Bottom-line: Professional Standing Armies maintained by the State, are extremely expensive. That's why Europe didn't revisit the idea until the 17th century
*The Galatian king, Deiotarus, raised his own imitation legion in the First Century BC. It was such a faithful copy of the original Roman template that when Galatia was annexed by Rome in 25 BC, the Emperor Augustus Caesar opted to integrate Deiotarus's imitation legion into the Roman army as **_Legio XXII Deiotariana._*
You forgot to mention perhaps the biggest factor: engineering. The Roman Army was practically an engineering and construction company that once in a while engaged in battle.
@@Hatypus I think it is a valid comment. How many battles would they face in 25 years of service compared to how many days they would be building? Not to mention garrisoning them. Ceasars double walls is a great example. Not many days of battle, a lot of days building walls and waiting for the enemy to act. (Unless you were in the skirmishing/foraging units.)
The thing is, if you attack an enemy using their own tactics, the enemy general would know the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of those tactics far better than you do.
That's what I was thinking. The people who best knew how to beat the Romans were surely the Romans themselves? Seemed like a loser's bet to try and mimic the Roman way. Major reform at great time and cost for little to no gain perhaps. In pitched battles the most successful early on seemed to be the Punic and Macedonian war machines. They won battles, so clearly their armies/warriors were good enough. Hannibal bloodied Rome's nose, as did Pyrrhus. Their downfall was that they didn't have the depth of force to defeat Rome. If Hannibal or Pyrrhus had a few more armies on hand history could have gone very differently.
@@bernitiel So did Pyrrhus. I don't think the Roman legion was drastically superior to the Maniple in fighting ability. The legionary was better armed and armoured than a Hastati (not necessarily Principes or Triarii), but the legion was more an evolution of doctrine and logistics, making it more capable of defending an empire than the older military system. The maniples were perfectly capable of defending Rome and Italy, and took a significant percentage of the empire before Marian's reforms.
@@nwahnerevar9398 yeah, I tried many different approaches, different army types, sneaky approach, you name it. But everyone with op ranged weapons (people just keep using fots units ugh) doing exact same thing and hoping that their army will win.
Eduardo Borges Seriously long answer:"They did *and* destroyed Rome in the end." In its last century both the people living in the Roman Empire and its rivals understood the Romans well and had good insight both in Roman politics and what made the army tick.
@@equestriangirly2296 i disagree. Rome fell for reasons much bigger than the military. The barbarians that got to rome were not legions nor were they attempting to copy roman success. Thats why after rome fell we got the dark age, an age where technology just seemed to stale. Rome fell for political and economical reasons. By the time the barbarians came the legions were a shadow of its former self and mostly auxiliaries or mercenaries.
@@eduardoborges506 I think the dark age never really happened. The Roman Empire became too big and politically unstable and most of the barbarians at that time were as developed as them (ex the wisigoths who became practically romans, speaking Latin etc). The roman army was just too big and made of too many different people.
The Roman Army was a reflection of Rome. To understand the Roman Army - you need to understand Rome. Other nations Army's were the same - they were a reflection of their own nation. Other nations couldn't recreate the Roman Army - because they weren't Rome. One of the things you touched on but didn't go into was not merely the discipline but - the bullheadedness ... It's not like the Romans never lost after all ... The thing is - when the Romans lost - they ALWAYS came right back. Hannibal beat them again and again - but they just kept coming back until they beat him at Zama. Crassus and Varus lost entire Armies - but - the Romans made a point of coming back and avenging them. The First Punic War shows Rome at her best. They didn't really have a navy but they were fighting Carthage which had the best navy in the Mediterranean. The thing is - the Carthaginians made their ships on something like an assembly line - with the instructions on where to put each part carved into the part. So - the Romans captured a Carthaginian ship that had gotten itself beached - took it apart - and learned how to make ships by copying the ship the Carthaginians had so helpfully built with the instructions on how to do it labeling each part. They built a lot of these things, added a Corvus and then caught the Carthaginians when they were loaded down with supplies for Sicily - and sank them. Carthage NEVER understood what they were dealing with when they fought the Romans. They were merchants and traders and thought in terms of money - which was why they mostly used mercenaries. The thing was ... they didn't treat the Numidians well - they changed sides and that Numidian cavalry that had helped win so many battles against the Romans - helped Scipio win at Zama. The Romans didn't always win ... they didn't even usually win ... but ... nothing says bullheadedness like: *_"Carthago delenda est!!!!"_* . .
You are right about the Romans being bullheaded, although maybe they should have considered a different approach with the Persians, since 600 years is a long ass time to fight for what eventually just amounted to a stalemate 😉
@@Khenfu_Cake Are you saying that they should have been wise and reasonable? How often does that happen? I'm not an expert on that but it's my understanding that things went back and forth between Rome and the Persians. They weren't always at war - but - they both had claims in the same areas, alliances and common borders they disputed. Essentially they were the two most powerful empires in that part of the world and it was pretty much inevitable that they were going to go at each other now and again. It's also my understanding that they were going at each other when the Muslims under Muhammad got started. If it wasn't for their weakening each other - they might have nipped Islam in the bud ... but that's just speculation. .
I was being partially sarcastic lol. I know it was a long series of conflicts between changing powers, which obviously would be expected, just like you said. I was merely trying to joke about how the Romans never really fully managed to conquer or subdue the Persians despite a few attempts to do so, like with Crassus' failed campaign😊
It wasn't just the fighting strength of the Roman Army that contributed to their success. They also had an engineer corps that could build bridges or construct sieges. Then there were the medical facilities - far superior to those of any likely enemy. In fact the organisation of the Roman Army was remarkably similar to that of a modern army. This is not something that can be generated overnight - it takes years and years of commitment, practice and an ability to borrow from others.
Rome came about through their market economy. It is where their wealth and innovation came from. It was their secret sauce and what underpinned all of that was their seperation of power so even when the emperors came into being they still had seperation of power that meant power could not centralize too much.
Considering the frequency of civil wars in the Roman world they didn't need someonelse to copy their army. They already had plenty of opportunities to fight between legionaries.
@@oveidasinclair982 ...well that and not having commanders be directly responsible for their soldiers' pay. Generals and politicians in Rome were able to stage coups d'etat because their troops became fiercely loyal to their leaders, rather than to Rome itself. They would often go "Huh. This guy is pretty good at winning wars and gives a shit-ton of cash...he should lead the whole Republic!" and then go about making that general leader of the Republic which turned into an Empire which then they tried to turn it back into a Republic and so on and so forth. Julius Caesar and later the events surrounding the Second Triumvirate are prime examples of this.
For 2 reasons, the loss of infrastructure required to support a massive professional army and the loss of the technology known as bureaucracy, or the paperwork that keeps track of them. Keep in mind the Roman Legion was also tasked with building the roads and infrastructure that they used to move around the empire. People don’t realize that later armies were largely conscripted from regular people who went back to their daily life after the fight was over. Also technology and tactics changed a whole lot.
The late roman army did conscript people but they did not return to civlian lives after a conflict. Becuae the late roman army had trouble with recruitment. When they were conscripted its for 25 years. There were so many people avoiding service that the roman emperors had to make a law that required sons of soldiers to take up their fathers profession and their sons after them to maintain its army. Its not surprising that the late roman army had low morale and high desertion rates.
@@mikecimerian6913 Fascinating. I guess the concept of multiple role soldiers in antiquity wasn't exclusive to Rome, but I must say I'm not a huge fan of China atm. I'll have to research this after I've cooled off over my disdain for their government, I'm simply too peeved to be interested in their history atm. Edited for typo
Don't forget change in tactics. Like Medieval and Rennaisance Pikemen were different from their more classical Phalanx counter parts. While the later was aunit that could overpower nearly every adversary in a frontal attack, it was inflexible and very vulnerable to flanking. Such a unit required other units to cover it's flank and to provide missile fire. The former on the other hand was a much more flexible formation. Smaller in size, they functioned more like the Roman manipular system of units spread apart. Troops were trained to counter cavalry by forming hollow squares rapidly ensuring that only with swift surprise could a pike formation be outflanked. Pikes also had missile troops as part of the unit itself, providing an organic missile defense to them especially against cavalry while in a hollow square. The Greek Phalanx would have performed poorly in the Late Medieval and Rennaisance period. Such an inflexible system would have been constantly outflanked by the more numerious heavy cavalry forces. It's large size would become a detriment with cannons on the field that would be highly effective against a dense formation.
The bond between the officers and soldiers as described in Comentarii de Bello Gallico is probably one of the major factors why it was so effective back in the day.
I'm sure that went swimmingly. I mean, what's the worst that could happen? Half the legions betraying you and dragging half the Imperium and Mechanicus with them?
@@thedarkphantomtdp117 the romans copied parts of enemy armies, if you exclude the phalanx as that was almost universal in the hellenized world. they copied the scutum, the gladius, etc as the video says. however they forged something new using these parts, and thats why they are not the copycat, but mithridates vi, who tries to copy the roman system as a whole.
Bottom-line: Professional Standing Armies maintained by the State, are extremely expensive. That's why Europe didn't revisit the idea until the 17th century
@@ja3044 Interesting, however, there are varying degrees of what constitutes a Professional State Military. While the Black Army was "permanent" and paid regularly, it seems to lack other elements needed to be "Fully Professional". Like - pensions, standardized Strategic Doctrine (Operational), standardized command and control, standardized Logistics. In other words, the Romans had a level of bureaucracy that was slightly more refined and sophisticated. You are correct to point out, that the Black Army was professional, albeit "Mercenaries", and an early attempt at a non-feudal army. But, Europe would not reach the standard of Roman Military organization until the 18th century
@@Syladen Charlemagne's army might have been semi-professional, but in the end, it was still the mixed bag that usually made up Feudal Armies. The level of Roman military organizational sophistication would not be seen again until the 18th century.
That is totally true just look at the American Civil War the South was kicking ass with tactics until they could no longer take supplies from the battlefield.
@@ishitrealbad3039 exceptio probat regulam (the exception proves the rule) Guerilla Warfare doesn't fall under the same umbrella as a conventional war and any smaller force can make a larger invading army go home by simply making the war to costly to win the Afghans did this to the russians in the 80s only americans will stay in a country for 20 years trying to win an unwinable war
@Ken Penalosa Modern and soon to come technology may have a word with that, but it's true that when firearms and remote land are involved with only human sight, the attacker is in a terrible position, the same has been seen in Spain and Finland
one last advantage that Rome had that I'm not sure anyone else even attempted was road technology. Not all roads are equal and Rome put the most time and effort into maintaining the best roads. Roman roads had two advantages: first, they lasted longer due to both better materials and superior engineering. Second, the quality of roads allowed Rome to expand the network further for almost the same amount of upkeep. This in turn allowed the Roman army to move troops faster and farther than anyone else and do the same with supplies.
People often forgot what was the most important factor in roman victories: the motivation of soldiers. Roman expansion, especially through early days of roman republic was simply yet effective solution to numerous problems of roman society - especially lack of land for lower class, and overall poverty of these people, which was solved by distributing conquered land. Next factor, which is effect of previous was overall militaryzation of roman society - no one could take off with their political carieer without being in army, and almost everyone was soldier. Of course, tactics were also very important but these were just effects of sociological reasons of roman conquest. It's the thing that was lacking in armies of next centuries - motivation of conquest. Armies were mainly made of peasants or merceneries who had very little interest in winning these wars, which caused lack of morale in these armies. Nevertheless great video and i really appreciate work you put here!
This is true. Roman never had much of a Art of War manual that gave them victories after victories. It was discipline, back-breaking labour work, and the professional Centurions that made the difference. Tribal society never accepted the risen through the rank concept (exception was Mongolia), hence all the Lt and Captain upwards were mostly nobility. Medical care, education, were another unsung hero of the Legion, that I signed up for personal development and best medical care. Even the Roman system deteriorated later on to mercenary.
this is extremely important, in my opinion, since the Roman military is not as invincible as many may think. They fell a lot of time - again the "barbarian", the Carthaginian, the Persian, the Greek. But the Roman can always call upon a new army to fight - something other empires simply can't match. You have to defeat the Roman 4-5 times for them to back down; but if they can defeat you just once, then everything is lost. Hannibal could win several victories - it doesn't matter. Hannibal could lose a single Zama, and it's all over.
I think you meant the late stage of the republic - and early years of the empire -, since earlier the poor were barred from military service and distributing conquered lands was also introduced later (if I recall correctly that was already in effect before Marius but not by much).
The very early romans were also hardened by the place they were coming from: A malaria infested swampland around the Tiber, as my professor put it. So they would simply be less bothered by lack of immediate success than their counterparts.
I mean a lot of people who lived close to Rome ended up absorbing a lot of their culture and technology and that included the roads. If you hopped across the Danube to Dacia during the 2nd century you might not even noticed you had crossed the border if no one told you. Despite what some Roman historians might say the other side of the empire's border was not a barbaric wasteland and was actually a lot like Rome. This is because it simply made sense, Rome was an economic powerhouse as well as a military one so orienting your economy towards producing goods they wanted was a good idea and to do that you had to adopt their customs and traditions. And if you're trading with Rome you have a natural incentive to extend their roads into your own territory.
@@brokensky2378outside of 1 battle Rome did not struggle with Parthia. Rome constantly beat them and repeatedly sack their capital. The Sassanids mostly fought against a divided Roman Empire. While they were much more powerful the the Parthians, majority of their success against Rome happened either in the 3rd century when the crisis was going on and when the Empire was split between East and West
@@brokensky2378 Rome struggled against Parthia? My dude, the only thing that kept Persian empires alive was geography. Otherwise, they wouldn't stop at sacking Ctesiphon and occupying all of Mesopotamia
actually there is proof in brittain and france that there was already a vast wooden road structure (i’m talking highways here!). stones last much longer for sure, so now we think romans were the only one doing it.... see how this works?
One important factor in Rome's success that's often overlooked is its geography. Italy is a large, fertile area which is isolated from invasion by the Alps and the sea. It's a lot easier to compete militarily when your homeland is hard to attack.
True and by the time of the late republic they had conquered all of their neighbors in the Italian peninsula so basically the entire peninsula was Roman and safe from attack until the goths use the Roman roads to sack Rome 800 years later
True...but Italian men are tiny and weak. So I find it difficult to understand that they had any success on the battle field. Most Germanic or Galic females should have been able to fight 10 tiny mini Italian soldiers. 🧑🏾🎓🤷♀️
@@Kevin-bl6lg LOL bruh.... to seriously answer your question, the more arable climate and sea access would've provided good opportunity for initial better scale, and I'll add to OP that incorporating many defeated peoples into their ranks was a major factor.
@@Kevin-bl6lg while size and strength matters more in hand-to-hand combat, it makes little difference to the sword going through the throat of somebody as long as the person using said sword isnt a midget and knows what hes doing. Also germano-celts wouldve been shorter then their modern counterparts due to general malnutrition
I always laugh at the concept of Hadrian’s Wall honestly. We all know if Rome a launched a good hard military push into northern England/Scotland they more likely than not would’ve succeeded had they devoted the manpower and resources to it. BUT instead they said “alright look you little shits, this is as far as we’re willing to go. You stay on your side well stay on ours.” Biggest middle finger to the Picts possible lmao.
They actually did, but the later emergence of Mongol and Hunnic cavalry forced necessary evolution to more suitable tactics. Things like spread formations, large formations of archers, and pikemen emerged from that along with favouring an army's own cavalry. This became normal until the emergence of gunpowder, which changed the paradigm yet again.
@@chief480 : It was the way the Huns and the Mongols would fight the tighter formations. The used far more advanced tactics. They wouldn't just directly charge into the formation outright. They would harry and circle them and pick them off at the edges, or use mounted archers who would fire into them. Doing this was how both Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun were each able to maraud their way right across Europe and the Middle East. They would charge only after they broke the formation apart. The one reasonably tight formation that could work here would be that of pikemen, mostly due to the reach of the pike.
@@putbye1 : Their own? Maybe once in history. suicidal tendencies and Islamic slavery generated all sorts... Vlad Tepes put pikes up other people's bums. He's famous for it. You should look him up.
Literally Rome's greatest resource was the culture, "The gates of Janus have been opened, now there is nothing but war". Roman soldiers were fighting for the nationalistic nation of the Republic/Empire while most of the people they fought were not fighting for some abstract idea and rather for money/fame or forced too. Look at Carthage who used almost exclusively mercenary units and the one time they fought with dedicated soldiers were the soldiers loyal to Hannabal and that went amazingly well. Grit wins the day!
My “Short” answer: overwhelming majority of opponents did not get a second chance to emulate the Roman army. They were defeated and became part of the empire (that cause a problem later on of course, as they trained their future enemies) or where decimated. Genghis Kan did the same much later.
I agree. It's not so easy to simple copy the Romans without also having their education, wealth, resources, size, technology, culture, mindset, etc. Sure, the other nations might catch up after a few hundred years, but for now the Romans would not allow their colonies to gain that advantage so soon anyway. It's like asking why didn't the rest of Europe just copy the Nazis and defeat them. Or why didn't the Earth Kingdom just copy the Fire Nation and defeat them. (It's a cartoon, I know, but same principle.)
@Вхламинго The Romans never "collapsed from within" in the sense that their citizens upturned them. The Western Romans were deposed by mercenaries they relied on more and more, and the massive hordes of Germanics flooding the Empire to escape the Huns. The reason they relied on the Mercenaries was the festering Roman rot within.
