I prefer medieval Roman Empire over Byzantine Empire.
I think the Romans must have been able to swap their troops out line by line in order to win battles against armies like Queen Boudicca had brought against them. In the last battle the Romans had some 10,000 to go against an estimated 180,000 Brits. The Romans were said to be in a line 10 deep spanned across the whole open space they occupied. If they didn't swap by lines, then being spanned across the whole distance would mean you would have a single man in the line needing to be able to hold off, essentially 180 men, in order to survive. That's not going to happen.
I don't think even the best warriors on the planet have the endurance to hold off 180 fresh troops. You fight the first guy, kill him, fight the second guy, kill him, and while you tire, you still would have a fresh troop to fight after each one you kill. What is it, like one in a million who could possibly have worked up the endurance for it, if that.
So if the Romans didn't swap out line by line, they couldn't have switched around during the battle against Queen Boudicca's army and not be able to get any rest. Under such circumstances, even if the Romans won I think they would have lost a minimum of 50% to 80% of their men. And that is being generous, giving each dead Roman at least 10 dead Brits in return.
However, the Romans only had some 400 dead and a little over 400 wounded while killing an estimated 80,000 Brits. I'd say the results of this single battle is proof the Romans swapped out by lines during the heat of battle.
Sir Wimsy de Pimpington Boudicca was an absolutely horrific human even by ancient standards. I hate how she's glorified in the present
Sir Wimsy de Pimpington she massacred every Roman civilian she could find in the most brutal ways. We're talking being boiled alive if you were lucky. She was a truly vile person
Michael Jensen - you have described what I mentioned, the Romans had a swapping out method that was part of their training and regular operating. It caused their enemies to face an unbroken line of skilled fresh fighters. The other parts of the machine were the physical training for strength and endurance, a good diet, and an array of special tactics they trained for and that the centurions could have them switch to with a shouted command. An experienced centurion trained the men, and knew whenever the different ways to fight were needed, and they had worked out how to make the changes smoothly. The result was a group of men that were just about impossible to defeat.
If my people were being raped by a foreign conqueror I would love to make a death cult just to watch every last one of them die horrifically as I build pyramids out of their bones.
Sir Wimsy de Pimpington s
Who else tested to see if they could do a "double scholar cradle" without looking?
caveymoley me
Guilty as charged. Did you succeed?
me
forget the Romans, must practice the scholar cage....
Me failed 7/10 times
Now explain how a king & a rook can swap positions.
Depends on which one is on top--
Charles Wood HAH!
A barking mad, eccentric British genius right there! :)
Watch , British historians come in two flavours
a) bone dry
b) barking mad
Steps to becoming an internet genius...
1) Don't comb your hair
2) Go off on a lot of tangents without any kind of pause
3)Spew out words at a terrific rate but then even faster while getting excited so that your audience knows they're hearing something profound
4) Above all, be interesting and know what you're talking about
@@vinm300 Then what is Suzannah Lipscomb?
@@HemlockRidge , I hadn't heard of her but am pleasantly surprised : very presentable.
What about this historian , he seems to understand the full sweep of history, try this one "The Industrial revolution why Britain ? "
ruclips.net/video/0VdP0CdyJ1k/видео.html
Loved the ending. After I was waiting for John Cleese to appear and say 'and now for something completely different'
I was never really a good student, I dropped out of high school. Years later I decided to go to college and had an AWESOME history professor Mrs. Harmon who reignited my love of history and fostered our interests as students sometimes letting pick our own subjects within eras. Thanks for keeping my love of history burning.
I think Mr Beige would have made a great art or history teacher
QALibrary he'd be really expensive
Until he took 10 minutes in class to shout out to his sponsor
Yes, and his book about the Pubic Wars
lol Pubic Wars, I heard all the battles were fought in extremely dense forests.
Yes - that's why some of them used to spring into action, while the rest just got pissed off.
Personally i favor the "advance by century" hypothesis as well. It not just solves the deployment and engagement with gaps argument, but it also provides each maniple with more tactical options. I.e. the centuries can support each other on the attack or on the defense, they can provide covering "fire" for one another, or even perform mini flanking maneuvers thanks to the initiative and experience of their commanders. In other words, such a system would provide tremendous tactical flexibility, which is what the roman legions of the time were supposedly famous for.
