Link to the original video ruclips.net/video/xPGdOXstSyk/видео.html All the good links: Come watch me live stream on Twitch! Almost every night 9pm CST www.twitch.tv/metatrongemini Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! ruclips.net/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOwjoin I have a Patreon page with extra content! www.patreon.com/themetatron My second channel about languages www.youtube.com/@metatronacademy My third channel about gaming www.youtube.com/@TheProtectorate-yq7vi My Twitter/X x.com/pureMetatron
Metatron, he clearly states cavalry was not a thing in this period, meaning during the period the Trojan war allegedly happened. Yes, the macedonians had cavalry, but this was almost 1'000 years later. The Trojan war and Alexander the Great are as far apart from another - in the sense of a timespan - as a medieval knight and an actual modern tank
to be precise, he said "mounted cavalry" wasn't a thing, which is true... but "Cavalry" was, in the form of our beloved Chariots. =P (chariots, Chariot and more Chariots in the old "armed race of Chariots" xD)
Cavalry during Alexanders time is also misunderstood. People think that Cavalry in the time acted as a hammer and delivered kinetic charges into well ordered infantry. No. It didn't. I mean, I imagine it happened, rarely, because it was a terrible ideal. The manner in which Alexanders cavalry fought, was less lancing people on the fly(unless they were lancing people who were running, or otherwise disordered), and more, ride up to spear distance of the enemy, and then use their large two handed Kontos' to fight in melee combat from the height of a horse. Then there is the fact that Alexanders cavalry was accompanied by infantry, pretty much at all times, everywhere it went. Which fits in with the idea that they rode up to about 10-20 feet away from the enemy and then stabbed at them. The accompanying infantry was there to fill in the space and protect the horsemen. Then we also know that Alexander and the Companions fought as Dragoons. As in, they used their cavalry to ride to a position, dismounted, and then fought on foot, accompanied by their foot infantry. Kinetic, lance down, plow into infantry blocks is more of a medieval thing, and then even then, this would have been an extremely rare, and extremely risk occurrence. Then when you consider that many of the incidents that are brought up to defend the idea that cavalry lowered lances and plowed into ordered infantry, are usually a result of something happening that broke the infantry up, and ALLOWED the cavalry to charge into them. Perhaps the best example of this is the Battle of Kircholm. The popular conception of this battle is that Polish Winged Hussars lowered lances, charged teeth first into Swedish pike squares, and shattered them. The problem with this popular conception is that this isn't what happened. What happened was, first, the Swedish pike squares basically had no pikes. Second, the Swedish "pike" broke their formation to allow their own retreating cavalry to retreat through their infantry. The Polish cavalry exploited this opportunity to dive into the Swedish infantry as they were opened up, to allow the Swedish cavalry to pass through. This is a highly impressive feat IMHO, but it absolutely is not Polish Hussars lowering lances and riding over pike squares.
I think it is just misunderstanding. Because saying it is in ”this period” will mean ancient era, which spanned from 3000BC-500AD. While the ditch guy could maybe have used different words.
@@TheRealRealMClovin The quote actually is "In the period where/when the poem is set"... that means the Illiad... so it actually only covers the Trojan War, not the whole ancient era.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Regarding Macedonian cavalry, when he said "in this period" he meant the Trojan war period which is theorized to have taken place in 13th or 12th century BC many many years before Phillip II of Macedon, Homer does mention chariots in the Iliad, this historian Roel Konijnendijk specializes in Ancient Hellenic history, he's really good regarding his expertise IMO.
First thing I was going to do was find out when the Trojan war was supposed to have taken place as I thought Metatron had misunderstood his comment. You did it for me. Thanks.
Yeah, Macedonian cavalry was much much later... trhough, there was mounted cavalry back from the 15th century BC, so 300 years before the troyan war... but I couldn't find the role (if they had) in the battlefield... but yes, back in those days the "Army Cavalry" were Chariots, Chariots, Chariots and Chariots xD
@ It's not quite the same thing. Chariots weren't always used to charge into the enemy infantry. They were most often used, and I think ALWAYS used at the time of the Trojan war, to fire missiles from. So, the historian was correct. From what I can find out, it seems that the Greeks didn't employ cavalry as part of their tactics until around 500 - 400BC. And can you imagine going into war, charging at your enemy, fighting at close quarters, without stirrups to keep you balanced? At the time of the Trojan war, they were still some 500 years out from being invented, or at least something similar to what we now know as stirrups.