@@nicholaslawrence6926 Wow, you got that from a cartoon? Rome was not so advanced just because they were better. Most of what the roman empire gets credit for was simply assimilated into their doctrine from a state they subjugated. And if you look at a map, you can see they did a lot of assimilating. In reality, Rome started as a third rate town that captured/joined forces with a band of Italian city states, and with armies of slaves and soldiers of unmatched discipline (and fear of punishment) conquered their neighbors. The Punic wars specifically really just led to a snow ball effect.
Dan Carlin once said that what marked the first tier classical powers apart wasn't how great their victories were, but how well they could take a body blow/how many body blows they could take and still survive. Rome could afford to lose so much and still have the chance to learn. Same with Han China which literally transformed their entire military from chariot/infantry based to cavalry based just so they could beat the Xiongnu. I always wondered if Persia had faced anybody but Alexander who was determined to conquer it all, if they would have also suffered a few huge defeats but stayed around for a whole lot longer and adapted their military to the degree that it became unrecognisable. If Alexander was just another power like Athens who wanted to inflict a few defeats then grab some land, what would Persia have ended up as.
Poor Mithridates! He masterfully and meticulously copied the Roman army, but to no avail. He forgot to build his own legions of copyright lawyers, lost every lawsuit, and died in poverty. Probably not a true story, but if he had tried it today, we all know that's exactly how it would've turned out.
Mithridates had turncoat centurions but failed to get good results? What the heck? My guess is there are a few possibilities. One, his imitation centurions were not given flexibility like the Roman ones, and therefore couldn't exploit the formation's tactical flexibility. Two, the drilling was simply too short and his imitation legions were more like Rome's citizen levy of the earlier days than fulltime professionals. Three, maybe the turncoats were incompetent boobs and figured getting paid good money by Pontus beat returning home as failures.
@@alex_zetsu They weren't technically turncoats. The legionaries Invicta refers to are legionaries send by his ally Sertorius who was busy with his own anti-sulla revolt in Iberia. Sertorius was essentially a remnant of Marius his army, hence a Roman. After Sertorius was defeated the legionaries betrayed Mithridates. As for his defeat, a lot of it seems to have to do with him just being betrayed by various subordinates (including his own heir).
The wooden swords and weapons used in training, were up to 5 times heavier then the real ones used in battle. This allowed them to be light and hit very accurately in a real battle, especially also with javelin throwing, as they throwed and training with 3-5 times heavier ones
I can see this being a good idea for swords and shields. However, wouldn’t you want any throwable objects to be the same weight to accumulate muscle memory and repetitive practice?
@@911ragdoll Probably but on the other hand their pilum were mostly used before charges met as a way of making enemy shields useless (the pilum were designed to become stuck in enemy shields). They had dedicated skirmishers/light missile troops/velites for actual ranged combat.
It's worth noting that Greek culture was heavily influenced by earlier Egyptian culture. In a later, comedic twist, when Alexander expelled the Persians from Egypt, Egyptian culture was open to being heavily influenced by Greek culture which itself had previously been heavily influenced by Egyptian culture. Would have been a fun time to be alive...
@Nicholas Jevon greeks werent unified in a single nation on that time in some romans legends says that the first romans were survivor of Troy so it explain their hate for "greeks"
@Amber Hoke I don't know if you're trying to say: (A) Every culture is a copy of the culture that it grew from, which is an obvious truism. Or (B) ALL cultures interchanged and inter-borrowed from each other, which is obviously false, owing to geographical restraints. Perhaps you mean some third thing? Help me out here, please.
That was more Karthagos Superpower, together with traditional big skils in seamanship and naval mastership. In Marokko also where African Elephants in the Atlas-Mountains. The speciality of the Romans were the Roman citizen and the Roman law and their developed Rationality and logic and rational thinking they learned from then Greek and the Roman abilitys in craftmanship and masonry and building like the Aquaedukts and Roads and cement and their skillfull military and Legions and so on. The Celts und Germanic tribes still had he special skill to fall in Trance for a fight and get very strong and brave then and become Berserkers and so to say "werewolves". It was not without reason that the Celts became at first the great civillization and great culture, because they were not exactly as big warlike as the Germanic tribes..
Patriotic army is much stronger than rich army, carthaginian were much more rich than romans and payed mercenaries, they got destroyed in front of roman patriotic soldiers. Carthaginian army fought for money and didn’t care for carthage, romans fought only for the glory of Rome.
Not watched the whole video yet, but it would seem like, then, that the Centurions were possibly the most crucial part of the organisation of the army. Probably along with the Maniple system of units. Having such grizzled, long-time veterans in charge of such flexible units would definitely add a lot of brain power and efficiency to the fighting. It's fascinating to see a breakdown of this.
Well, all the Problem with these numidian and seleucid units is that their description as imitation legionaries come from the Romans. They had a tendency to call anybody with roughly similar equipment an imitation of their own units, disregarding battlefield role, social background, degree of professionalism and even if they existed before military contact with rome. Furthermore, Polybios, who is the base for the whole 'silver shield legion'-myth, never claims that they are imitations, just that they are armed similary to Roman units.
The engineering and building skills were so extremely important. They build bridges in a day, build defensive marching camps every day or a huge fortress wall in a few days. Just insane building skills.
Uhm, the roman empire didn't exist that long. It changed a lot from a kindom to a republic into empire to the late antiquity. The classic romean empire we often talk about lasted ~500 years. For comparison, the egypt dynastic periods lasted ~3000 years The biggest was the mongolian The romans changed the world sustainable. But full military based empires can't last long.
@Daniele Fabbro I'm not so sure about philosophy imo that's more a creek thing like the word itself. But thats what i meant with romeans changed the world sustainable. It was definitely a or the significant impact in history. But it wouldn't been without the military. It was the backbone, but also a reason for the fall, of the empire. It's hard to imagine a world without. The egypts aren't known for a hughe powerfull army or much conquering.
@Daniele Fabbro Take care when making that comparison. The United States' current dominance is just a blip on a historical timescale. Rome was unrivalled for centuries.
What other elements of the Roman army would you consider copying for your Imitation Legions? Time stamps for my own: Roman Roman Soldier Dissection 2:18 Roman Unit Dissection 5:00 Roman Army Dissection 7:18 Roman Soldier Imitation 9:39 Roman Unit Imitation 12:53 Roman Army Imitation 15:30
@@oddish2253 true but how did he do it i mean was was expecting it to be like the battle of the 3 kings where moors sorrounded and killed the portugese
Hi! I love your content, but I was wondering if you have source documents for your content? Because I would be very interested in getting a more in depth picture
Honestly it works similarly to a modern military as far as organization. Evolution in war and such have kept the spirit alive. Platoons, Companies, Battalions, Brigades, all can be traced back to Centuries, Cohorts, and Legions
Logan M Well yes we have to keep in mind that the Medieval ages were degradation of the Ancient societies. After the barbarian kingdoms were established they destroyed a lot of Roman inventions and it took them centuries to get on the same level as Rome once was.
@@coolthief8375 I would say that it's only in the time of the renaissance with the resurgence of the pike formation and the professional army that the barbarian kingdom finally went back on the same level as Rome.
Perridan Yes indeed. And again hundreds of years of progress was lost because of them. If Rome didn’t fall we could have achieved much more. They were about to create steam powered machines. It’s a shame.
@@coolthief8375 The medieval ages were a flowering of society in other ways. The Renaissance would never have been possible without the deep and complex cultures that had been nurtured, the existence of universities and centers of learning, and trade leagues like Venice and the Hansa.
I'm not sure how you did it yet you did. You took a thousand years and broke it down cogently into clearly defined subentities. You then distilled the major developments into digestible and thoroughly researched subsections of data and history. You have a gift! Bravo young sir! A+
You could either spend huge amounts of treasure, resources, time, effort to end up with a poor imitation of the Romans or try to work on your own strengths, tactics and concentrate on exploiting Roman weaknesses. Like you said, the big problem was often Rome was a nation then a huge state in a time when most were still city states or tribes. Most just could not compete.
Why didn’t anyone copy the Romans? Who else at the time had the infrastructure both economic and administrative to rival them... very very few, especially after Carthage fell.
@Bgsleo true, but relatively speaking they were small. Each governed in a different way, and constantly at war with each other. The armies they fielded against each other were smaller than a roman legion. (Contrast this with Rome vs Carthage). The consequences of this lack of governmental sophistication was that even when a great leader like Alexander arose this empire collapsed as soon as he died. I have to concluded that while they may have been rich, they were certainly not well administered as a whole.
Yes, the Byzantines were only known as the Byzantines by those outside of the empire/those in later history. In fact, I believe the Byzantines were given the name by those in the West (following the fall of the Western Roman Empire)as they attempted to don the mantle of being the continuation of the Romans. Regardless, preceding the fall of the classically labeled “Roman Empire” in the 5th century, Rome had to split duties to effectively deal with the rising threats the empire faced. These threats being: stronger foes on the frontiers coupled with ambitious generals who repeatedly mounted rebellions. To deal with this, Diocletian essentially began the split by appointing multiple emperors to be able to administer the territory more effectively. The resultant Western Roman Empire eventually fell in 476 AD while the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines did not fall until 1453 AD (to the Ottomans)
It’s easy to lose sight of everything that must go on behind the scenes when so much military discussion centers around battles, and the specific tactics and strategy behind those encounters. This video does a decent job of portraying those essentials NOT often seen that were key to Rome’s conquests. As Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I would spend six hours sharpening my ax.”
copycating legions never worked... until around 1600 Dutch and Swedes created brigade system of professional pike and musket infantry and legion was reborn in another form, existing well into today...
@@yochaiwyss3843 the landkechts et the swiss were mercenaries pikemen. The Tercios were profesional units with skilled commanders, strong fighting spirit and discipline, good training and using the newest tactics and weapons of the time. Soldiers in these units were experienced combat veterans.
@@ElBandito Macedonia had the pike phalanx. Greeks used spears, the 'doru' which isnt long enough to be considered a pike. These Hoplites would still be deployed at the flanks of the pike phalanx under Alexander as the 'shield bearers' however.
I think part of what makes a great army is early momentum. Rome had the perfect videogame start in a way. They had a starting area to take over and build up, Italy, and then the stage 1 boss, Carthage, and then on and on it goes, they conquer Iberia, Greece, Gaul. They keep getting better with each victory because their army survives the battle, gains experience and refines tactics. If another army just dressed in the same armour and marched in the same block formations, they'd probably do even worse than if they didn't copy Romans at all. I think Rome got lucky in a lot of ways, in their location and the timing of events that allowed them to springboard into bigger and bigger spheres of power.
to be fair they had a tough time in the 'early game' being conquered by Etruscans, being sacked by gauls, etc. but once they got the ball rolling, it just gained momentum.
Specifically they fought in areas where their system made sense. Italy is hilly which breaks up phalanxes and also negates cavalry but makes small independent infantry very effective. They were able to find the same terrain in Spain, Greece, Anatolia and the Levant but once they reached open areas like are found in Mesopotamia they got in trouble. Wide open plains or very cramped fields were their weakness. Now of course the reason they developed this fighting style was because of the areas they fought in so it's a bit of a feedback loop.
Exactly all the pieces just fit together, through every struggle they learned and grew and persevered with a decent bit of luck, that's what defined them over say Carthage another grand civilization that just didn't have the luck Rome had though it did have some as any successful civilization does
Something like one fourth of te adult male population died fighting Carthage. Can you imagine? Proportionally that's more than the USSR lost in World War 2. Rome still refused to stop fighting.
had it not be for a German traitor (Arminius) teutonburg forest would hardly be a footnote , they were led like sheep to the slaughter for a shit land that had no resources aside from wood that is one of the main reasons Rome never pursued to move beyond eastern france and above the Limes ,germany has nothing of use ...
@Nikolas Tyr Brennus., conquered Germans offered tributaries aka (hostage children) to Rome as fielty as to not to rebel Arminius was trained ,schooled , fed and housed like a Roman citizen so he was a traitor , germany is to this day a poor ass land in resources and has only vast capacities of coal and imports most of its resources dont drink the nazi coolaid and learn some documented history not the Germania BS narrative or youll want lebensraum again...
I think when being confronted by imitators you would not only have more experience than the imitators but you would also have an acute awareness of any weak points.
Robert Graves in his “I, Claudius” books talks a little about this. Román soldiers were salaried, in that they got a regular paycheck, where their enemies the Germans fought mostly for loot or glory and wouldn’t be motivated for anything else and had a hard time with their leaders ordering them about.
HiDesert004 Even though they received salaries that’s why the Roman army had trouble later. The emperors that commanded the loyalty of the largest armies bought them off with larger salaries and sometimes loot.
I was under the impression that there were several imitation legions over their existence. Mithradates the Great of Pontus had an imitation legion made of former legionnaires. I vaguely recall there being both Greek and Persion imitations as well.
Ben M - Mithradates had legionaries trained by man send by Quintus Sertorius. Unfortunately next war with Rome come before they finish their work. Pontis legionaries perform well but they werent enough.
Yulus Leonard Rome’s enemies often tried to emulate their tactics, including their army structure. It was rare for them to succeed, though Mithradates the Great probably came the closest to pulling it off.
@sum body At that time I doubt the Roman use Legionaire. During Hun/Goth/Franks time, Roman soldier consist mostly German mercenaries. Pontus already described in the Video, they use imitation of Legionary.
Romans faced perfect "not Roman" legions during the social war. Those were the allies that traditionally provided half of the "Roman" army in the previous wars, so they used the same equipment, formations, logistics, command structure and tactics. Not by chance, famous Roman generals that won in the east with ridicolus ease, struggled in the social war, and it had been the only time when, shortly after having narrowly won, Rome granted to the former enemies all of their requests.
Two points I felt were missing: 1. During a long period, if a soldier actually survived that 25 years, veterans were demobilized with rewards of land. Later on, veterans would get lands in newly conquered territories. In other words, Roman opponents fought for freedom, glory, religion, or conscription, but a victorious Roman soldier would become a landowner with a powerful & direct incentive. 2. The somewhat unique nature of life in the actual city of Rome for hundreds of years, the reason why 'Urban' legions were feared. For much of its early history life for ordinary men on the streets of Rome was hyper-aggressive, violent, and competitive. The 'untrained levies' mentioned in the video have gone through a rather brutal upbringing equivalent to growing in a violent prison gang. Even going into the Legions, a 'green recruit' Roman of Plebeian class is what a modern man might regard as a FREAKING BLOODYTHIRSTY PSYCHO BASTARD who would happily beat, rape, rob, and murder you and only respects fellow hardcore psychos. Livy often makes this point when the Romans fought the Greeks; that the Greek conscripts found piles of hacked off limbs unnerving while your Urban Roman pleb thought it was hilarious & basically just another Saturday night in a ROman tenement block.
I doubt about your second point. It is hard to control grown up men, especially with rebellious upbringing. I would expect most of them being kids around 16 years old. Do you have source of any kind?
In your second point you're mixing up eras. The 'untrained levy's' were part of the old Socii system - Rome paid their Italian "allies" to go to war for them. Your status - in fact your very ability to wage war - was based on whether or not you could afford equipment - the notoriously hidebound Senate didn't think the state should spring for it. But they weren't urban. They weren't even Roman. Problem was, there were drawing from a limited pool, and the punic wars decimated the Italian small farmer. So in about 100BC, Gaius Marius proposed to use the Capite Censi (citizens of Rome with no property to their name - literally "the head count") as Roman soldiers, with the government supplying their equipment. This was met with universal scorn "they'll run from their first battle and leave their equipment behind" and "they'll trade in their swords for a night with some Gallic harlot" - that sort of thing. Marius would never have succeeded with his plan had half a million Germans not appeared in the neighborhood, making the Senate suddenly very flexible. They outperformed the earlier socii, but the reason was as the video said: they had centurians which gave even green legions a semi-veteran status (for a really cool example of centurions making a great heads-up quick tactical change of orders, check out Caesar's charge against Pompey at Pharsalus). I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of rome being a perpetual war of all against all. And a plebian was just someone who couldn't trace their ancestry back to the old aristocracy of the Kingdom of Rome - many plebians were quite wealthy, and as a general class they were more powerful than the patricians, who were always accused of being would-be kings. If you listed all 20 consuls in a random ten years in the last 50 years of the Republic, you might have two or three who were Patricians. They had all but died out. I agree with your first point, and I think in it were the seeds of the fall of the Republic, but my post is already too long.
Hard to copy something that is always changing, when Rome lost, and won im sure, they would analyze the battles and took what the other side did better and used it themselves, to great results.
Armies require wars. Rome had the biggest and best armies because they were always in a war with somebody - and Rome always _needed_ to be at war with somebody to keep those armies useful, those popular generals busy, and an endless supply of more supplies to keep those armies going. Can't be a great hero without a great villain. If you possess a mighty military then you have no choice but to use it aggressively or lose to the predations of your many enemies.
Not exactly. Few legionaries were in fact from Rome. The Legions sent to Britain were largely Persian. Civil society spawns few soldiers, the practice also aided in the tactic of devide and conquer. Raise a legion in one place and then send them elsewhere. Those legions would then provide the population for new cities elsewhere as they would be given land in those places. Wales had a tiny population before the legions turned up.