EDIT: there was this old series of war games for PC, they were called "The great battles of...." Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar respectively. The one about Hannibal actually took this model for the roman legions during the Punic Wars.....
5000 views in 5 minutes, You're quite the success Lindy!
He will be able to afford any pullover he chooses....🤔
I appreciate the way you link the sponsors into the video in a relevant manner.
he missed the "can't always pick your battles joke" but also this guy literally makes the best history content on youtube right next to Dan Carlin so I can't complain. Love you Lindybiege
Don't forget the History Guy also...Both of them have done videos at the Tank museum, Bovington..🤔
With that hair you look like a *crazy genius.*
I invented the hair of a "crazy genius".
He is a *crazy genius*
@@roas2 being able to spell 'cliché' complete with accent makes you sound suspiciously academic also. J'acuse!
@@davebox588 I agree so cleashay
@@HaplessOne no, it's what heshay.
I thought the Romans would just shift soldiers in the line to keep troops fresh? IE front line steps to side and back (then to the back of the formation) while next in line steps up to fight. Seems much more sensible then trying to rotate entire units. With the method I mentioned each soldier is only fighting for a few minutes before getting a break.
that's within the unit. Lindy's talking about when they still used the Triplex Acies, how they would rotate units.
That only works if two maniples fight against the same enemy formation, so if they did this chequerboard formation, the enemy formation opposing the one's taking a break would also take a break, unless they try to surround the fighting maniple, which would be 2 vs 1. If the maniple formation was so much better than the single line, why was the single line formation used since the bronze age till the age of guns.
I think your method is how it was done. The three types and lines of same were each setup like you say. I think the 3 soldier types was early republic ,not the Imperial model.
HBO Rome Battle of Aleisa?
@@tullussulla6167 Yeah, he didn't 'think' a damn thing on his own, he watched it on tv.
I believe we would know if the Romans fought in quincunx formation. Because the two soldiers in the front corners of each century would have a high death rate and/or be considered a very prestigious position as they would be in the most vulnerable positions. This would certainly have been mentioned somewhere - in gravestones, writing, or whatever. While the enemy would be uncomfortable pushing into the quincunx gaps, which would get them surrounded, they would definitely team up on the corners.
We also know that people in a file were a small team on their own. They would spend entire campaigns together. So every army would know who was on the corner and it would be a noticeable casualty when taken.
Thank God for you, my good sir!
Fan from India here. Honestly, I read about the Romans swapping exhausted units with fresher ones from the lines behind them but for the life of me I never quite figured out how they would achieve this without the enemy making a decisive charge just as the line of infantry currently engaging them disengages. Thank you for this video.
This is without a doubt my favorite video that you've made Lindybeige. Well done!
One explanation I red somewhere and can not find again Was that ancient fight where so exhausting lasted several hours so very often one front tired just fell back and the enemy also not in perfect shape didn't follow creating a pause until one of the two had built up courage and energy to charge again.
There romans would approach in checkerboard with couples of centuries one in front and the other in the back.After the velites passed through the gaps the rear came in front unificating the line. Pila, charge, stab stab stab, pause and then the ex rear century would have pulled back again reforming the gap where the principes in the same formation would pass, reform the line and again charging.
If a front routed the rear line just let the routing romans pass and then close the gaps where the enemy would dare not go risking to be cut out between principes, hastati reorganizing and triarii.
Also the HBO Rome way resembles to me way more the 'rotate' command of an imperial cohort more than the one of a maniple
A fit man can only fight with vigor for about fifteen minutes before needing to pant for breath. It seems likely that hand to hand fighting would take place in a series of surges of fighting. The lines could swap during the fairly frequent lulls.
tfw you watch Lindy's previous video about the Roman army and wonder how they would swap units during battle and you see this video
C O N V E N I E NT
IT'S A TRAP!
exactly what i was thinking
This was highly informative (plus entertaining!). Thank you, you got yourself a new fan.
Loved the video, but gave an instant like once I got to the "double-cradle" action. Keep on keeping on good sir.
I could simply listen to you go on for hours and never tire of it.
Thats the most "history teacher" jumper I've ever seen, I love it!