@@zoiders I mean, Rome went through many stages. Everytime the army was a reflection of the current society. That was valid for all others. A barbarian kingdom, for example, couldn't just copy and paste the model of another kind of antrhropological-cultural system. An eastern empire as well. Everyone proposed it's own model because everyone had it own society. Then, ok, those "models" aren't that much, there were influences and so on.
Its also true in that late Rome military service gave Citizenship were as most people's being a citizen meant providing military service (including early Rome). by having new people at risk the established were safer and in turn might develop or retain other skills better.
zoiders technically the Legionaries were all Roman citizens, and were the backbone of the army. Non-citizens of Rome that joined or got enlisted were Auxiliaries. They would still perform similar tasks, but never advanced too far in rank.
Short summary: There are lots of aspects, some of which are and others aren’t mentioned in the video, that could be *and actually were* copied, each one of which affected the army‘s overall power, but none of which was really decisive. The one single most decisive difference between the Roman Empire and everyone else - which wasn’t copied simply because it couldn‘t be, which again fully answers the initial question - was an overwhelming advantage in the availability of manpower and resources and thus ultimately comes down to a single word: Size.
Yes, or another way of saying the same thing might be "money".. If you have a huge empire resting on the labour of slaves you can have a standing army, equip it and afford to lose battles because you send more troops.
The Norse "Ledung-system" was a copy of Roman army. Tribes north of limes had not the economy for organising full time soldiers/armies. They did the next best. The different tribes had a common foe, which led them to cooperate. They geographical organized themself in ledung-units. The ledung originated from the time of yearly Roman attacks after year 0. It started with the "mennerbunde" a kind of full time soldiergroup. Then compleated with a kind of consript soldiers. Those soldiers drilled a coupla of weeks 2-3 times year. From year 200 the ledung was fully organized and not seldom defeated the Romans in battle. Roman could not defeat the tribes because they abondoned their smal towns/large villages and had no capital town. They were very decentralized. Their production was made in large settlements of "villa-type" and the trade made on marketplaces close to their place for "the things" (a kind of parliment). Everything was built by wood and if the Romans destroyd it, they soon rebuilt everything. When the Romans attacked, the ledung units in the threatened areas mobilized and all other resources was moved up hills and into the woods, difficult for the foe to trace. Often the Roman attackers tried the force the locals into battle, but they slowly withdraw. The deffenders weekly got more and more reinforcement. Within 4 weeks 9-12 units of ledung came sailing and landed behind the roman line. Battle-archeology have showed how the roman legion then basicly fled back from where they came. A ledung unit from the norse contained transportation (ships) and 3600 soldiers with "full weapons". They did not bring any civilian workers or auxillery tropps as the roman legion - but the full battle strength of a roman legion at the tima also was about 3600 men plus may be auxilleries. The ledung, though, moved faster than a roman legion. Of course there are a lot of details to descibe, but that´s another story!
@@hazzmati Batttlefield archeology have showed at least 2 times how Roman legions were defeated probably from this "ledungarmies". The German tribes often sent large groups of soldiers to serve as helptroops in roman legions. That meant this troop should be compleat with commander and down and well drilled in roman fieldtactics. If then a tribe/clan had ledungunits at disposal, they could send one or a couple to serve. That gave battle-hardness. We don´t know why the ledung-organisation was built in "thre". May be one third stayed home, one third in preparedness, one third served the romans. Remember every roman legion used about 3600 frontsoldiers, 1200 slaves, 1200 helptroops and about 600 horsemen/cavalry. That means 70000-80000 none-romans along the limes, which all should be payed with gold or in gold worth in silver. The Germans were mostly not "german-speaking". Most spoke probably slavic, but their commanders were germans. With time the ledung had a lot of battle-hardned soldiers in it´s ranks and the romans more and more often was defeted north of Limes. In one battle the roman legion was on wild "get-away" towards south (they reached the battle-field in reverse order, that is artillery, supplies, rearguard was "first"). That troops broke through a german defensewall along a hilly ridge, The defenders were probably a relativly small force from the Ledung, and the romans could not wait - and had to attack at once. Then archeology shows the romans left all wagons, artillery etc and marched on. The big threat looked like coming from north, where the roman main force was on it´s march south. There are a lot of roman reports in archives, showing roman attacks north of Limes from year 9 to about 300 ad. Not all of them were successful even if not catastrophs!
@@deyc3 It´s very confusing to study. There are bits and peases described about the ledung. The quality of the ledung got known during the wars Marcus Aurelius was involved in. The Marcomanies and quads clans moved the war to northern Italy and at same time Aurelius orderred legions to attack north of Donau and take the shores of Oder north to the Baltic sea. That´s when the romans were beaten badly by the ledung arriving from the Norse and fled southwards. One battlefield is digged on that way. In Sweden its possible by analysing maps for borders to reconstruct how the ledung was organized. It´s from this geographical organisation nowerday three countries are built. A long story short. Aurelius and the romans wrote a lot of reports from the wars and not so few have survived in original or in copies. Economic reports gives a good picture over how the ledung was orginised - the romans now and then payed of german ledungunits instead going in battle with them. You have to find the reports. Some historian has and that´s from his text I know a bit more and from the maps in Sweden.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Ostrogoths. They were more contemporaneous with the Eastern Empire but are generally known to history as copying Roman gear, unit formations, and tactics.
"We are Rome. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated." The Roman legions were great for the same reason any military power throughout history is great: money. Or more specifically, resources. Resources that come from rich lands that provide lots of material wealth, enabling the growth of a large population, enabling the rise of a professional warrior class. In almost every conflict in history, the side with the greater resources wins. On a longer-term level, those nations and empires that are militarily powerful stay that way as long as they have the resources, and the political/cultural inclination to spent it on an expensive professional military. Like the US today, no other country is willing to build a navy that has 12+ aircraft carriers (and their attendant support ships) and even if they're willing, they don't have anywhere near the resources to make it a reality.
@DistriktA Rome's weakness was what brought the barbarian nations fleeing the huns. Civil wars, depopulation, famine, plagues, economic collapse, all brought the crows. The Roman Empire continued to exist for another 1000 years after the Huns invaded and other barbarians invaded.
@DistriktA emperor Constantine moved the capital of Rome in 324ad to constantinople so Rome was no longer Rome. It wasnt a successor state it was the literal continuation of Rome in the east.
The mithredeties example was kinda doomed from the start, he tried to copy a formation thats based on grinding down the oponent with far fewer resources than the enemy he'd copied it from. When your enemy outnumbers you use speed to limit that advantage, don't just give them the space to corner you and grind you to dust
the long version, this awesome vidoe. the short answer, logistics. The Roman army was an organized formal army payed for by the state. It was well supplied, and it ran like a fine oil machine.
the general of a legion was called "legatus legionis" (tied to the legion), and was usually a high ranking politician with senatorial mandate. the second in command was the "tribunus laticlavio" which was a young high status noble, to be mentored by the legatus. the 3rd in the chain of command was not a tribunus, but a former centurion! a veteran centurion who has shown exceptional battle prowess and valor on the filed, and whose expertise and competence was out of discussion. those centurions were promoted with the rank of "praefectus castrorum" (leader of the camp) the highest possible rank for those who were not nobles or senators, and the praefectus castrorum was actually the most experienced and capable professional, and was the actual legatus legionis right hand and consuelor.
MikiMaki76 this is much how the American Military leadership is structured. Below branch commandants/generals is a single enlistedman. This enlisted man is the only “E-10” in their respective branch and they are involved in every command decision
Simple case of professional soldier. It gives them the essential time to develop as soldiers and as comrades through a tried and tested system that encouraged discipline, skill at arms, unit loyalty and rewarded valour. A potent/winning combination.
Exactly. A more modern example could be to compare the British and Argentinian armies in the Falklands war. Equipment largely identical, organization not terribly different....but tradition, leadership, training, and discipline allowed the smaller professional British forces to prevail.
When I was young I had a picture book on the roman legions. For years I've been trying to remember what it was called. Pretty sure the image of "strict rules" around 4:30 was out of this book. Anyone?
Might want to mention Gen. Anthony Wayne's US Army from 1792-1796. He tried to replicate the Roman Legion with his 4 Sub-Legions and was very successful with this during the Fallen Timbers Campaign in 1794.
2 года назад+1
Be aware, Conqueror's Blade has malware. It downloads a launcher embedded with data harvesting malware. While they openly admit this in their ToS, they don't exactly announce it, either. One of my security suites recognized their launcher as malware/PUP (potentially unwanted program.) I thought it was a false positive, but wanted to be sure. Remembering what I read about Valorant, I went straight into the ToS, where I disappointedly found the section where "by installing" the game and accepting the ToS, you were consenting for them to collect a broad scope of your data. I know that with Valorant, many people opted to just make sure and kill any process and/or service that runs in the background whenever they weren't paying the game. The problem with this is that, unless you're familiar with and have inspected the code, you can't be sure exactly how the app collects the data. For instance, you make sure and close all other programs and windows before you run the game, then kill all of its services and executables right after you exit the game. What's stopping it from accessing your cookies, cache, browser history, security keys, etc.?
One of the points you left out I think is that the fact that upon the creation of the Roman army system they were a republic and weren't a kingdom. Therefore the issue you mentioned where even if someone wanted to change their military system they would be upsetting (and likely creating enemies internally) a bunch of nobles in officer positions. With the exception of political/military positions at the the top end of the army, the other officers up to centurion weren't nobility. Which meant a few things, they were meritocratic chosen, the pool of potential officers at these levels was much, much bigger, and it was easier to replace them after a loss. Additionally this would also be an obstacle to anyone trying to switch over. There are aspects of the Roman Army that are only possible because it was created and institutionalized while Rome was a republic. It would've also been good to mention the Marian Reforms which were part of the reason why Rome could raise armies again and again, and hell they likely had very motivated soldiers as these were masses of non-landowning and poor men who suddenly were given the chance of becoming better well-off and raising their families out of poverty by becoming professional soldiers. Logistically the Marian Reforms also meant that the Roman Army carried most of their supplies themselves, without need of a long and vulnerable baggage train which gave them mobility and flexibility unlike any other army. Otherwise excellent video.
They were too expensive. Each soldier carried a fortune in steel and required a vast logistics system that few nations could afford and even fewer willing to pay.
@@Ublivion01 not true, pure iron was basically useless as a weapon or armor, pretty much everyone during the iron age was using steel, the problem was it was a very low quality steel with impurities and bad carbon content. you wouldnt get high quality carbon steel till the middle ages but the roman legions were indeed wearing steel.
@Bgsleo They taxed their middle class out of existence While this resulted in extreme wealth for the rulers , it reduced the overall wealth of the Empire. Eventually the army was just cheaper, poorly trained parody of its former self. The way Rome died was pathetic.
@@Ublivion01 The Roman's had steel (sort of) You take wrought iron , heat it in a charcoal fire , beat on it and repeat until the outer layer has enough carbon in it to be steel. This would result in a piece of wrought iron encased in steel. It was extremely labor intensive and required a high level of skill. The blacksmith had to reach the correct level of carbon as the piece reached its final shape, too many heatings made the metal brittle, too few made it soft. The number of hammer blows, the temperature of the fire , the fuel to air ratio of the forge , how much the metal was stretched, how it was cooled and heat treated.... all had to be done with tiny margins for error or you wound up with junk. So Roman steel was mind bogglingly expensive, and its army was decked out with it. That they had low quality steel, when everyone else was still using regular iron or bronze was part of what made them so effective. As the Empire collapsed you saw less steel band armor and more iron breast plates...Fewer legionnaires and more conscripts. And in the end their armies were just barely trained conscripts impersonating the legions of old and mercenaries units hired to actually win battles.
@@arkhaan7066 That doesn't match the early descriptions of the Spanish Gladius Hispanis which had the ability to be drawn down across the head with both ends touching the shoulders & spring back straight. An iron sword or poor quality steel sword wouldn't do that. Other nations also had good steelworking & despite the Romans slandering Celtic swords, they actually produced very good swords, as preferrred & adopted by Imperial Roman cavalry.
As time goes on, the needs of an army always changes. The fact that Rome was able to adapt as well as it did on multiple occasions speaks volumes, such as with the military reforms of the third century.
Forsaken Pumpkin What? The Romans already had the legions well before they conquered Egypt. And they continued to be a powerful local empire with a powerful army long after they lost Egypt.
I like a quote saying "Rome was, above all else, pragmatic - when something didn't work they threw it away, unceremoniously". It's not surprising that such a society, aided by a fair amount of militarism, can reach such greatness. The disconnect between social hierarchies and the military (save for operational and strategic command) also helped, creating an army with only the absolutely best men on the job. Such levels of professionalism and meritocracy hasn't been attained for centuries, with command as low as platoon being - very often - given to people with no experience - while in Rome it was possible for a professional soldier to command a cohort and even a temporarily a legion. Another thing worth mentioning - all Roman soldiers were professionals. They didn't fight for some lord or some king - they fought for themselves and their motherland (which they usually loved very much). The equipment, the training and the camaraderie (the major role of the contubernium) aside - these were incredibly motivated troops. Such a success is also seen in Macedon after Phillip's reforms. I think what made the Roman army truly great was that it was created by a militaristic state. They were able to divert huge amounts of wealth, technology and time - taken through good geographical position and conquest - to their army, and it payed off. I don't really see most Greek states or Egypt spending so many resources just to have a strong force. The Roman state, on the other hand, was made for this very reason.
Greece did not have the resources of Italy. Italy was also much more united than Greece - Rome was the capital, and everyone was OK with that, whereas in Greece you had city-states like Athens, Corinth, Arkadia and kingdoms like Sparta and Macedon which were all unique, separate entities, with their own laws and customs, but the same religion, language and culture. The first time all of the Greeks united their resources, they beat the Persians back, first at the Battle of Thermopylae, then at the Battle of Marathon and finally the naval battle of Salamis. The second time Greece fully united (minus the Spartans, Πας Ελλήνων πλύν Λακεδεμονίων - don't google translate that, it's Ancient Greek) was when Alexander, from the kingdom of Macedon in northern Greece, decided to go conquer the whole freakin known world and reach India. You know what they say. Rome took over Greece, but the Greeks conquered the Romans. They quite literally fell in love with everything Greek, and incorporated Hellenism everywhere in their culture. From architecture, to literature, to myths, to science...and on the other hand, the Ancient Greeks were kinda cool with that. Italians are very similar to Greeks - both being southern Mediterannean people. Same food, same vibes, same willingness to chill in the sun, have a glass of wine and discuss politics/philosophy/mathematics you name it. It also helped that when the Romans conquered a new area, they did send a Governor, but they mostly let the area govern itself, in the sense that culture was respected, temples weren't destroyed, citizens weren't abused etc.
1. In general, Rome's enemies prior to the 3rd century collapse hadn't risen to the level of being able to maintain a large force of professional warriors rather than farmers and hunters temporarily drafted into service, or at best smaller guard-type forces to back up levies. 2. Logistics. The legions weren't just warriors, they were pioneers and sappers as well, so the roads and storehouses they built would keep the army fed, reinforced and in the field far better than their rivals.
It’s worth noting as well, that not only were Roman legions well supplied from the spoils of Empire, but the vast riches in supplies meant that Roman military engineers and smiths would have had the time, resources, and patronage to innovate and test things out. Rome was famous for its willingness to learn from its enemies and would have had the freedom to test and trial new innovations to equipment and tactics.
Like some Greek armors, it was made to "look good / superior" to others and the enemies. There have been some Armor that for example had a relatively large genital area to make others think they were packing something heavy down there. I believe Shadiversity made a Video about the looks of armors and explained it pretty good.
I would say a big gamechanger was the Pilum, as it made enemy shields useless when hit and even decimated the enemy before the melee combat started. Also the rotation while in fight provided more freshness in the Roman army.
Dude, Ive been playing conquerors blade for years, its the only game ive ever really enjoyed making vids on too, what an awesome coincidence. I really hope you get into it and start uploading some gameplay stuff, its an awesome medievil tactics game
It's not medieval, it's medieval-XVIII century xD Also make a video about countering annoying lb players for once instead of teaching peeps how to play them :/
A great one ! I will add that Ascepiodotos reforms adopted by the Seleucids and Ptolemies brought "romanized infantry" to classic phalanx. I see them as an evolution of the thorakitai for more mobility, dropping the spear for javelins, or the machairaphoroi with some armor. What is not certain is their shield. Did they retained their thureos ? According to bas reliefs, looks like so. And galatian mercs of course. The late Katoikoi were heavily hellenized.