Always thought provoking. I'd worked under the assumption that formations would switch from tight grouping to wider grouping and switch ranks in the space.
Hey Lindy have you ever played any of the Total War games?
Mihail Jackboot Watching Lindy videos has made me realize I am a horrible general.
Mihail Jackboot he played in time commanders ! check it out
Do you know the battle?
He did, they were on Time Commanders with Matt Easton
Try to do a maniple swapt in those games... It's a fucking nightmare
I think what happened was that the front rank units of hastati would on a command begin to retreat through the gaps left by the units behind them (either other hastatii or principes). They would maintain engagement with the enemy until they reached the ranks of the third unit and begin filtering through the gap between the second line and the third (at the corners). This would allow the third line to engage any overly eager pursuers while also waiting to take over the engagement by the second.
Once the second were tired or on orders, they too would begin to retreat until they passed the third line, now relying on the hastatii and triarii to maintain a defence for their withdrawal. By this time the majority of the enemy troops would have been engaged and become tired. They're facing ranks of experienced and fresh Triarii with long spears who are now backed up by a more rested hastatii and the principes.
All the while they'd be peppered by skirmishers on their flanks.
In this way I think the maniple system worked.
As such (I think) Roman armies relied on their greatest weapon: The exhaustion of their enemy through tactical withdrawals. The soldiers were no better or worse, and the large shields and effective tactics allowed them to gain repeated victories over armies whose main tactic was a massive linear charge with little or no reserve.
Your interpretation makes sense of the Roman dart. Rather than throwing them like Jarts, the front line of the rear century/maniple would be pelting the enemy through the gap, the rest of the file passing their darts up as fast as the guy in front could throw them.
Withoud watching: The used a checkerboard setup. Seen it in Asterix
anyone wanna buy a water seer?
swap you for a fontas
Swap you for a hyperloop and a solar freakin roadway
Waterqueer
Two videos in two days
Dear sir, you are a terrific storyteller!
I like your idea of the roman line attacking in the Quincunx formation, it seems like a VERY useful tool to surround an opponent and attack them from the sides, which, as any historian will tell you, was super-effective.
Either they hit the first bunch of guys and focus them, using the gaps to attempt to surround them, and then get blasted from the sides by Principes charging the gap, or they concentrate in the gaps as you've suggested, in which case they're sandwiched by the Centuries on either side and then either run into the Principes or get blasted by the Principes when they charge the gap, or they find that not enough people charged the Principes or too many got caught up on the Hastati and now they're surprisingly on their own and therefore vulnerable.
a useful and amazingly valid-sounding tactic for building traps into your formations that would increase the killing power of the Legion beyond a simple wall of shields and swords.
I have heard of a tactic where the front line in a maniple would move around the second guy, who would take his place and the frontline would move to the back and rest until the backline had had their go and the frontline would replace them, constantly supplying fresh troops to the front of a maniple... when you say it out loud, it sounds like it has issues, but well-drilled and practised motions could make it near seamless... perhaps the columns parted at the last second as the Principes charged through the front maniples of Hastati, who would then let the older blokes have their shot?
What you really need to test various theories is a bunch of rugby players who are also in the marching band.
I would think they did both line swaps and century swaps.
What is the point of being 10 deep if you are not constantly rotating fresh guys forward.
But on it's own, that formation if very unlikely to break the enemy line, just hold it in place.
The rear century of a maniple rushing into a gap, however, might very well be able to do just that.
I think your theory is the point that Lindy is missing. Let us assume that our basic fighting formation is indeed 10 men deep and 6 men wide and theorize what that means.
Further assumption: Roman Centuries have no other weapons than their shields and gladii. All pilii have been thrown.
1. Six men are doing ALL the fighting on the front until they are killed or the enemy breaks.
2. The next six brace them from getting knocked over and are ready to fill the gap left by the fallen.
3. The following six do the same. Making the 18 fighters in those three ranks participating. This leaves the remaining 42 men standing around waiting..possibly pushing if needed...but mostly waiting.
This is a colossal waste of manpower. If they were to fight in that manner, the only weapon that makes sense is that most of the force has spears and not swords. Turn it into a phalanx.
I am also inclined to disagree with Lindy when he suggests that the one group of Romans are too packed to fight, while saying that each Roman would have fought in 2.5 feet of space....really? So Roman's standing almost SHOULDER TO SHOULDER is okay but having a gap wide enough for a man to slide by is too tight?
I would suggest that Lindy rethinks his logic... It has inherent flaws.
When I heard the topic of the video, I was skeptical. I still am. So you just charged your army into the enemy line. Whether or not you have offset units hitting the enemy line, or a continuous line doesn't matter, because the only way you can swap out lines, is when the enemy allows you to. From a tactical standpoint it doesn't make sense to allow your enemy to rest and there is no possible logistical super solution to swap your line before the enemy notices and charges for the weak spots, presented by your swap.
I can attest that from modern martial arts, and indeed in modern military combatives, there are techniques designed to create space. In the modern military, that space is created in order to reach your sidearm and shoot the enemy. It is not unlikely that a sudden push would allow enough space for a soldier to simply step back past the first two lines...finding himself at the back of the column
Thatswhy I really like the depiction of Romans fighting the Gauls in the woods on the HBO series "Rome". It seemed quite authentic and sensible thing to do. The less time you spent on the front line the lesser the chance to get tired out and injured and killed. Look at soccer games. Whenever a new fresh player is swapped out for tired one towards the end of the game there is great chance you see a goal happen.
This is my new fav quote... "One of the problems with a wedge is that you need a psycho to be right at the point of the wedge". Gonna paraphrase it and use it in this form:
"A problem with wedge formation is the need of a psycho at it's point".
-Lindybeige
Alexander was at the point of his wedge and he was definitely a psycho.
"The problem with the spear head formation is that you neeed a pshycho to be at the point of the spear head"
- Commander Lloyd
just found this guy as he's about to hit a phat mil, well deserved man, keep it up
This man is a pure source of information!! Just great! - and you could get any professor from any institute, but the audience would for sure listen to this remarkable man!!
RUclips dropped this into my recommended. Brilliant stuff!
My first thought is that they used multiple different methods depending on the situation and the time period, and what exact forces were arranged.
I demand a History of Rome podcast!
That lead-in to The Great Courses Plus was great execution, m8. I applaud you
I like Lindy's videos, even if I'm not paying attention to them. It's nice to listen to him trying to explain and unravel a subject I know very little about. Almost soothing.
Truly a master of the Scholar's Cradle!
I always thought when they did the replacement troops the chequerboard formation of the roman maniples meant that any surge of enemy trooop would be checked by a line of romans further back.
THANK YOU.
Whenever I google details on how battles were fought they just give the basic "hastati, principle, triarii" triplex acies and no more information on the exact details
this is just theory though.
I can't even find theory on it that's the point
romanarmy.info/site_map.html Check this site. Good joo joo.
Nasmr That probably explains why you got your ass handed to you at the Blackwater AND Winterfell...
Look, mate. It's over. You lost. Too late to look up battle tactics now. Next time don't burn your daughter to raise morale.
Very interesting! Love your videos. I'm glad you don't talk in a boring tone, it keeps me interested.
Hahah, I'm not entirely sure this is what The Great Courses Plus had in mind when they set up the contract, but damn, you're doing a great job of advertising their product!
Hey! Please do renaissance warfare: Especially the matchlock, never hear enough of it!
This style of fighting also makes sense with the organization and culture of the roman army in the late republic, the hastatti hitting first, but the principes are the ones who should "win the fight", the elite troops, so probably the hastatti were more to "hit" and hold ground, and then the principes came charging on the mass of disorganized enemies crash them and save the day.
The Triarii are there to survey the back and cover the gaps the Principes cannot.
@@SteveSmith-ty8ko Not to mention begging to fight, and whining that they're not fighting, and threatening to fight anyway.
I remember reading something about Paulinus' Legions in their fight against Boudicca. It was estimated that each soldier would have to have fought continuously for up to 3 minutes before being rotated out, then- with all going well- would be able to "rest" for up to 30 minutes before his next round of fighting. This suggests to me that the way units were swapped was one-by-one. If you were in command and ordered the Principes to engage, then it would be- at most- 30 minutes before the first Principe made contact with the enemy, after swapping through all the rotating Hastati.