One other factor: Horses. Some figured out they can just ride around and shoot, they'll get tired holding up shields and not having water and food at some point. Running out of arrows wasn't a big problem for Surena, and having a large shield doesn't work by the time you can't even lift it up while your opponents were either riding around cycling their men and horses or just getting off the tired horse. The time it happened in Anatolia during the First Crusade it was a mix of having water and still rather timely reinforcement by the Knights leading the other columns. If they took a few hours more, at best it would be an ambush on Turkish cavalry taking spoils. Why didn't it immediately work? Such tribes were so fragmented and Rome so rich they can hire some of them to help fight each other. You can make do with outnumbered Sagittarii and other cavalry if you can coordinate well and either they just protect the flanks or hold down the enemy cavalry. Hell, not even the Parthians can decisively and consistently win. By the time of the Hunnic migration though that would change since that was a full scale migration by several displaced tribes along with the Huns, nothing like going after a smaller number of Sarmatians while hiring a lot of other horsemen. Same thing with China - the Han played the Steppe tribes against each other, the Tang integrated some of them. Then it was reversed when a Sogdian general destroyed the Tang that the Song were reluctant to integrate them ie the Chinese version of "Last of the (True) Romans," and promptly got beaten to a pulp by Genghis and Kublai. After all that it took a while (1066) before reviving Macedonian length polearms on horses with half the armor (ie, mostly just the Knight) of a cataphract since most actions were by Norse tribes who only used them for transportation, then this encountered the same problem as in the 5th C ie the Mongols. It fragmented and was less of threat in the West too soon to have had enough of an impact, not to mention the creeping tech of firearms by the 15th C that even the Turks who had the sagitarii advantage ditched it. Speaking of the Mongols...they kind of did something similar but with cavalry ie the tumen system. And they pulled a reverse Rome and reverse Tang - core and command are cavalry, auxiliaries are infantry from China (some from Korea) as well as siege engineers.
"and having a large shield doesn't work by the time you can't even lift it" thats why you rest the scutum at ground when not in close combat "Running out of arrows wasn't a big problem" you have to actually smelt the arrow tips, I dont think making 100 arrow heads was a particularly speedy or cheap process.
@@uranusaquarius7394 :D The words are definitively English :D But I am not a native speaker so ... :D :D :D Oh ... it's like ... wherever you go there you are! :D
Actually the Roman Army didn’t prove their strength against ALL who opposed them. Hannibal defeated the Roman army time after time, and destroyed their army at Cannae. He had pretty much a free run of Italy for 15 years. I agree that one of their greatest strengths was to seemingly raise one army after the other when they suffered defeats. They never gave up, but would always come back.
@@MrAwrsomeness but its population was much more cohesive, and their allies almost always faithful. Funny that @dale little considers punic wars as a sequence of lost battles (it's true!) but punic war was one of the first complete military success of Rome. Rome lost a lot of battles in Italy: three of the last kings before republic were Etruscan (and it means something...), Rome was sacked in 390 a.C. by Brennus... but they were always able to gain the trust of the other italic populations and make them Romans thanks to its inclusive laws. Carthago could rely for a long time only on mercenaries. Their ruling class was not interested in wars (except for Barca families and few others) but only in the trade.
@@carlocorradini2734 oh I am not denying the unity and utility of the Roman state/legion I am just saying it's absurd to recognise this quality of logistics and manpower as it's only reason for it's success in war, it was just one part of the machine and without the loyalty discipline ferocity tactics equipment and leadership of the Roman legions it would have fallen apart like any machine. Rome was more than a mere Soviet Union in military matter's and that's why I wanted to draw attention to the fact that Rome was often the one outnumbered or in a bad way of logistics.
That was the old triple line levy though. Generally when people talk about "the invincible Roman legion" they're talking about the post-Marian professional army. Legions with institutional memory and everyone a veteran (or at least highly trained) makes a huge difference; Caesar, one time in a rant at a few of his legates said "I would gladly trade all of you for one of them [centurions]". Also it bears pointing out that Hannibal didn't actually have the run of Italy so long as Fabius Maximus was forcing him to constantly turn around. Rome as a fortification wasn't exactly a hard nut to crack, just judging by the number of Roman generals who entered Rome at the head of an army to solve this or that grievance. Had Hannibal truly had a free hand in Italy, we'd all be talking about the Greco-Punic civilization.
@@jessejordache1869 I did qualify my statement about Hannibal by prefacing that Hannibal had a free run with "pretty much" a free run. I do realize that is a bit ambiguous, and I should have said that he was later mostly confined to southern Italy. However, it cannot be denied that he handed the Roman army several defeats which would have been catastrophic for the military of most nations, but with every defeat, the Roman army was soon replenished. You are correct about Fabius Maximus, but still avoided really confronting Hannibal. I'm not sure, they may have had some minor skirmishes. You provided some history about the legions and formations that I was not aware of, and I have no doubt you know much more about Roman history and about their military than I do. I would by no means consider myself an expert even on Hannibal, even though I have studied more about him than I have Rome. You were also correct that my comment seemed to imply that Hannibal had the run of the country for all those 15 years while it was much more limited than that. We may disagree somewhat on the extent of Hannibal's impact, but I have to say you shared some things I was certainly not aware of. Very informative.
MrPathorn Considering the root of that word is Greek, that says something about the subject doesn’t it? It was the language of the people’s they ruled, and the common language of the land. Latin being the Roman citizens high language.
I was thinking hard about this the other day. Then I decided to see on youtube, if someone has made a video about this. And I see that many others have pondered over this dilemma recently and arrived on this same video. What a strange coincidence. And this definitely wasn't in our recommended and we are not just randomly clicking on recommended videos like zombies.
So, here's a question about daily life in ancient times I feel I don't hear too often, be it Rome or the medieval era, but nowadays we like to enjoy our weekends. Was there such a concept for all the classes? Or just for the middle to higher class? Were vacations a thing for non nobles, in a way, to travel and explore or simply to not do things?
I don't know what it was like for a middle or lower class person in Rome but for peasants I do know. For peasants life was marked by natural changes and that dictated their work time. This meant that during summer, spring and fall they had a lot of work to do and would probably work 12 hour days every day of the week for some periods, though of course Sunday was the faste but they often still did some work there. The time when the harvest came in was simply too important to take off. However during the times where they weren't planting or harvesting they would have had relatively little work to do and this would have given them time off. In winter there was almost nothing they could do other than take care of the livestock and animals and that's probably why some of our most important holidays and celebration lie in that period. If you live in a modern western country you probably experience the opposite work load of this, with a long summer vacation and relatively shorter ones in winter. This is actually because of the work schedule of farmers, our modern holidays are basically the inverse of those because the children of farmers would need those times off to help bring the harvest in. Also it's a bit more difficult to define "work" for pre-capitalist societies since the entire concept of a workplace and a set schedule is foreign to those societies. In this example it becomes difficult to say what is work because many tasks they spent their time on aren't payed labor today. They'd often repair their own tools, homes and clothes which would take up a significant portion of their time. Today these things might most often be done by specialists but if you do it yourself we don't tend to think of that as "work". Similarly preserving and cooking food was an important part of their survival but today that's just not even a part of our life anymore. We do of course cook but we do so often with pre-processed ingredients and don't have to start from the bottom like these farmers did. And we don't think of cooking as work right now but we'd say that preserving food at a cannery is work. And of course all of their "work" was done on the farm that they lived on. Basically it becomes easy to overestimate how much "work" farmers did compared to modern humans because we often don't count many things as work.
Anthri Tsuneon - The rich Romans had villae outside of Rome. The month of Aufmgust was because of the heat in Rome a preferred month for vacations. Poor people had to work and the upper middle class tried to imitate the rich.
Rich Romans were horrified to learn of the Jewish Sabbath: their workers and slaves did not get every seventh day off work. Whereas the leisure class did not work at all, apart from pretend-work like sport and embroidery.
@@faithlesshound5621 Well the upper class run the government, did military service undertook the different government posts of the cursus honorum and so on. The totally lazy rich are mainly a modern society concept.
@@TorianTammas A lot of the "busy-ness" of the rich is play-acting, because the current mode of expropriation never seems as legitimate as that of the past. In feudal times, men who lived off the produce of their serfs had to spend their time hunting, even though the expense on food and equipment for followers and horses outweighed that gained. Early capitalists bought themselves country estates so they could pretend to be feudal magnates. Slave owners in the West Indies and "nabobs" of the India-China opium trade bought titles and country seats in England. Nowadays there is no need for tenants or even a farm, so the rich just build a big house in the country. Modern asset-strippers pretend to be captains of industry. Financial engineers and allied tricksters dress up like the old city businessmen. Most wealthy ladies have nothing like the large households their Victorian predecessors ran, but Country Life and Tatler magazines show how they they keep themselves occupied. How different is that from the "cursus honorum" of Roman playboys, or the parliamentary shenanigans of modern millionaire politicians?
Before I watch this video I want to answer the question by stating that the romans actually pretty much copied everyone else. Their weapons and tactics are greatly based on germanic tribes for instance. It was the romans social and economic structure and logistics which literally paved the way for their success. That, combined with copying all the nations around them led to their conquest mostly.
One thing that also bears mentioning is how a lot of the lack of imitation comes down to not being able to take pieces of the legion model one by one. The phalanx was primarily picked up in Greece and other areas not only because of its strengths on the battlefield, but because it's an easy way to keep minimally trained levies in formation, which similar to early Rome, was the norm for the Greek City States. Medieval Europe even returned to the shield wall concept once levies became the norm again. So while Rome itself proved you technically could field levies in manipular formation, flexibility and speed, while still maintaining cohesion was difficult at best with poorly trained soldiers. To train up soldiers professionally, you need better infrastructure, because now these soldiers don't make their own food, but to do that, you needed fertile lands that could produce enough food to spare a lower percentage of the population to farming, and so on and so on. If you didn't have the land to feed professional soldiers, you still could theoretically organize your units into centuries, but you would also likely get better returns out of a phalanx in many situations. In short, the Roman logistical network made professional soldiers possible, which made effective legion organization possible.
Just a random fact. There could be a misinterpretation with the concept "imitation legions". Roman sources give us the idea that some peoples copy their combat system. The "Pontic legions" of Mithridates VI were an example. Also the "royal legions" of Numidia during the Caesar's civil war or the Seleucid 5.000 silver shields trained as a legion. But some historians think that the Roman sources interpreted a heavy infantry unit, armed with javelins and big shields as a copy of their legions, when they actually were original battle formations of these kingdoms.
@@VRichardsn Yes, they were. But during the reign of Antiochus IV it seems that the 10.000 silver shields were divided. Then 5000 were still trained as a phalanx and 5000 equipped as a Roman legion.
@@VRichardsn I think not. But Polybius records the existence of units called thorakitai ("cuirassiers"), infantry units armored with chain mail. They proved effective fighting the Parthians in the mountains, and they could be an example of imitation legionaries
The only two states that could compete with Rome in terms of economy and manpower were Carthage and the Sassanid Empire. It's a shame the Sassanid Empire wasn't mentioned.
I was surprised the host only mentioned Pontus and not the Seleucid Empire. Under the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV a group of 5,000 troops, the Argyraspides Corps, were equipped and organized along the lines of a Roman Legion. Though it's unknown if this force ever possessed the tactical skill and training to directly compete against the Romans. They may have just been a group of Hellenistic Thureophoroi, medium infantry, with a change in armament. Either way, it would have been worth mentioning considering so few examples of such imitation of Roman methods ever occurred.
Check out our latest episode on the history of Roman Fast Food: ruclips.net/video/v5Qz00eUF5Q/видео.html
Bottom-line: Professional Standing Armies maintained by the State, are extremely expensive. That's why Europe didn't revisit the idea until the 17th century
@@andresmunoz9078 I hold a master's degree in applied medical
Someone tell that to Caesar's Legion in Fallout New Vegas
Dont promote pay to win games FFS
Does your sponsor thingy have PvE? If so I’m getting that game.
They didn't want to get demonitized for infringing on Roman copyright, of course.
Mayonnaise 😂😂😂😂
It's not often I feel the need to comment to commend someone's brilliancy
Those ancient copyright strikers were killer. Just look what happened when Rome broke the Vandals' copyrights.
"Carthage must be demonetized!"
-Scipio Moderatus, ca 2020
Oh please the Romans copied plagiarized and stole every trick formation and equipment they could. Best of all they got away with it!
*The Galatian king, Deiotarus, raised his own imitation legion in the First Century BC. It was such a faithful copy of the original Roman template that when Galatia was annexed by Rome in 25 BC, the Emperor Augustus Caesar opted to integrate Deiotarus's imitation legion into the Roman army as **_Legio XXII Deiotariana._*
Didn't that legion also fight under Caesar at Zela?
@@y.r._ Yep.
@delavalled
Roma Aeterna
@K 😂
@@y.r._ Ave, true to Caesar
You forgot to mention perhaps the biggest factor: engineering.
The Roman Army was practically an engineering and construction company that once in a while engaged in battle.
Indeed, I think people new to Roman history are always surprised by the amount of structures the Romans created while on campaign. I know I was.
"Once in a while"
so they are basically fantasy dwalves
@@Hatypus I think it is a valid comment. How many battles would they face in 25 years of service compared to how many days they would be building? Not to mention garrisoning them. Ceasars double walls is a great example. Not many days of battle, a lot of days building walls and waiting for the enemy to act. (Unless you were in the skirmishing/foraging units.)
once in a while? Caesar would beg to differ kek
The thing is, if you attack an enemy using their own tactics, the enemy general would know the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of those tactics far better than you do.
Yooo real shit
That's what I was thinking. The people who best knew how to beat the Romans were surely the Romans themselves? Seemed like a loser's bet to try and mimic the Roman way. Major reform at great time and cost for little to no gain perhaps. In pitched battles the most successful early on seemed to be the Punic and Macedonian war machines. They won battles, so clearly their armies/warriors were good enough. Hannibal bloodied Rome's nose, as did Pyrrhus. Their downfall was that they didn't have the depth of force to defeat Rome.
If Hannibal or Pyrrhus had a few more armies on hand history could have gone very differently.
@@RJALEXANDER777 Hannibal did defeat the romans but it was before they organized the legions the way he showed it.
@@bernitiel So did Pyrrhus. I don't think the Roman legion was drastically superior to the Maniple in fighting ability. The legionary was better armed and armoured than a Hastati (not necessarily Principes or Triarii), but the legion was more an evolution of doctrine and logistics, making it more capable of defending an empire than the older military system. The maniples were perfectly capable of defending Rome and Italy, and took a significant percentage of the empire before Marian's reforms.
Well then you will also learn how to beat your enemies as well
Because it's not fun when everyone's got the same play-style in a strategy game
What about Maru's 2/3 rax proxy reaper or marines in 90% of games
Every failed military: i don't like playing the META
Shogun 2 kinda owned though
Classic MMM lol. Fucking WOL was great
@@nwahnerevar9398 yeah, I tried many different approaches, different army types, sneaky approach, you name it.
But everyone with op ranged weapons (people just keep using fots units ugh) doing exact same thing and hoping that their army will win.
Short answer: "They did"
Long answer. "They did, but failed"
not always
Eduardo Borges
Seriously long answer:"They did *and* destroyed Rome in the end."
In its last century both the people living in the Roman Empire and its rivals understood the Romans well and had good insight both in Roman politics and what made the army tick.
No body copied what the romans did. To do that they would have needed to adapt the roman way of life.
@@equestriangirly2296 i disagree. Rome fell for reasons much bigger than the military. The barbarians that got to rome were not legions nor were they attempting to copy roman success. Thats why after rome fell we got the dark age, an age where technology just seemed to stale. Rome fell for political and economical reasons. By the time the barbarians came the legions were a shadow of its former self and mostly auxiliaries or mercenaries.
@@eduardoborges506 I think the dark age never really happened. The Roman Empire became too big and politically unstable and most of the barbarians at that time were as developed as them (ex the wisigoths who became practically romans, speaking Latin etc). The roman army was just too big and made of too many different people.
The Roman Army was a reflection of Rome. To understand the Roman Army - you need to understand Rome. Other nations Army's were the same - they were a reflection of their own nation. Other nations couldn't recreate the Roman Army - because they weren't Rome.
One of the things you touched on but didn't go into was not merely the discipline but - the bullheadedness ... It's not like the Romans never lost after all ... The thing is - when the Romans lost - they ALWAYS came right back. Hannibal beat them again and again - but they just kept coming back until they beat him at Zama. Crassus and Varus lost entire Armies - but - the Romans made a point of coming back and avenging them.
The First Punic War shows Rome at her best. They didn't really have a navy but they were fighting Carthage which had the best navy in the Mediterranean. The thing is - the Carthaginians made their ships on something like an assembly line - with the instructions on where to put each part carved into the part. So - the Romans captured a Carthaginian ship that had gotten itself beached - took it apart - and learned how to make ships by copying the ship the Carthaginians had so helpfully built with the instructions on how to do it labeling each part. They built a lot of these things, added a Corvus and then caught the Carthaginians when they were loaded down with supplies for Sicily - and sank them.
Carthage NEVER understood what they were dealing with when they fought the Romans. They were merchants and traders and thought in terms of money - which was why they mostly used mercenaries. The thing was ... they didn't treat the Numidians well - they changed sides and that Numidian cavalry that had helped win so many battles against the Romans - helped Scipio win at Zama.
The Romans didn't always win ... they didn't even usually win ... but ... nothing says bullheadedness like:
*_"Carthago delenda est!!!!"_* .
.
You are right about the Romans being bullheaded, although maybe they should have considered a different approach with the Persians, since 600 years is a long ass time to fight for what eventually just amounted to a stalemate 😉
@@Khenfu_Cake Are you saying that they should have been wise and reasonable? How often does that happen?
I'm not an expert on that but it's my understanding that things went back and forth between Rome and the Persians. They weren't always at war - but - they both had claims in the same areas, alliances and common borders they disputed. Essentially they were the two most powerful empires in that part of the world and it was pretty much inevitable that they were going to go at each other now and again.