Though I guess it's also possible that they had manoeuvres for double-quick deployment, which might have happened like this:
Once the trumpets for the Principes to engage sounded, the front lines would no longer rotate units out. Those in direct contact with the enemy would remain there, but the Hastati behind them would immediately be replaced by Principes. Once the Principes had replaced the Hastati, a whistle might sound, announcing the time for the last Hastati units to rotate out, putting the Principes in contact with the enemy, at the front. This would presumably be much faster, and could be done in as little as 2 or 3 minutes.
I also found this (which appears to confirm the above) on the wiki page:
Lt. Col. S.G. Brady, The Military Affairs of Ancient Rome and Roman Art of War in Caesar's Time, The Military Service Publishing Company: 1947
Where the dude states:
"When the first line as a whole had done its best and become weakened and exhausted by losses, it gave way to the relief of fresh men from the second line who, passing through it gradually, pressed forward one by one, or in single file, and worked their way into the fight in the same way. Meanwhile the tired men of the original first line, when sufficiently rested, reformed and re-entered the fight. This continued until all men of the first and second lines had been engaged. This does not presuppose an actual withdrawal of the first line, but rather a merging, a blending or a coalescing of both lines. Thus the enemy was given no rest and was continually opposed by fresh troops until, exhausted and demoralized, he yielded to repeated attacks."
I've trawled through dozens of comments on this video but yours seems the most plausible. I was already thinking of something similar myself. In my opinion it is impossible that they fought in the quincunx formation, it's just too dangerous. How then do you swap maniples in a straight battle line? By rotating individual soldiers. You cannot pull an entire maniple back from the front line at once. You can however gradually advance the principes through the lines of hastati, which in turn gradually trickle back through the lines of principes. It keeps the enemy engaged while allowing for the front line to retreat. It solves both problems at once.
@@MizterMoonshine
Cheers, mate.
While we can't say for certain how it was done, it IS rather apparent that when you've got a whopping big shield like the Roman Scutum, it's reasonably easy to disengage from a fight and to be replaced in the line by the person behind you, all without having to surrender any territory, or without presenting the enemy with an opportunity to attack you (or your replacement) while unguarded.
I think the creators of the HBO show Rome were also of this opinion, since you see this very thing in the opening minute of the first episode:
ruclips.net/video/pJO2UfG9KcI/видео.html
Lindy beige explains history with great enthusiasm in which you can learn
They way they swapped out troops was upon hearing a whistle the front line troops would lay down in the prone position, and the troops behind them would simple walk over them.
I had some thoughts about this topic too, but first let me apologize for my english it might happen that i can't really describe what i mean.
My most importan thought was that principes had javelines too so i dont like theories where they directly enter hand to hand comabt and would prefere theories where there is a gap between them and the enemy when they come into battle.
1. Most important point for me was that i often read that all of those ancient roman battles propaly most of them were not 2 lines of men pressing agains each other for hours (seems logiacal i grabbed a buddy of mine and we took some wooden plates and pressed each other and we couldnt last very long) more like both lines engage disengage engage disengage for a long time. During this phases of disengages they maybe used some skirmishing but im not sure.
But when both lines would disengage u would have the opportunity to bring in youre reserves.
You should not forget that a gaul facing a line of romans needed a break too and they surely did some swapping arround too but not so organized. This is my go to theorie on this point.
2. When romans would fight in the checkerboard formation and leave some gaps the gauls who would maybe swarm in there would flank some prepared roman hastati and we all know that those guys could hold their ground but the gauls would also be in perfect position for the principes to set em on fire with pillars or maybe when the hastati needed a break they gave a signal the principes engaged into the gaps and could relive alot of pressure from the hastati. ( I think this one might be possible but i don't like it cause i never read anything proving something like this or giving a hint (my bad english^^).
3. In some movies (best evidence ever^^) i saw romans holding their line letting the enemy attack for a time and then made an organized attack through their "shildwall" crippling the frontline of the enemies and used this moment of chaos in the enemy lines toreinforce. Regarding that the romans where a trained army and most of their enemies the difference maybe this would work but i personaly don't like it cause it depends on youre ability to slaughter a great number of enemies in a short time so its really dependend of the situation.
4. someone once suggested to me that not all roman auxilliar skirmishers or cavalary vanishes at the begin of a battle and that they could use those to create pressure on certain points to give the frontline the possibility to draw back.