It's also my understanding that they were going at each other when the Muslims under Muhammad got started. If it wasn't for their weakening each other - they might have nipped Islam in the bud ... but that's just speculation.
.
I was being partially sarcastic lol.
I know it was a long series of conflicts between changing powers, which obviously would be expected, just like you said. I was merely trying to joke about how the Romans never really fully managed to conquer or subdue the Persians despite a few attempts to do so, like with Crassus' failed campaign😊
Imagine writing this much in a comment on RUclips.
@@rasmusgustavsson3426 That's nothing compared to the work the people who made the video did. I'm just not part of the Twitter Generation.
.
It wasn't just the fighting strength of the Roman Army that contributed to their success. They also had an engineer corps that could build bridges or construct sieges. Then there were the medical facilities - far superior to those of any likely enemy. In fact the organisation of the Roman Army was remarkably similar to that of a modern army. This is not something that can be generated overnight - it takes years and years of commitment, practice and an ability to borrow from others.
Rome came about through their market economy. It is where their wealth and innovation came from.
It was their secret sauce and what underpinned all of that was their seperation of power so even when the emperors came into being they still had seperation of power that meant power could not centralize too much.
Considering the frequency of civil wars in the Roman world they didn't need someonelse to copy their army.
They already had plenty of opportunities to fight between legionaries.
Also, the Social War was fought against other Italians who used similar (if not identical) armies.
@Daniel McGrath Right, all cultures borrow and synthesize.
This is why in modern days, commanders are transferred every 3 -4 years
@Daniel McGrath And Greeks copied triremes from the Phoenicians.
@@oveidasinclair982 ...well that and not having commanders be directly responsible for their soldiers' pay. Generals and politicians in Rome were able to stage coups d'etat because their troops became fiercely loyal to their leaders, rather than to Rome itself. They would often go "Huh. This guy is pretty good at winning wars and gives a shit-ton of cash...he should lead the whole Republic!" and then go about making that general leader of the Republic which turned into an Empire which then they tried to turn it back into a Republic and so on and so forth. Julius Caesar and later the events surrounding the Second Triumvirate are prime examples of this.
TL;DR: Rome didn't out-micro their enemies. They out-macro'd them.
They necro them out
Don't forget to mention Cato😉
They were massively importing food from Egypt. That was antiquity equivalent of a Marshall plan. For centuries.
In the end only matters whose energy units deplete faster. Similar with strategy games.
That's basically how World War 1 was fought too. People were just material to be thrown at eachother.
For 2 reasons, the loss of infrastructure required to support a massive professional army and the loss of the technology known as bureaucracy, or the paperwork that keeps track of them.
Keep in mind the Roman Legion was also tasked with building the roads and infrastructure that they used to move around the empire.
People don’t realize that later armies were largely conscripted from regular people who went back to their daily life after the fight was over.
Also technology and tactics changed a whole lot.
The late roman army did conscript people but they did not return to civlian lives after a conflict. Becuae the late roman army had trouble with recruitment. When they were conscripted its for 25 years. There were so many people avoiding service that the roman emperors had to make a law that required sons of soldiers to take up their fathers profession and their sons after them to maintain its army. Its not surprising that the late roman army had low morale and high desertion rates.
It was crazy how legions basically doubled as an engineering corps
They were like a Swiss army knife.
Edited for typo
@@johnballs1352 China did the same when building the Great Wall. Soldiers built their segment and settled a garrison there.
@@mikecimerian6913 Fascinating.
I guess the concept of multiple role soldiers in antiquity wasn't exclusive to Rome, but I must say I'm not a huge fan of China atm.
I'll have to research this after I've cooled off over my disdain for their government, I'm simply too peeved to be interested in their history atm.
Edited for typo
Don't forget change in tactics. Like Medieval and Rennaisance Pikemen were different from their more classical Phalanx counter parts. While the later was aunit that could overpower nearly every adversary in a frontal attack, it was inflexible and very vulnerable to flanking. Such a unit required other units to cover it's flank and to provide missile fire. The former on the other hand was a much more flexible formation. Smaller in size, they functioned more like the Roman manipular system of units spread apart. Troops were trained to counter cavalry by forming hollow squares rapidly ensuring that only with swift surprise could a pike formation be outflanked. Pikes also had missile troops as part of the unit itself, providing an organic missile defense to them especially against cavalry while in a hollow square.
The Greek Phalanx would have performed poorly in the Late Medieval and Rennaisance period. Such an inflexible system would have been constantly outflanked by the more numerious heavy cavalry forces. It's large size would become a detriment with cannons on the field that would be highly effective against a dense formation.
The bond between the officers and soldiers as described in Comentarii de Bello Gallico is probably one of the major factors why it was so effective back in the day.
@@oldgettingolderNo, but what we’d consider NCO’s today-and those are the backbone of any capable military.
@Mr Storni That’s not true. They had generals. Those are officers. Also, the centurion would be equivalent to today’s first lieutenant.
Question: Why Didn't Anyone Copy the Roman Army?
Short answer: They did. To an extent.
Δ the Nazis did
actually, it's the other way around the Romans copied off other people. However the turtle formation yeah why didn't people copy that.
I'm sure that went swimmingly. I mean, what's the worst that could happen? Half the legions betraying you and dragging half the Imperium and Mechanicus with them?
@@thedarkphantomtdp117 the romans copied parts of enemy armies, if you exclude the phalanx as that was almost universal in the hellenized world. they copied the scutum, the gladius, etc as the video says. however they forged something new using these parts, and thats why they are not the copycat, but mithridates vi, who tries to copy the roman system as a whole.
Mori Adine nah man that’d require the interference of some sort of Dark Gods or demon or something I’m sure that’d never happen
Bottom-line: Professional Standing Armies maintained by the State, are extremely expensive. That's why Europe didn't revisit the idea until the 17th century
Hungarians did it before 17th century - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary
@@ja3044 Interesting, however, there are varying degrees of what constitutes a Professional State Military. While the Black Army was "permanent" and paid regularly, it seems to lack other elements needed to be "Fully Professional". Like - pensions, standardized Strategic Doctrine (Operational), standardized command and control, standardized Logistics.
In other words, the Romans had a level of bureaucracy that was slightly more refined and sophisticated.
You are correct to point out, that the Black Army was professional, albeit "Mercenaries", and an early attempt at a non-feudal army. But, Europe would not reach the standard of Roman Military organization until the 18th century
@Bgsleo Very true, pre-Augustan Roman Army was like Hellenestic armies - semi Professional
charlemagne 808. If i m not misstaken, first professional army in west EU after the fall of the roman empire.
@@Syladen Charlemagne's army might have been semi-professional, but in the end, it was still the mixed bag that usually made up Feudal Armies. The level of Roman military organizational sophistication would not be seen again until the 18th century.
Tactics wins battles, Logistics wins wars.
That is totally true just look at the American Civil War the South was kicking ass with tactics until they could no longer take supplies from the battlefield.
rhodesia and vietnam would want to have a word with you....
@@ishitrealbad3039 exceptio probat regulam (the exception proves the rule) Guerilla Warfare doesn't fall under the same umbrella as a conventional war and any smaller force can make a larger invading army go home by simply making the war to costly to win the Afghans did this to the russians in the 80s only americans will stay in a country for 20 years trying to win an unwinable war
@Ken Penalosa Modern and soon to come technology may have a word with that, but it's true that when firearms and remote land are involved with only human sight, the attacker is in a terrible position, the same has been seen in Spain and Finland
Bro, Is that Joe Dirt?
one last advantage that Rome had that I'm not sure anyone else even attempted was road technology. Not all roads are equal and Rome put the most time and effort into maintaining the best roads. Roman roads had two advantages: first, they lasted longer due to both better materials and superior engineering. Second, the quality of roads allowed Rome to expand the network further for almost the same amount of upkeep. This in turn allowed the Roman army to move troops faster and farther than anyone else and do the same with supplies.
Persia had the royal roads long before
It's not only the road building but Rome knowing that this was a huge tactical advantage .
@@ernstholm8070 yes but some Roman roads still lasted to this day……
@@markvonschober6872 i mean theres also some persian road that still exist today
The roads were so good, they still exist.
People often forgot what was the most important factor in roman victories: the motivation of soldiers. Roman expansion, especially through early days of roman republic was simply yet effective solution to numerous problems of roman society - especially lack of land for lower class, and overall poverty of these people, which was solved by distributing conquered land. Next factor, which is effect of previous was overall militaryzation of roman society - no one could take off with their political carieer without being in army, and almost everyone was soldier. Of course, tactics were also very important but these were just effects of sociological reasons of roman conquest. It's the thing that was lacking in armies of next centuries - motivation of conquest. Armies were mainly made of peasants or merceneries who had very little interest in winning these wars, which caused lack of morale in these armies. Nevertheless great video and i really appreciate work you put here!
This is true. Roman never had much of a Art of War manual that gave them victories after victories. It was discipline, back-breaking labour work, and the professional Centurions that made the difference. Tribal society never accepted the risen through the rank concept (exception was Mongolia), hence all the Lt and Captain upwards were mostly nobility. Medical care, education, were another unsung hero of the Legion, that I signed up for personal development and best medical care. Even the Roman system deteriorated later on to mercenary.
Exactly, and I also think that's probably one of the reasons why the Roman Empire lasted for so many centuries.
this is extremely important, in my opinion, since the Roman military is not as invincible as many may think. They fell a lot of time - again the "barbarian", the Carthaginian, the Persian, the Greek. But the Roman can always call upon a new army to fight - something other empires simply can't match.
You have to defeat the Roman 4-5 times for them to back down; but if they can defeat you just once, then everything is lost. Hannibal could win several victories - it doesn't matter. Hannibal could lose a single Zama, and it's all over.
I think you meant the late stage of the republic - and early years of the empire -, since earlier the poor were barred from military service and distributing conquered lands was also introduced later (if I recall correctly that was already in effect before Marius but not by much).
The very early romans were also hardened by the place they were coming from: A malaria infested swampland around the Tiber, as my professor put it. So they would simply be less bothered by lack of immediate success than their counterparts.
Invicta: Why did no one copy the Roman army?
Fallout New Vegas: *HEAVY BREATHING*
Illyrian hehe yes son
Never joined the legion. I was always NCR
Steven williams NCR for life
Illyrian dont fuck with the bear bitch boi wearing dinner plates for armor.
@@EmperorNexus the House ALWAYS wins!
Roads, roads, and roads. At every level. Curious how much "Army Corps of Engineers" was attempted by Rome's adversaries though.
if you're cavalry heavy, you won't need them. Rome struggled against Parthia and later their successor the Sassanids for this reason.
I mean a lot of people who lived close to Rome ended up absorbing a lot of their culture and technology and that included the roads. If you hopped across the Danube to Dacia during the 2nd century you might not even noticed you had crossed the border if no one told you. Despite what some Roman historians might say the other side of the empire's border was not a barbaric wasteland and was actually a lot like Rome. This is because it simply made sense, Rome was an economic powerhouse as well as a military one so orienting your economy towards producing goods they wanted was a good idea and to do that you had to adopt their customs and traditions. And if you're trading with Rome you have a natural incentive to extend their roads into your own territory.
@@brokensky2378outside of 1 battle Rome did not struggle with Parthia. Rome constantly beat them and repeatedly sack their capital.
The Sassanids mostly fought against a divided Roman Empire. While they were much more powerful the the Parthians, majority of their success against Rome happened either in the 3rd century when the crisis was going on and when the Empire was split between East and West
@@brokensky2378
Rome struggled against Parthia? My dude, the only thing that kept Persian empires alive was geography. Otherwise, they wouldn't stop at sacking Ctesiphon and occupying all of Mesopotamia
actually there is proof in brittain and france that there was already a vast wooden road structure (i’m talking highways here!). stones last much longer for sure, so now we think romans were the only one doing it.... see how this works?
Time stamp for personal use.
Soldiers
Dissection - 02:18
Imitation - 09:39
Unit
Dissection - 05:00
Imitation - 12:53
Army
Dissection - 07:18
Imitation - 15:30
personal use? are you afraid i'm going to distribute time stamps?
@Aeraleach He just means there for him so he can have them.
One important factor in Rome's success that's often overlooked is its geography. Italy is a large, fertile area which is isolated from invasion by the Alps and the sea. It's a lot easier to compete militarily when your homeland is hard to attack.
True and by the time of the late republic they had conquered all of their neighbors in the Italian peninsula so basically the entire peninsula was Roman and safe from attack until the goths use the Roman roads to sack Rome 800 years later
True...but Italian men are tiny and weak. So I find it difficult to understand that they had any success on the battle field.
Most Germanic or Galic females should have been able to fight 10 tiny mini Italian soldiers. 🧑🏾🎓🤷♀️
@@Kevin-bl6lg LOL bruh.... to seriously answer your question, the more arable climate and sea access would've provided good opportunity for initial better scale, and I'll add to OP that incorporating many defeated peoples into their ranks was a major factor.
@@Kevin-bl6lg Are you serious with that comment?
@@Kevin-bl6lg while size and strength matters more in hand-to-hand combat, it makes little difference to the sword going through the throat of somebody as long as the person using said sword isnt a midget and knows what hes doing. Also germano-celts wouldve been shorter then their modern counterparts due to general malnutrition
Rome biggest advantage: refusing to throw in the towel
Except that one time they tried to invade Scotland, shat it and built a wall.
TheNathHopkins they sure tried
I always laugh at the concept of Hadrian’s Wall honestly. We all know if Rome a launched a good hard military push into northern England/Scotland they more likely than not would’ve succeeded had they devoted the manpower and resources to it. BUT instead they said “alright look you little shits, this is as far as we’re willing to go. You stay on your side well stay on ours.”
Biggest middle finger to the Picts possible lmao.
Alex epic comment
@@Aboot8910 lmao...
They actually did, but the later emergence of Mongol and Hunnic cavalry forced necessary evolution to more suitable tactics. Things like spread formations, large formations of archers, and pikemen emerged from that along with favouring an army's own cavalry. This became normal until the emergence of gunpowder, which changed the paradigm yet again.
Glad I saw this: now I don't have to say it.
How exactly would spread formations evolve as a response to cavalry when cavalry in every period destroyed looser formations?
@@chief480 : It was the way the Huns and the Mongols would fight the tighter formations. The used far more advanced tactics. They wouldn't just directly charge into the formation outright. They would harry and circle them and pick them off at the edges, or use mounted archers who would fire into them. Doing this was how both Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun were each able to maraud their way right across Europe and the Middle East. They would charge only after they broke the formation apart. The one reasonably tight formation that could work here would be that of pikemen, mostly due to the reach of the pike.
Marty do you think there’s anyone that’s tried to put an entire pike up their bum?
@@putbye1 : Their own? Maybe once in history. suicidal tendencies and Islamic slavery generated all sorts...
Vlad Tepes put pikes up other people's bums. He's famous for it. You should look him up.
Literally Rome's greatest resource was the culture, "The gates of Janus have been opened, now there is nothing but war".
Roman soldiers were fighting for the nationalistic nation of the Republic/Empire while most of the people they fought were not fighting for some abstract idea and rather for money/fame or forced too.
Look at Carthage who used almost exclusively mercenary units and the one time they fought with dedicated soldiers were the soldiers loyal to Hannabal and that went amazingly well.
Grit wins the day!
The Carthaginians got the last laugh, in a way.
Sejanus
Salty
@@JamesJJSMilton In what way?
My “Short” answer: overwhelming majority of opponents did not get a second chance to emulate the Roman army. They were defeated and became part of the empire (that cause a problem later on of course, as they trained their future enemies) or where decimated. Genghis Kan did the same much later.
Вхламинго I thought that’s what I basically said...read my comment again...in parentheses.
I agree. It's not so easy to simple copy the Romans without also having their education, wealth, resources, size, technology, culture, mindset, etc.
Sure, the other nations might catch up after a few hundred years, but for now the Romans would not allow their colonies to gain that advantage so soon anyway.
It's like asking why didn't the rest of Europe just copy the Nazis and defeat them.
Or why didn't the Earth Kingdom just copy the Fire Nation and defeat them. (It's a cartoon, I know, but same principle.)
@Вхламинго The Romans never "collapsed from within" in the sense that their citizens upturned them. The Western Romans were deposed by mercenaries they relied on more and more, and the massive hordes of Germanics flooding the Empire to escape the Huns. The reason they relied on the Mercenaries was the festering Roman rot within.
@@nicholaslawrence6926 Wow, you got that from a cartoon? Rome was not so advanced just because they were better. Most of what the roman empire gets credit for was simply assimilated into their doctrine from a state they subjugated. And if you look at a map, you can see they did a lot of assimilating. In reality, Rome started as a third rate town that captured/joined forces with a band of Italian city states, and with armies of slaves and soldiers of unmatched discipline (and fear of punishment) conquered their neighbors. The Punic wars specifically really just led to a snow ball effect.
Dan Carlin once said that what marked the first tier classical powers apart wasn't how great their victories were, but how well they could take a body blow/how many body blows they could take and still survive. Rome could afford to lose so much and still have the chance to learn. Same with Han China which literally transformed their entire military from chariot/infantry based to cavalry based just so they could beat the Xiongnu.
I always wondered if Persia had faced anybody but Alexander who was determined to conquer it all, if they would have also suffered a few huge defeats but stayed around for a whole lot longer and adapted their military to the degree that it became unrecognisable. If Alexander was just another power like Athens who wanted to inflict a few defeats then grab some land, what would Persia have ended up as.