5. the funniest thing someone mentioned to me is that the romans had specialized manipels etc. and that some man direct beyond the shieldline had the task to work the ground to make hard to pass and leave bridges for their men so when they moved back the enemy had problems to follow. I had to laugh when he told me but he once showed me some roman kinda weapon some small little metalic sharp things u throw on the ground and they injure people who walk onto them but i didn't find a text where i could learn when they started to use them. ( alot of roman enemies where barefoodes or had bad shoework (for war macrching etc.).
I found my answer maybe i could help u a bit. I just found youre channel today but i really enjoed the videos so far.
have a nice day.
Leon
Caltrops
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop
I'm pretty sure that maniple is not pronounced "manipol". That is a completely anglicised pronunciation. It's "mani ple" a bit like "maniplay". I wouldn't have mentioned it but in your last video you mentioned the correct pronunciation of velites. Well, this is a similar case. Cheers, Lloyd.
The correct version is manipulus, more or less like mani-pool-us (of taur-US). Maniple is still a modern version.
Ah, yes. That's right, thanks.
Nilguiri mannipple
没错!
Just call it as it was: "manipulus", a Latin word that was used to indicate a sheaf (or haycock). 'Manipulus' word (plura: manipula) originated since the primitive insignia of those formations, which depicted a "manus", a handful of hay, mounted on a pole (translated from Italian Wikipedia: it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipolo_(storia_romana) ... sorry for bad English! :) )
Hey Lloyd, hows that suit of armor coming along?
Yes, very interesting. I've wondered about all that myself. A few comments.
1) The Maniples were done away with in the Marian reforms - as I understand it - so that the formations used in the mini series "Rome" and "Spartacus" (in both of which Caesar appears) would have been different than those used during the Punic Wars.
2) There is a real possibility that there wasn't just one way of doing things. Different units at different times may have done things differently - and - the same unit may have used different techniques depending on the situation. Multiple techniques may have been available with some units preferring some over others. The larger the Roman Army got the greater the possibility that units in one part of the areas held by Rome may have done things differently than units elsewhere.
Lloyd, While I can't remember the title at this time, there was an explanation in print which vigorously opposed the common claim that nobody can tell why the Roman empire fell.
The Roman legions fought in lines composed of sub-units of the maniples that rotated fresh fighters in and tired and thirsty(or wounded) legionaries out on a regular basis. Remember, the Roman soldiers used a different sword-fighting technique which emphasized thrusting over hacking(the Romans discovered early on that hacking produced slash-wounds, which could be survived - or ignored, whereas stabbing - especially in the torso - was invariably fatal, and usually immediately debilitating.) This rotation process produced a mostly fresh, rested, and skillful line of fighters, which enabled the Romans to fight effectively for long periods of time, and often brought victory over larger numbers of enemies. As best I can remember, the intervals of rotation were an interval of less than 10 men across, I think it may have been 5 or so, so that there was an almost unbroken stream of lines of fighters coming and going, without long spaces liable to invite a sudden enemy attack.
The drawback of this method was that most of the legion using this technique had to be well-trained, so that everyone was possessed of an equally high skill level - because the better swordsmen wouldn't wish to withdraw - and maybe hand over their spot to another(who might not be able to maintain the integrity of the line.) This high skill-level required constant practice, and a good diet - which was expensive.
This high level of professionalism was common in the Roman legions early on, and less so in the imperial times. When emperors were no longer soldiers, politicians cut costs by cutting back on this training, which eliminated the "seemingly invincible" Roman legions. Eventually foreign soldiers were integrated into the Roman armies, and you know the rest of the story.
great segway lindy, so good you should ride it into battle.
Riley Ledyard I know it was such a smooth segway best I've ever seen
"Quite objectionable line of enemies" :D How quaint!
I imagine that maniples would be useful for actual battle where you suddenly have a technique that required it (like opening gaps for elephants). But really I can't imagine under ordinary circumstances that you'd put a checkerboard on the front line. Those gaps are dangerous. And bad for morale too. Think about the poor Roman who is last in the maniple, on one side with a whole century's width between him and the next Roman soldier. Harder to maintain a straight front too. Makes more sense to march in checkerboard, then when you're almost on the enemy to march a unit into the gap so you can have a strong front line. Yeah, doesn't help with maniple swaps, but at the same time literally every melee army ever has had to face the same problem of how to swap troops in the middle of a fight, and we don't seem to worry about how it was done by any other group than the Romans.