Mithridates : makes imitation of roman army
Roman Army : hey thats copyrighted
Mithridates : noo it falls under fair use
demonetized by YT and looses war.
Poor Mithridates! He masterfully and meticulously copied the Roman army, but to no avail. He forgot to build his own legions of copyright lawyers, lost every lawsuit, and died in poverty.
Probably not a true story, but if he had tried it today, we all know that's exactly how it would've turned out.
Mithridates had turncoat centurions but failed to get good results? What the heck? My guess is there are a few possibilities. One, his imitation centurions were not given flexibility like the Roman ones, and therefore couldn't exploit the formation's tactical flexibility. Two, the drilling was simply too short and his imitation legions were more like Rome's citizen levy of the earlier days than fulltime professionals. Three, maybe the turncoats were incompetent boobs and figured getting paid good money by Pontus beat returning home as failures.
@@alex_zetsu They weren't technically turncoats. The legionaries Invicta refers to are legionaries send by his ally Sertorius who was busy with his own anti-sulla revolt in Iberia. Sertorius was essentially a remnant of Marius his army, hence a Roman. After Sertorius was defeated the legionaries betrayed Mithridates. As for his defeat, a lot of it seems to have to do with him just being betrayed by various subordinates (including his own heir).
I mean even if they technically were not turncoats, that still leaves the mystery as to why they couldn't pass along the Roman unit tactics.
One big advantage, after all, of the roman legions was their great shoes, with them they could walk so long for month!
shoes, yes
Less bull more might......war is NOT a game !!!
Mayonnaise that was funny but warfare is not soldiers study and have answers too this.
Okay but did the Germanic tribes defeated the roman yes the German was called Germanic
@bkmustaciola what do you mean by that?
The wooden swords and weapons used in training, were up to 5 times heavier then the real ones used in battle. This allowed them to be light and hit very accurately in a real battle, especially also with javelin throwing, as they throwed and training with 3-5 times heavier ones
I can see this being a good idea for swords and shields.
However, wouldn’t you want any throwable objects to be the same weight to accumulate muscle memory and repetitive practice?
@@911ragdoll Probably but on the other hand their pilum were mostly used before charges met as a way of making enemy shields useless (the pilum were designed to become stuck in enemy shields).
They had dedicated skirmishers/light missile troops/velites for actual ranged combat.
Isn't wood lighter than iron? Those training swords must have had more than 5 times the volume of the real ones then.
Threw not 'throwed'.
Apparently the wooden training weapons were hollowed and filled with lead to increase their weight.
"Why didn't anyone copy Greek culture?":
Romans: ...
Attila the Hun lived in a wooden palace, but had the finest of Greek marble bathrooms installed.
According to some romans legends they were greeks themselves
It's worth noting that Greek culture was heavily influenced by earlier Egyptian culture.
In a later, comedic twist, when Alexander expelled the Persians from Egypt, Egyptian culture was open to being heavily influenced by Greek culture which itself had previously been heavily influenced by Egyptian culture. Would have been a fun time to be alive...
@Nicholas Jevon greeks werent unified in a single nation on that time in some romans legends says that the first romans were survivor of Troy so it explain their hate for "greeks"
@Amber Hoke I don't know if you're trying to say:
(A) Every culture is a copy of the culture that it grew from, which is an obvious truism.
Or (B) ALL cultures interchanged and inter-borrowed from each other, which is obviously false, owing to geographical restraints.
Perhaps you mean some third thing?
Help me out here, please.
I see you posting at nearly 2 am. We appreciate the hard work and I love the videos! Keep up the hard work! :D
Me: What's your super power again?
Rome: I'm rich
Me:
That was more Karthagos Superpower, together with traditional big skils in seamanship and naval mastership. In Marokko also where African Elephants in the Atlas-Mountains. The speciality of the Romans were the Roman citizen and the Roman law and their developed Rationality and logic and rational thinking they learned from then Greek and the Roman abilitys in craftmanship and masonry and building like the Aquaedukts and Roads and cement and their skillfull military and Legions and so on.
The Celts und Germanic tribes still had he special skill to fall in Trance for a fight and get very strong and brave then and become Berserkers and so to say "werewolves".
It was not without reason that the Celts became at first the great civillization and great culture, because they were not exactly as big warlike as the Germanic tribes..
@@holgerjahndel3623 Nah.
Batman
Lose to the poor barbarian.
Patriotic army is much stronger than rich army, carthaginian were much more rich than romans and payed mercenaries, they got destroyed in front of roman patriotic soldiers. Carthaginian army fought for money and didn’t care for carthage, romans fought only for the glory of Rome.
Not watched the whole video yet, but it would seem like, then, that the Centurions were possibly the most crucial part of the organisation of the army. Probably along with the Maniple system of units. Having such grizzled, long-time veterans in charge of such flexible units would definitely add a lot of brain power and efficiency to the fighting. It's fascinating to see a breakdown of this.
this is just what i needed in all this craziness, Roman Structure
On point.
Phil Conti 😂😂😂😂 corona virus craziness yes
@@CurryRiceN_Chips shhhhh we were trying not to use the word, just a little bit peace from constantly hearing about it.
Common what r u afraid of?We all gotta die, take a number.
Invicta: Did people copy the legion? Me, an academic: NUMIDIAN LEGIONARIES
Silver shield Legionaries
Man, this brings a lot of memories
And the original space marine legions
Well, all the Problem with these numidian and seleucid units is that their description as imitation legionaries come from the Romans. They had a tendency to call anybody with roughly similar equipment an imitation of their own units, disregarding battlefield role, social background, degree of professionalism and even if they existed before military contact with rome.
Furthermore, Polybios, who is the base for the whole 'silver shield legion'-myth, never claims that they are imitations, just that they are armed similary to Roman units.
Dont Forget Armenian Legionaries!
Backed With Carthaprat Archer
I remember you talking about making a video about this WAY BACK, back when you still posted gameplay. Happy it is now here.
What type of videos he used to post, just curious
@@satyamprakash7030 rome 2 online battles
@@satyamprakash7030 Halo b4 that
The engineering and building skills were so extremely important. They build bridges in a day, build defensive marching camps every day or a huge fortress wall in a few days.
Just insane building skills.
All that creativity came from their market economy which allowed them to trade and innovate.
Turns out that the greatest, longest lived Empires in history were...sufficient warriors, and outstanding quartermasters.
good organization trumps excellent skill
Uhm, the roman empire didn't exist that long. It changed a lot from a kindom to a republic into empire to the late antiquity.
The classic romean empire we often talk about lasted ~500 years.
For comparison, the egypt dynastic periods lasted ~3000 years
The biggest was the mongolian
The romans changed the world sustainable.
But full military based empires can't last long.
@Daniele Fabbro I'm not so sure about philosophy imo that's more a creek thing like the word itself. But thats what i meant with romeans changed the world sustainable.
It was definitely a or the significant impact in history.
But it wouldn't been without the military. It was the backbone, but also a reason for the fall, of the empire. It's hard to imagine a world without.
The egypts aren't known for a hughe powerfull army or much conquering.
China?
@Daniele Fabbro Take care when making that comparison. The United States' current dominance is just a blip on a historical timescale. Rome was unrivalled for centuries.
What other elements of the Roman army would you consider copying for your Imitation Legions? Time stamps for my own: Roman Roman Soldier Dissection 2:18
Roman Unit Dissection 5:00
Roman Army Dissection 7:18
Roman Soldier Imitation 9:39
Roman Unit Imitation 12:53
Roman Army Imitation 15:30
Yess ,but does people today copy then etc riot police
Alexander took a phalanx to Saka lands and won. I think it's the general's skills that counts.
@@oddish2253 true but how did he do it i mean was was expecting it to be like the battle of the 3 kings where moors sorrounded and killed the portugese
Hi! I love your content, but I was wondering if you have source documents for your content? Because I would be very interested in getting a more in depth picture
Sassanians:the fortresses
Honestly it works similarly to a modern military as far as organization. Evolution in war and such have kept the spirit alive. Platoons, Companies, Battalions, Brigades, all can be traced back to Centuries, Cohorts, and Legions
@Alonso Arguedas right as well
Logan M Well yes we have to keep in mind that the Medieval ages were degradation of the Ancient societies. After the barbarian kingdoms were established they destroyed a lot of Roman inventions and it took them centuries to get on the same level as Rome once was.
@@coolthief8375 I would say that it's only in the time of the renaissance with the resurgence of the pike formation and the professional army that the barbarian kingdom finally went back on the same level as Rome.
Perridan Yes indeed. And again hundreds of years of progress was lost because of them. If Rome didn’t fall we could have achieved much more. They were about to create steam powered machines. It’s a shame.
@@coolthief8375 The medieval ages were a flowering of society in other ways. The Renaissance would never have been possible without the deep and complex cultures that had been nurtured, the existence of universities and centers of learning, and trade leagues like Venice and the Hansa.
I'm not sure how you did it yet you did. You took a thousand years and broke it down cogently into clearly defined subentities. You then distilled the major developments into digestible and thoroughly researched subsections of data and history. You have a gift! Bravo young sir! A+
What made the Roman army so special? Let me borrow a line from Saladin in "Kingdom of Heaven":
Nothing...and everything.
1453 book is better than the movie, and the movie was awesome!
''i am not those men.. i am Salahadin...Salahadin''
Salahadin had some really great lines in that movie.
You could either spend huge amounts of treasure, resources, time, effort to end up with a poor imitation of the Romans or try to work on your own strengths, tactics and concentrate on exploiting Roman weaknesses. Like you said, the big problem was often Rome was a nation then a huge state in a time when most were still city states or tribes. Most just could not compete.
Why didn’t anyone copy the Romans? Who else at the time had the infrastructure both economic and administrative to rival them... very very few, especially after Carthage fell.
@Max Tang The byzantine empire was the roman empire, literally, it can't really copy itself.
@Bgsleo true, but relatively speaking they were small. Each governed in a different way, and constantly at war with each other. The armies they fielded against each other were smaller than a roman legion. (Contrast this with Rome vs Carthage). The consequences of this lack of governmental sophistication was that even when a great leader like Alexander arose this empire collapsed as soon as he died. I have to concluded that while they may have been rich, they were certainly not well administered as a whole.
Yes, the Byzantines were only known as the Byzantines by those outside of the empire/those in later history. In fact, I believe the Byzantines were given the name by those in the West (following the fall of the Western Roman Empire)as they attempted to don the mantle of being the continuation of the Romans. Regardless, preceding the fall of the classically labeled “Roman Empire” in the 5th century, Rome had to split duties to effectively deal with the rising threats the empire faced. These threats being: stronger foes on the frontiers coupled with ambitious generals who repeatedly mounted rebellions. To deal with this, Diocletian essentially began the split by appointing multiple emperors to be able to administer the territory more effectively. The resultant Western Roman Empire eventually fell in 476 AD while the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines did not fall until 1453 AD (to the Ottomans)
@Janko Kral You clearly can't understand English properly because that is exactly what I said
Sassanid persians?
It’s easy to lose sight of everything that must go on behind the scenes when so much military discussion centers around battles, and the specific tactics and strategy behind those encounters. This video does a decent job of portraying those essentials NOT often seen that were key to Rome’s conquests. As Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I would spend six hours sharpening my ax.”
copycating legions never worked... until around 1600 Dutch and Swedes created brigade system of professional pike and musket infantry and legion was reborn in another form, existing well into today...
What about Tercios ? Dominating battlefield for century and a half ? They were profesional troops, mixing pikes, swords and firearms.
@@dra1212 in the same breath we can mention the Landsknecht, Swiss and East Roman Army
@@yochaiwyss3843 the landkechts et the swiss were mercenaries pikemen. The Tercios were profesional units with skilled commanders, strong fighting spirit and discipline, good training and using the newest tactics and weapons of the time. Soldiers in these units were experienced combat veterans.
That's copycating the pike phalanx of the Greeks.
@@ElBandito Macedonia had the pike phalanx. Greeks used spears, the 'doru' which isnt long enough to be considered a pike. These Hoplites would still be deployed at the flanks of the pike phalanx under Alexander as the 'shield bearers' however.
I think part of what makes a great army is early momentum.
Rome had the perfect videogame start in a way. They had a starting area to take over and build up, Italy, and then the stage 1 boss, Carthage, and then on and on it goes, they conquer Iberia, Greece, Gaul. They keep getting better with each victory because their army survives the battle, gains experience and refines tactics. If another army just dressed in the same armour and marched in the same block formations, they'd probably do even worse than if they didn't copy Romans at all.
I think Rome got lucky in a lot of ways, in their location and the timing of events that allowed them to springboard into bigger and bigger spheres of power.
to be fair they had a tough time in the 'early game' being conquered by Etruscans, being sacked by gauls, etc. but once they got the ball rolling, it just gained momentum.
Specifically they fought in areas where their system made sense. Italy is hilly which breaks up phalanxes and also negates cavalry but makes small independent infantry very effective. They were able to find the same terrain in Spain, Greece, Anatolia and the Levant but once they reached open areas like are found in Mesopotamia they got in trouble. Wide open plains or very cramped fields were their weakness. Now of course the reason they developed this fighting style was because of the areas they fought in so it's a bit of a feedback loop.
Exactly all the pieces just fit together, through every struggle they learned and grew and persevered with a decent bit of luck, that's what defined them over say Carthage another grand civilization that just didn't have the luck Rome had though it did have some as any successful civilization does
It’s not luck. You’re either better or not
Something like one fourth of te adult male population died fighting Carthage. Can you imagine? Proportionally that's more than the USSR lost in World War 2. Rome still refused to stop fighting.
>Dissecting the Roman soldier
yeah, that's Teutoburg Forest in a nutshell
Roman:
I fear no army... But that thing
*trees speaking proto-germanic*
Roman:
It scares me
too soon...
had it not be for a German traitor (Arminius) teutonburg forest would hardly be a footnote , they were led like sheep to the slaughter for a shit land that had no resources aside from wood that is one of the main reasons Rome never pursued to move beyond eastern france and above the Limes ,germany has nothing of use ...
@@kamikaziking Facts bro
@Nikolas Tyr Brennus., conquered Germans offered tributaries aka (hostage children) to Rome as fielty as to not to rebel Arminius was trained ,schooled , fed and housed like a Roman citizen so he was a traitor , germany is to this day a poor ass land in resources and has only vast capacities of coal and imports most of its resources dont drink the nazi coolaid and learn some documented history not the Germania BS narrative or youll want lebensraum again...
I think when being confronted by imitators you would not only have more experience than the imitators but you would also have an acute awareness of any weak points.
Robert Graves in his “I, Claudius” books talks a little about this. Román soldiers were salaried, in that they got a regular paycheck, where their enemies the Germans fought mostly for loot or glory and wouldn’t be motivated for anything else and had a hard time with their leaders ordering them about.
HiDesert004 Even though they received salaries that’s why the Roman army had trouble later. The emperors that commanded the loyalty of the largest armies bought them off with larger salaries and sometimes loot.
Basically why the Klingons are really poor soldiers in Star Trek.
I was under the impression that there were several imitation legions over their existence. Mithradates the Great of Pontus had an imitation legion made of former legionnaires. I vaguely recall there being both Greek and Persion imitations as well.
Rome require their allied nations to copy their legionary so they wont mess up in battle. All legionary imitation will fight on the Roman side.
Ben M
- Mithradates had legionaries trained by man send by Quintus Sertorius. Unfortunately next war with Rome come before they finish their work. Pontis legionaries perform well but they werent
enough.
@@yulusleonard985 seleucid empire had them too, not romes allies
Yulus Leonard Rome’s enemies often tried to emulate their tactics, including their army structure. It was rare for them to succeed, though Mithradates the Great probably came the closest to pulling it off.
@sum body At that time I doubt the Roman use Legionaire. During Hun/Goth/Franks time, Roman soldier consist mostly German mercenaries. Pontus already described in the Video, they use imitation of Legionary.
Romans faced perfect "not Roman" legions during the social war. Those were the allies that traditionally provided half of the "Roman" army in the previous wars, so they used the same equipment, formations, logistics, command structure and tactics. Not by chance, famous Roman generals that won in the east with ridicolus ease, struggled in the social war, and it had been the only time when, shortly after having narrowly won, Rome granted to the former enemies all of their requests.
Invicta: Legions had adequate supplies and food.
Caesar: Totally bro.
Two points I felt were missing:
1. During a long period, if a soldier actually survived that 25 years, veterans were demobilized with rewards of land. Later on, veterans would get lands in newly conquered territories. In other words, Roman opponents fought for freedom, glory, religion, or conscription, but a victorious Roman soldier would become a landowner with a powerful & direct incentive.
2. The somewhat unique nature of life in the actual city of Rome for hundreds of years, the reason why 'Urban' legions were feared. For much of its early history life for ordinary men on the streets of Rome was hyper-aggressive, violent, and competitive. The 'untrained levies' mentioned in the video have gone through a rather brutal upbringing equivalent to growing in a violent prison gang. Even going into the Legions, a 'green recruit' Roman of Plebeian class is what a modern man might regard as a FREAKING BLOODYTHIRSTY PSYCHO BASTARD who would happily beat, rape, rob, and murder you and only respects fellow hardcore psychos. Livy often makes this point when the Romans fought the Greeks; that the Greek conscripts found piles of hacked off limbs unnerving while your Urban Roman pleb thought it was hilarious & basically just another Saturday night in a ROman tenement block.