Another thing. One of the problems with phalanx was lack of maneuverability, but there was no problem with it in the actual melee upon closing the enemy. I'm sure the point of maniples was to solve the maneuverability issue of melee fighting, in a way that didn't damage the fighting effectiveness. The equivalent would be modifying the phalanx to enable easier maneuvering, but some easy way to return to actual fighting mode when needed
The real maniple swap would therefore likely be the act of changing from marching form to battle form. Not a swap in the middle of battle, when doing anything big is chaotic, but instead a method for battle prep. That's my speculation anyway.
This would basically null out the back lines then, I'd think. I don't think Hastati and Principes fought at the same time unless it was under dire, dire, circumstance. I would assume that Romans did rotate fresh soldiers in very methodically via file while overlapping shields, and soldiers to the left and right covering the quick replacement procedure. If you wanted the Principes to take over, you'd place their formation at the end of the Hastati's formation. Line up the files and feed the Principes in until all Hastati have been rotated out and reformed behind the line.
This is the best mid-battle technique I can think of. Maybe they did break contact slowly and fully replace lines. Maybe not. It could be that it's not well documented because they figured what they were doing was dead simple to understand.
Another option I just thought of and might already be out there is this-
Starting in line you could drop back into that formation. The enemy would then push themselves into the gap thinking they are breaking through and ending up being attacked on three sides. This could then be closed up and done again.
the sound you made for ancient Greek was easily one of the best noises i have ever heard.
i learn english for just this, ty great video
22:25
"A rock, a wagon, a clump of trees, a house..."
"A butt".
they trew their pommels up in the air to communicate to the other units to move
but to unscrew the pommels took a long time, your army probably dead before you can throw it
i dont believe that. you could accidental end your friends rightly.
I kept thinking about this problem after watching your video. I thought of a reasonable way the maniple could be swapped, however I figure this is probably one of the suggestions you've heard before. Couldn't they have swapped maniples using the same technique they would use to swap out the soldiers in the front line every few minutes. I get this wouldn't work to rapidly replace one maniple with another on the front line. But since battles could last all day, maybe after an hour or two of one maniple being in the front, they would begin swapping in a fresh maniple. If maniple B lines us behind A, and the leading soldier of A goes to the very back of unit B instead of A after his spat on the front line, eventually the two would swap places. Again, not useful to quickly replace a unit of soldiers that is crumbling. But for a long battle that's going reasonably well for you, its a way to swap out your front line without weakening it.
My understanding is that the later Romans fought in close formation, almost shoulder to shoulder. The Roman short sword was designed as a thrusting weapon, thrust along the edge of the shield so the entire front would look like a chainsaw. This would allow the shield and helmet to protect the soldier (and the soldier to his left) while stabbing past the enemies shield as he is busy trying to hack over the top. The best example is the modern riot squad who also do "rank exchange" usually by a sudden surge forward to force their opponents back then a step back to create a space that the following rank steps into. They then take up the fight. Note that they also use their riot sticks in a stabbing / thrusting motion rather than swinging it like a club.
"Wild, unkempt hair...", "the scholar's cradle". You're hilarious!
16:02 But are they berserkers tho?
no there VIKINGS
Where vikings?!
probably centurians LOL!!! berserkers were norse, but they did have people who wore bear heads.
B'saarhkaars!
Is that a useable pencilin the backround?
Yes it is. For both, writing and ramming gates down.
iglidor Professor in the morning and besieger in the afternoon
Lindy, I really love your videos man. I love history and you made me love it even more! I've gained SO much knowledge watching your videos. I will always be a supporter and I will buy your novel!
I have often wondered about this - i am in good physical shape but in medieval gear after a max of 30 minutes in even medium level " combat" i am just gassed , badly .It is quite common to read about Battles that went on all day , or at least the better part of a day.I simply dont see how soldiers in plate or even semi plate accomplished that ,after an hour i really dont see how they would have been physically still able to lift their shield or swing their sword due to complete exhaustion.