@Garrett McCullough *drums*
I doubt about your second point. It is hard to control grown up men, especially with rebellious upbringing. I would expect most of them being kids around 16 years old. Do you have source of any kind?
In your second point you're mixing up eras. The 'untrained levy's' were part of the old Socii system - Rome paid their Italian "allies" to go to war for them. Your status - in fact your very ability to wage war - was based on whether or not you could afford equipment - the notoriously hidebound Senate didn't think the state should spring for it. But they weren't urban. They weren't even Roman.
Problem was, there were drawing from a limited pool, and the punic wars decimated the Italian small farmer. So in about 100BC, Gaius Marius proposed to use the Capite Censi (citizens of Rome with no property to their name - literally "the head count") as Roman soldiers, with the government supplying their equipment. This was met with universal scorn "they'll run from their first battle and leave their equipment behind" and "they'll trade in their swords for a night with some Gallic harlot" - that sort of thing. Marius would never have succeeded with his plan had half a million Germans not appeared in the neighborhood, making the Senate suddenly very flexible.
They outperformed the earlier socii, but the reason was as the video said: they had centurians which gave even green legions a semi-veteran status (for a really cool example of centurions making a great heads-up quick tactical change of orders, check out Caesar's charge against Pompey at Pharsalus). I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of rome being a perpetual war of all against all. And a plebian was just someone who couldn't trace their ancestry back to the old aristocracy of the Kingdom of Rome - many plebians were quite wealthy, and as a general class they were more powerful than the patricians, who were always accused of being would-be kings. If you listed all 20 consuls in a random ten years in the last 50 years of the Republic, you might have two or three who were Patricians. They had all but died out.
I agree with your first point, and I think in it were the seeds of the fall of the Republic, but my post is already too long.
Strange. I recall reading one of the roman historians saying that people from countryside made much better soldiers than soft city boys
Think you just described the united states more than you did rome lol
Hard to copy something that is always changing, when Rome lost, and won im sure, they would analyze the battles and took what the other side did better and used it themselves, to great results.
Armies require wars. Rome had the biggest and best armies because they were always in a war with somebody - and Rome always _needed_ to be at war with somebody to keep those armies useful, those popular generals busy, and an endless supply of more supplies to keep those armies going.
Can't be a great hero without a great villain. If you possess a mighty military then you have no choice but to use it aggressively or lose to the predations of your many enemies.
@@pwnmeisterage u just described America
I think because the army was an expression of the society as a whole.
Not exactly. Few legionaries were in fact from Rome. The Legions sent to Britain were largely Persian. Civil society spawns few soldiers, the practice also aided in the tactic of devide and conquer. Raise a legion in one place and then send them elsewhere. Those legions would then provide the population for new cities elsewhere as they would be given land in those places. Wales had a tiny population before the legions turned up.
@@zoiders I mean, Rome went through many stages. Everytime the army was a reflection of the current society. That was valid for all others. A barbarian kingdom, for example, couldn't just copy and paste the model of another kind of antrhropological-cultural system. An eastern empire as well. Everyone proposed it's own model because everyone had it own society. Then, ok, those "models" aren't that much, there were influences and so on.
Its also true in that late Rome military service gave Citizenship were as most people's being a citizen meant providing military service (including early Rome). by having new people at risk the established were safer and in turn might develop or retain other skills better.
zoiders technically the Legionaries were all Roman citizens, and were the backbone of the army. Non-citizens of Rome that joined or got enlisted were Auxiliaries. They would still perform similar tasks, but never advanced too far in rank.
@@zoiders Persians?? Good one.
Short summary: There are lots of aspects, some of which are and others aren’t mentioned in the video, that could be *and actually were* copied, each one of which affected the army‘s overall power, but none of which was really decisive.
The one single most decisive difference between the Roman Empire and everyone else - which wasn’t copied simply because it couldn‘t be, which again fully answers the initial question - was an overwhelming advantage in the availability of manpower and resources and thus ultimately comes down to a single word: Size.
Yes, or another way of saying the same thing might be "money".. If you have a huge empire resting on the labour of slaves you can have a standing army, equip it and afford to lose battles because you send more troops.
The Norse "Ledung-system" was a copy of Roman army. Tribes north of limes had not the economy for organising full time soldiers/armies. They did the next best. The different tribes had a common foe, which led them to cooperate. They geographical organized themself in ledung-units. The ledung originated from the time of yearly Roman attacks after year 0. It started with the "mennerbunde" a kind of full time soldiergroup. Then compleated with a kind of consript soldiers. Those soldiers drilled a coupla of weeks 2-3 times year. From year 200 the ledung was fully organized and not seldom defeated the Romans in battle.
Roman could not defeat the tribes because they abondoned their smal towns/large villages and had no capital town. They were very decentralized. Their production was made in large settlements of "villa-type" and the trade made on marketplaces close to their place for "the things" (a kind of parliment). Everything was built by wood and if the Romans destroyd it, they soon rebuilt everything.
When the Romans attacked, the ledung units in the threatened areas mobilized and all other resources was moved up hills and into the woods, difficult for the foe to trace. Often the Roman attackers tried the force the locals into battle, but they slowly withdraw. The deffenders weekly got more and more reinforcement. Within 4 weeks 9-12 units of ledung came sailing and landed behind the roman line. Battle-archeology have showed how the roman legion then basicly fled back from where they came. A ledung unit from the norse contained transportation (ships) and 3600 soldiers with "full weapons". They did not bring any civilian workers or auxillery tropps as the roman legion - but the full battle strength of a roman legion at the tima also was about 3600 men plus may be auxilleries.
The ledung, though, moved faster than a roman legion. Of course there are a lot of details to descibe, but that´s another story!
Roland, thanks a lot for this very educating thread...first time I hear about the ledung!
That's really interesting I never heard about that system. Wish we knew more how the germanic tribes fought and operated in detail
@@hazzmati Batttlefield archeology have showed at least 2 times how Roman legions were defeated probably from this "ledungarmies". The German tribes often sent large groups of soldiers to serve as helptroops in roman legions. That meant this troop should be compleat with commander and down and well drilled in roman fieldtactics. If then a tribe/clan had ledungunits at disposal, they could send one or a couple to serve. That gave battle-hardness. We don´t know why the ledung-organisation was built in "thre". May be one third stayed home, one third in preparedness, one third served the romans. Remember every roman legion used about 3600 frontsoldiers, 1200 slaves, 1200 helptroops and about 600 horsemen/cavalry. That means 70000-80000 none-romans along the limes, which all should be payed with gold or in gold worth in silver. The Germans were mostly not "german-speaking". Most spoke probably slavic, but their commanders were germans. With time the ledung had a lot of battle-hardned soldiers in it´s ranks and the romans more and more often was defeted north of Limes.
In one battle the roman legion was on wild "get-away" towards south (they reached the battle-field in reverse order, that is artillery, supplies, rearguard was "first"). That troops broke through a german defensewall along a hilly ridge, The defenders were probably a relativly small force from the Ledung, and the romans could not wait - and had to attack at once. Then archeology shows the romans left all wagons, artillery etc and marched on. The big threat looked like coming from north, where the roman main force was on it´s march south.
There are a lot of roman reports in archives, showing roman attacks north of Limes from year 9 to about 300 ad. Not all of them were successful even if not catastrophs!
How can I learn more?
@@deyc3 It´s very confusing to study. There are bits and peases described about the ledung. The quality of the ledung got known during the wars Marcus Aurelius was involved in. The Marcomanies and quads clans moved the war to northern Italy and at same time Aurelius orderred legions to attack north of Donau and take the shores of Oder north to the Baltic sea. That´s when the romans were beaten badly by the ledung arriving from the Norse and fled southwards. One battlefield is digged on that way.
In Sweden its possible by analysing maps for borders to reconstruct how the ledung was organized. It´s from this geographical organisation nowerday three countries are built.
A long story short.
Aurelius and the romans wrote a lot of reports from the wars and not so few have survived in original or in copies. Economic reports gives a good picture over how the ledung was orginised - the romans now and then payed of german ledungunits instead going in battle with them. You have to find the reports. Some historian has and that´s from his text I know a bit more and from the maps in Sweden.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Ostrogoths. They were more contemporaneous with the Eastern Empire but are generally known to history as copying Roman gear, unit formations, and tactics.
"We are Rome. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated."
The Roman legions were great for the same reason any military power throughout history is great: money. Or more specifically, resources. Resources that come from rich lands that provide lots of material wealth, enabling the growth of a large population, enabling the rise of a professional warrior class.
In almost every conflict in history, the side with the greater resources wins.
On a longer-term level, those nations and empires that are militarily powerful stay that way as long as they have the resources, and the political/cultural inclination to spent it on an expensive professional military.
Like the US today, no other country is willing to build a navy that has 12+ aircraft carriers (and their attendant support ships) and even if they're willing, they don't have anywhere near the resources to make it a reality.
If you look at those that beat Rome the opposite is true
@DistriktA Rome's weakness was what brought the barbarian nations fleeing the huns. Civil wars, depopulation, famine, plagues, economic collapse, all brought the crows.
The Roman Empire continued to exist for another 1000 years after the Huns invaded and other barbarians invaded.
@DistriktA emperor Constantine moved the capital of Rome in 324ad to constantinople so Rome was no longer Rome. It wasnt a successor state it was the literal continuation of Rome in the east.
Strength through unity as opposed to individual city states.
*Vietnam War left the chat*
The mithredeties example was kinda doomed from the start, he tried to copy a formation thats based on grinding down the oponent with far fewer resources than the enemy he'd copied it from. When your enemy outnumbers you use speed to limit that advantage, don't just give them the space to corner you and grind you to dust
the long version, this awesome vidoe.
the short answer, logistics. The Roman army was an organized formal army payed for by the state. It was well supplied, and it ran like a fine oil machine.
the general of a legion was called "legatus legionis" (tied to the legion), and was usually a high ranking politician with senatorial mandate. the second in command was the "tribunus laticlavio" which was a young high status noble, to be mentored by the legatus. the 3rd in the chain of command was not a tribunus, but a former centurion! a veteran centurion who has shown exceptional battle prowess and valor on the filed, and whose expertise and competence was out of discussion. those centurions were promoted with the rank of "praefectus castrorum" (leader of the camp) the highest possible rank for those who were not nobles or senators, and the praefectus castrorum was actually the most experienced and capable professional, and was the actual legatus legionis right hand and consuelor.
MikiMaki76 this is much how the American Military leadership is structured. Below branch commandants/generals is a single enlistedman. This enlisted man is the only “E-10” in their respective branch and they are involved in every command decision
Me: Mom, can we get a Roman legionary army?
Mom: We already have legionary army at home
Legion at home: Mithridates' Legion
Excellent use of the meme here
The other Armies didn't have Skillshare like the Romans, duh
Simple case of professional soldier. It gives them the essential time to develop as soldiers and as comrades through a tried and tested system that encouraged discipline, skill at arms, unit loyalty and rewarded valour. A potent/winning combination.
Exactly. A more modern example could be to compare the British and Argentinian armies in the Falklands war. Equipment largely identical, organization not terribly different....but tradition, leadership, training, and discipline allowed the smaller professional British forces to prevail.
Soldiers in Units vs. units of Warriors. Cooler heads will take the field; Its discipline that wins the day-Stonewall Jackson.
When I was young I had a picture book on the roman legions. For years I've been trying to remember what it was called. Pretty sure the image of "strict rules" around 4:30 was out of this book. Anyone?
Might want to mention Gen. Anthony Wayne's US Army from 1792-1796. He tried to replicate the Roman Legion with his 4 Sub-Legions and was very successful with this during the Fallen Timbers Campaign in 1794.
Be aware, Conqueror's Blade has malware.
It downloads a launcher embedded with data harvesting malware. While they openly admit this in their ToS, they don't exactly announce it, either. One of my security suites recognized their launcher as malware/PUP (potentially unwanted program.) I thought it was a false positive, but wanted to be sure. Remembering what I read about Valorant, I went straight into the ToS, where I disappointedly found the section where "by installing" the game and accepting the ToS, you were consenting for them to collect a broad scope of your data.
I know that with Valorant, many people opted to just make sure and kill any process and/or service that runs in the background whenever they weren't paying the game. The problem with this is that, unless you're familiar with and have inspected the code, you can't be sure exactly how the app collects the data. For instance, you make sure and close all other programs and windows before you run the game, then kill all of its services and executables right after you exit the game. What's stopping it from accessing your cookies, cache, browser history, security keys, etc.?
One of the points you left out I think is that the fact that upon the creation of the Roman army system they were a republic and weren't a kingdom. Therefore the issue you mentioned where even if someone wanted to change their military system they would be upsetting (and likely creating enemies internally) a bunch of nobles in officer positions. With the exception of political/military positions at the the top end of the army, the other officers up to centurion weren't nobility. Which meant a few things, they were meritocratic chosen, the pool of potential officers at these levels was much, much bigger, and it was easier to replace them after a loss. Additionally this would also be an obstacle to anyone trying to switch over.
There are aspects of the Roman Army that are only possible because it was created and institutionalized while Rome was a republic.
It would've also been good to mention the Marian Reforms which were part of the reason why Rome could raise armies again and again, and hell they likely had very motivated soldiers as these were masses of non-landowning and poor men who suddenly were given the chance of becoming better well-off and raising their families out of poverty by becoming professional soldiers. Logistically the Marian Reforms also meant that the Roman Army carried most of their supplies themselves, without need of a long and vulnerable baggage train which gave them mobility and flexibility unlike any other army.
Otherwise excellent video.
They were too expensive.
Each soldier carried a fortune in steel and required a vast logistics system that few nations could afford and even fewer willing to pay.
Iron* Romans did not have Steel, that was later in Europe.
@@Ublivion01 not true, pure iron was basically useless as a weapon or armor, pretty much everyone during the iron age was using steel, the problem was it was a very low quality steel with impurities and bad carbon content. you wouldnt get high quality carbon steel till the middle ages but the roman legions were indeed wearing steel.
@Bgsleo
They taxed their middle class out of existence
While this resulted in extreme wealth for the rulers , it reduced the overall wealth of the Empire.
Eventually the army was just cheaper, poorly trained parody of its former self.
The way Rome died was pathetic.
@@Ublivion01
The Roman's had steel (sort of)
You take wrought iron , heat it in a charcoal fire , beat on it and repeat until the outer layer has enough carbon in it to be steel.
This would result in a piece of wrought iron encased in steel.
It was extremely labor intensive and required a high level of skill.
The blacksmith had to reach the correct level of carbon as the piece reached its final shape, too many heatings made the metal brittle, too few made it soft.
The number of hammer blows, the temperature of the fire , the fuel to air ratio of the forge , how much the metal was stretched, how it was cooled and heat treated.... all had to be done with tiny margins for error or you wound up with junk.
So Roman steel was mind bogglingly expensive, and its army was decked out with it.
That they had low quality steel, when everyone else was still using regular iron or bronze was part of what made them so effective.
As the Empire collapsed you saw less steel band armor and more iron breast plates...Fewer legionnaires and more conscripts.
And in the end their armies were just barely trained conscripts impersonating the legions of old and mercenaries units hired to actually win battles.
@@arkhaan7066 That doesn't match the early descriptions of the Spanish Gladius Hispanis which had the ability to be drawn down across the head with both ends touching the shoulders & spring back straight. An iron sword or poor quality steel sword wouldn't do that. Other nations also had good steelworking & despite the Romans slandering Celtic swords, they actually produced very good swords, as preferrred & adopted by Imperial Roman cavalry.
Even Romans couldn't copy the legions after time and people expect others to copy.
Edit: Yeah I know Romans had to adapt it's a joke.
As time goes on, the needs of an army always changes. The fact that Rome was able to adapt as well as it did on multiple occasions speaks volumes, such as with the military reforms of the third century.
@Forsaken Pumpkin that's quite a bold statement. Would you like to elaborate?
@Foreskin Pumpkin: If you don't mind me asking, I'd like to know what hard evidence you have to support that hypothesis.
Forsaken Pumpkin What? The Romans already had the legions well before they conquered Egypt. And they continued to be a powerful local empire with a powerful army long after they lost Egypt.
Imperialx Warlord Losung Egypt? That’s Eastern Rome. And after the 7-8th century they weren’t Roman at all.
I like a quote saying "Rome was, above all else, pragmatic - when something didn't work they threw it away, unceremoniously". It's not surprising that such a society, aided by a fair amount of militarism, can reach such greatness. The disconnect between social hierarchies and the military (save for operational and strategic command) also helped, creating an army with only the absolutely best men on the job. Such levels of professionalism and meritocracy hasn't been attained for centuries, with command as low as platoon being - very often - given to people with no experience - while in Rome it was possible for a professional soldier to command a cohort and even a temporarily a legion.
Another thing worth mentioning - all Roman soldiers were professionals. They didn't fight for some lord or some king - they fought for themselves and their motherland (which they usually loved very much). The equipment, the training and the camaraderie (the major role of the contubernium) aside - these were incredibly motivated troops. Such a success is also seen in Macedon after Phillip's reforms.
I think what made the Roman army truly great was that it was created by a militaristic state. They were able to divert huge amounts of wealth, technology and time - taken through good geographical position and conquest - to their army, and it payed off. I don't really see most Greek states or Egypt spending so many resources just to have a strong force. The Roman state, on the other hand, was made for this very reason.
Greece did not have the resources of Italy. Italy was also much more united than Greece - Rome was the capital, and everyone was OK with that, whereas in Greece you had city-states like Athens, Corinth, Arkadia and kingdoms like Sparta and Macedon which were all unique, separate entities, with their own laws and customs, but the same religion, language and culture. The first time all of the Greeks united their resources, they beat the Persians back, first at the Battle of Thermopylae, then at the Battle of Marathon and finally the naval battle of Salamis.
The second time Greece fully united (minus the Spartans, Πας Ελλήνων πλύν Λακεδεμονίων - don't google translate that, it's Ancient Greek) was when Alexander, from the kingdom of Macedon in northern Greece, decided to go conquer the whole freakin known world and reach India.
You know what they say. Rome took over Greece, but the Greeks conquered the Romans. They quite literally fell in love with everything Greek, and incorporated Hellenism everywhere in their culture. From architecture, to literature, to myths, to science...and on the other hand, the Ancient Greeks were kinda cool with that. Italians are very similar to Greeks - both being southern Mediterannean people. Same food, same vibes, same willingness to chill in the sun, have a glass of wine and discuss politics/philosophy/mathematics you name it. It also helped that when the Romans conquered a new area, they did send a Governor, but they mostly let the area govern itself, in the sense that culture was respected, temples weren't destroyed, citizens weren't abused etc.
1. In general, Rome's enemies prior to the 3rd century collapse hadn't risen to the level of being able to maintain a large force of professional warriors rather than farmers and hunters temporarily drafted into service, or at best smaller guard-type forces to back up levies.
2. Logistics. The legions weren't just warriors, they were pioneers and sappers as well, so the roads and storehouses they built would keep the army fed, reinforced and in the field far better than their rivals.
It’s worth noting as well, that not only were Roman legions well supplied from the spoils of Empire, but the vast riches in supplies meant that Roman military engineers and smiths would have had the time, resources, and patronage to innovate and test things out. Rome was famous for its willingness to learn from its enemies and would have had the freedom to test and trial new innovations to equipment and tactics.
I have a more important question: Why does the chest armor have nipples and a belly button?..
Because hot
It's called a heroic plastron. It basically means he's the alpha around here.
Like some Greek armors, it was made to "look good / superior" to others and the enemies. There have been some Armor that for example had a relatively large genital area to make others think they were packing something heavy down there.
I believe Shadiversity made a Video about the looks of armors and explained it pretty good.
The musculata? For the same reason it has abs. It was supposed to simulate a human torso, and human torsos have nipples and a bellybutton, and abs.
So others know where to pinch and poke respectively
Even in antiquity, the professional army's foundation was the career NCOs.
I would say a big gamechanger was the Pilum, as it made enemy shields useless when hit and even decimated the enemy before the melee combat started. Also the rotation while in fight provided more freshness in the Roman army.
Seems the rotation was a reproduction by Marius of the old triplex acies inside the newly created legion, based on the princeps class.
Dude, Ive been playing conquerors blade for years, its the only game ive ever really enjoyed making vids on too, what an awesome coincidence. I really hope you get into it and start uploading some gameplay stuff, its an awesome medievil tactics game
It's not medieval, it's medieval-XVIII century xD
Also make a video about countering annoying lb players for once instead of teaching peeps how to play them :/
Roman Brand Legions: often imitated, never copied.
(Ask for them by name in the "Civilization" section of your local supermarket)
You mean "Often imitated, never duplicated.
@@MrChiangching figured I got it wrong but it was easier to copy the title than look it up.
A great one ! I will add that Ascepiodotos reforms adopted by the Seleucids and Ptolemies brought "romanized infantry" to classic phalanx. I see them as an evolution of the thorakitai for more mobility, dropping the spear for javelins, or the machairaphoroi with some armor. What is not certain is their shield. Did they retained their thureos ? According to bas reliefs, looks like so. And galatian mercs of course. The late Katoikoi were heavily hellenized.
One other factor: Horses. Some figured out they can just ride around and shoot, they'll get tired holding up shields and not having water and food at some point. Running out of arrows wasn't a big problem for Surena, and having a large shield doesn't work by the time you can't even lift it up while your opponents were either riding around cycling their men and horses or just getting off the tired horse. The time it happened in Anatolia during the First Crusade it was a mix of having water and still rather timely reinforcement by the Knights leading the other columns. If they took a few hours more, at best it would be an ambush on Turkish cavalry taking spoils.
Why didn't it immediately work? Such tribes were so fragmented and Rome so rich they can hire some of them to help fight each other. You can make do with outnumbered Sagittarii and other cavalry if you can coordinate well and either they just protect the flanks or hold down the enemy cavalry. Hell, not even the Parthians can decisively and consistently win. By the time of the Hunnic migration though that would change since that was a full scale migration by several displaced tribes along with the Huns, nothing like going after a smaller number of Sarmatians while hiring a lot of other horsemen. Same thing with China - the Han played the Steppe tribes against each other, the Tang integrated some of them. Then it was reversed when a Sogdian general destroyed the Tang that the Song were reluctant to integrate them ie the Chinese version of "Last of the (True) Romans," and promptly got beaten to a pulp by Genghis and Kublai.
After all that it took a while (1066) before reviving Macedonian length polearms on horses with half the armor (ie, mostly just the Knight) of a cataphract since most actions were by Norse tribes who only used them for transportation, then this encountered the same problem as in the 5th C ie the Mongols. It fragmented and was less of threat in the West too soon to have had enough of an impact, not to mention the creeping tech of firearms by the 15th C that even the Turks who had the sagitarii advantage ditched it.
Speaking of the Mongols...they kind of did something similar but with cavalry ie the tumen system. And they pulled a reverse Rome and reverse Tang - core and command are cavalry, auxiliaries are infantry from China (some from Korea) as well as siege engineers.
"and having a large shield doesn't work by the time you can't even lift it" thats why you rest the scutum at ground when not in close combat
"Running out of arrows wasn't a big problem" you have to actually smelt the arrow tips, I dont think making 100 arrow heads was a particularly speedy or cheap process.
Do you plan on doing any videos on the Byzantine Empire?
An alternate title for the video could be “If the Roman Army was so good, why was there no Roman Army 2: Electric Boogaloo!”
I don't understand a single word.
Tielner - Normie, it’s time for you know about the showdown
@@uranusaquarius7394 :D The words are definitively English :D But I am not a native speaker so ... :D :D :D
Oh ... it's like ... wherever you go there you are! :D
_why was there no Roman Army 2: Electric Boogaloo!_
It is called the Byzantine Empire.
Pesky Bird...
Actually the Roman Army didn’t prove their strength against ALL who opposed them. Hannibal defeated the Roman army time after time, and destroyed their army at Cannae. He had pretty much a free run of Italy for 15 years. I agree that one of their greatest strengths was to seemingly raise one army after the other when they suffered defeats. They never gave up, but would always come back.
Your statement hardly make's sense when you consider the fact that Rome was outnumbered in almost every conflict it was ever involved in.
@@MrAwrsomeness but its population was much more cohesive, and their allies almost always faithful. Funny that @dale little considers punic wars as a sequence of lost battles (it's true!) but punic war was one of the first complete military success of Rome. Rome lost a lot of battles in Italy: three of the last kings before republic were Etruscan (and it means something...), Rome was sacked in 390 a.C. by Brennus... but they were always able to gain the trust of the other italic populations and make them Romans thanks to its inclusive laws. Carthago could rely for a long time only on mercenaries. Their ruling class was not interested in wars (except for Barca families and few others) but only in the trade.
@@carlocorradini2734 oh I am not denying the unity and utility of the Roman state/legion I am just saying it's absurd to recognise this quality of logistics and manpower as it's only reason for it's success in war, it was just one part of the machine and without the loyalty discipline ferocity tactics equipment and leadership of the Roman legions it would have fallen apart like any machine. Rome was more than a mere Soviet Union in military matter's and that's why I wanted to draw attention to the fact that Rome was often the one outnumbered or in a bad way of logistics.
That was the old triple line levy though. Generally when people talk about "the invincible Roman legion" they're talking about the post-Marian professional army. Legions with institutional memory and everyone a veteran (or at least highly trained) makes a huge difference; Caesar, one time in a rant at a few of his legates said "I would gladly trade all of you for one of them [centurions]".
Also it bears pointing out that Hannibal didn't actually have the run of Italy so long as Fabius Maximus was forcing him to constantly turn around. Rome as a fortification wasn't exactly a hard nut to crack, just judging by the number of Roman generals who entered Rome at the head of an army to solve this or that grievance. Had Hannibal truly had a free hand in Italy, we'd all be talking about the Greco-Punic civilization.
@@jessejordache1869 I did qualify my statement about Hannibal by prefacing that Hannibal had a free run with "pretty much" a free run. I do realize that is a bit ambiguous, and I should have said that he was later mostly confined to southern Italy. However, it cannot be denied that he handed the Roman army several defeats which would have been catastrophic for the military of most nations, but with every defeat, the Roman army was soon replenished. You are correct about Fabius Maximus, but still avoided really confronting Hannibal. I'm not sure, they may have had some minor skirmishes. You provided some history about the legions and formations that I was not aware of, and I have no doubt you know much more about Roman history and about their military than I do. I would by no means consider myself an expert even on Hannibal, even though I have studied more about him than I have Rome. You were also correct that my comment seemed to imply that Hannibal had the run of the country for all those 15 years while it was much more limited than that. We may disagree somewhat on the extent of Hannibal's impact, but I have to say you shared some things I was certainly not aware of. Very informative.
Short answer: Logistics
MrPathorn Considering the root of that word is Greek, that says something about the subject doesn’t it? It was the language of the people’s they ruled, and the common language of the land. Latin being the Roman citizens high language.
I was thinking hard about this the other day. Then I decided to see on youtube, if someone has made a video about this. And I see that many others have pondered over this dilemma recently and arrived on this same video. What a strange coincidence. And this definitely wasn't in our recommended and we are not just randomly clicking on recommended videos like zombies.
Welllll this was in my recommended but I did watch a lot of war videos recently so
Katarina Love me?
Google ads-algorithm, you accepted the terms to analyse your searches over google, the algorithm is top notch tho
I love how the answer for why things weren't copied basically boils down to either:
1. They did
Or
2. They couldn't
So, here's a question about daily life in ancient times I feel I don't hear too often, be it Rome or the medieval era, but nowadays we like to enjoy our weekends. Was there such a concept for all the classes? Or just for the middle to higher class? Were vacations a thing for non nobles, in a way, to travel and explore or simply to not do things?
I don't know what it was like for a middle or lower class person in Rome but for peasants I do know. For peasants life was marked by natural changes and that dictated their work time. This meant that during summer, spring and fall they had a lot of work to do and would probably work 12 hour days every day of the week for some periods, though of course Sunday was the faste but they often still did some work there. The time when the harvest came in was simply too important to take off. However during the times where they weren't planting or harvesting they would have had relatively little work to do and this would have given them time off. In winter there was almost nothing they could do other than take care of the livestock and animals and that's probably why some of our most important holidays and celebration lie in that period. If you live in a modern western country you probably experience the opposite work load of this, with a long summer vacation and relatively shorter ones in winter. This is actually because of the work schedule of farmers, our modern holidays are basically the inverse of those because the children of farmers would need those times off to help bring the harvest in.
Also it's a bit more difficult to define "work" for pre-capitalist societies since the entire concept of a workplace and a set schedule is foreign to those societies. In this example it becomes difficult to say what is work because many tasks they spent their time on aren't payed labor today. They'd often repair their own tools, homes and clothes which would take up a significant portion of their time. Today these things might most often be done by specialists but if you do it yourself we don't tend to think of that as "work". Similarly preserving and cooking food was an important part of their survival but today that's just not even a part of our life anymore. We do of course cook but we do so often with pre-processed ingredients and don't have to start from the bottom like these farmers did. And we don't think of cooking as work right now but we'd say that preserving food at a cannery is work. And of course all of their "work" was done on the farm that they lived on. Basically it becomes easy to overestimate how much "work" farmers did compared to modern humans because we often don't count many things as work.
Anthri Tsuneon - The rich Romans had villae outside of Rome. The month of Aufmgust was because of the heat in Rome a preferred month for vacations. Poor people had to work and the upper middle class tried to imitate the rich.
Rich Romans were horrified to learn of the Jewish Sabbath: their workers and slaves did not get every seventh day off work. Whereas the leisure class did not work at all, apart from pretend-work like sport and embroidery.
@@faithlesshound5621 Well the upper class run the government, did military service undertook the different government posts of the cursus honorum and so on. The totally lazy rich are mainly a modern society concept.
@@TorianTammas
A lot of the "busy-ness" of the rich is play-acting, because the current mode of expropriation never seems as legitimate as that of the past.
In feudal times, men who lived off the produce of their serfs had to spend their time hunting, even though the expense on food and equipment for followers and horses outweighed that gained.
Early capitalists bought themselves country estates so they could pretend to be feudal magnates. Slave owners in the West Indies and "nabobs" of the India-China opium trade bought titles and country seats in England. Nowadays there is no need for tenants or even a farm, so the rich just build a big house in the country.
Modern asset-strippers pretend to be captains of industry. Financial engineers and allied tricksters dress up like the old city businessmen.
Most wealthy ladies have nothing like the large households their Victorian predecessors ran, but Country Life and Tatler magazines show how they they keep themselves occupied. How different is that from the "cursus honorum" of Roman playboys, or the parliamentary shenanigans of modern millionaire politicians?
Total war Rome soundtrack with another game promo. Lol
Before I watch this video I want to answer the question by stating that the romans actually pretty much copied everyone else. Their weapons and tactics are greatly based on germanic tribes for instance. It was the romans social and economic structure and logistics which literally paved the way for their success. That, combined with copying all the nations around them led to their conquest mostly.
Great video. Well done dissecting and organizing the deep well of information in a way that is easy to follow and concise
Found this channel a bit ago, I must say, what your doing is good work.
One thing that also bears mentioning is how a lot of the lack of imitation comes down to not being able to take pieces of the legion model one by one. The phalanx was primarily picked up in Greece and other areas not only because of its strengths on the battlefield, but because it's an easy way to keep minimally trained levies in formation, which similar to early Rome, was the norm for the Greek City States. Medieval Europe even returned to the shield wall concept once levies became the norm again.
So while Rome itself proved you technically could field levies in manipular formation, flexibility and speed, while still maintaining cohesion was difficult at best with poorly trained soldiers. To train up soldiers professionally, you need better infrastructure, because now these soldiers don't make their own food, but to do that, you needed fertile lands that could produce enough food to spare a lower percentage of the population to farming, and so on and so on.
If you didn't have the land to feed professional soldiers, you still could theoretically organize your units into centuries, but you would also likely get better returns out of a phalanx in many situations. In short, the Roman logistical network made professional soldiers possible, which made effective legion organization possible.
Can you make an episode on the specific training of roman soldiers? Great content, thank you!
Read “ The History of Warfare; Volume 1” by Hans Delbruk.
His understanding of the Roman Army is remarkable.
I've never understood why a century didn't have 100 soldiers.
Just a random fact. There could be a misinterpretation with the concept "imitation legions". Roman sources give us the idea that some peoples copy their combat system. The "Pontic legions" of Mithridates VI were an example. Also the "royal legions" of Numidia during the Caesar's civil war or the Seleucid 5.000 silver shields trained as a legion. But some historians think that the Roman sources interpreted a heavy infantry unit, armed with javelins and big shields as a copy of their legions, when they actually were original battle formations of these kingdoms.
_Seleucid 5000 silver shields trained as a legion_
My Seleucid history is almost non existant, but weren't the silver shields phalangites?
@@VRichardsn Yes, they were. But during the reign of Antiochus IV it seems that the 10.000 silver shields were divided. Then 5000 were still trained as a phalanx and 5000 equipped as a Roman legion.
@@armandom.s.1844 Fascinating. Any accounts as to their effectiveness?
@@VRichardsn I think not. But Polybius records the existence of units called thorakitai ("cuirassiers"), infantry units armored with chain mail. They proved effective fighting the Parthians in the mountains, and they could be an example of imitation legionaries
@@armandom.s.1844 Muchas gracias por la información. Los partos supongo no estaban usando mucha caballería en las montañas, ¿no?
In short: Rome copied from OTHERS and OTHERS did copy them, but failed.
This is a great video that details the roman army though.
The only two states that could compete with Rome in terms of economy and manpower were Carthage and the Sassanid Empire. It's a shame the Sassanid Empire wasn't mentioned.
I always got a line with Legionaries and behind some tustedos in reserve, in Rome2 mostly ai missles fire at the tustedos behind the frontline then(:
I was surprised the host only mentioned Pontus and not the Seleucid Empire. Under the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV a group of 5,000 troops, the Argyraspides Corps, were equipped and organized along the lines of a Roman Legion. Though it's unknown if this force ever possessed the tactical skill and training to directly compete against the Romans. They may have just been a group of Hellenistic Thureophoroi, medium infantry, with a change in armament. Either way, it would have been worth mentioning considering so few examples of such imitation of Roman methods ever occurred.