@@MrJpc1234 "Calvary" refers to a much more specific type of mounted fighter/warrior than you might think. By the very virtue of being mounted, this precludes chariots from being cavalry. As there is nobody riding any of the horses. Essentially cavalry refers to soldiers who by design, fight from horseback. Chariots in the bronze age were used in one of two ways. Either as a platform for archers, or as what a lot of people call 'battle taxis'. That is, they were used to move people around, who would then dismount and fight on foot. Somewhat like how a dragoon would fight. The Egyptians are essentially the archtype here. There is some overlap between the use of chariots and that of true cavalry, but they really are two different things, belonging largely to two different eras (though again there is some overlap). It is also patently clear that chariots are the main thing that true cavalry developed out of.
@@babilon6097This is absolutely untrue. It's true that mounted cavarly wasn't common, but horse size is *not* the reason for that. There is period iconography of horses the same size as horses used in combat hundreds of years later. What you're referring to is a single study based on a horse skeleton found dating back to the period in a completely different geographic area. Meaning it could have just been that specific horse was smaller than normal or that particular breed of horse was smaller. Not *all* horses were smaller. Also, for the record, a pony is a "rideable" horse. Being smaller isn't what makes a horse unsuitable for mounted warfare. If a horse can pull hundreds of pounds of chariot + people in said chariot, it can support a person on it. Horses were not used for cavarly during the time of Troy because horses were very expensive to raise and train and were seen as a status symbol. It's why only a few people would have been mounted, like the general/king/emporer
@pacmonster066 I'll give you one thing. "Size" was an oversimplification. The important characteristics are back strength and general stamina. A horse must be strong enough to carry a rider for an extended period of time and in gallop and to do it without injury so that after some rest it is good enough for more battles. The fact that you can get on a horse and ride it for a few minutes is not enough. Warhorses are distinctly bigger AND have stronger bones (and are probably more muscular but we can't check it directly) and you need quite a few generations to produce such breed. I know that a pony is not a young horse but a small breed of horse. As such "size" was a bad way to put it.
@@babilon6097 Literally none of what you said is relevant to anything because again, horses *were not smaller* during the time period. Back strength or stamina included. A "warhorse" is any horse trained for war. You're using definitions that won't exist until the midieval ages, where there were many different classifications for types of horses used for different purposes. The bronze age Greeks didn't use horses like they would 1000 years later but *other* civilizations did. Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indus valley civilizations have iconography of horse mounted fighters going back to that time. So again, the size of the horse was not the reason they weren't used for that purpose. You're conflating a single piece of evidence for one particular small horse breed with a sweeping justification backed on unproven information.
Roel is a good friend of mine and good friend of the channel, wonderful historian! As for his comment regarding cavalry in Troy, he would be correct. In this period chariots would have been present, but typically more like a taxi service for the elites on the battlefield, but actual shock cavalry don't really exist in the Homeric period, even into the archaic and classical most mounted forces were mounted archers. Macedonian cavalry existed, but remember that the siege of troy is thought to have taken place around 1200 bc, which is hundreds of years before. Overall I'd say you seem to agree with him on almost everything too
He is a great guy, and I agree that cavalry wouldn't really be much of a thing back in 1200 BC, however the other points Metatron disagreed with are definitely true. Roel is awesome but that doesn't mean he cannot be wrong, we're all humans after all and I definitely think sometimes he can go a tiny bit overboard, as if human beings lowkey robotic. Anyway, yes in Trojan war cavalry existing is super unlikely, Chariots are slightly more likely but Cavalry? Eh. not too possible at the time at least.
One thing I think Metatron was right about, though, was the testudo formation. I was surprised to hear the historian say it was rarely done and in desperation.
How dare you disagree with our Ditch Guy! He's a world treasure. Lol. He also writes scripts for one of the big history channels, Invictus or History Marche.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
it is even pre helenistic era, it's bronce era, around 1000 before Phillip and Alexander. THe form of cavalary used at that time (and it was in it's infancy) were chariots, mostly as archery platfo9rms or messangers, about around 1000BC there are mentionings of the first Horseback riders in battles, but also those were mainly archers, proper melee cavalery only formed arund 7-500 BC.
@@wolfsruhm The Trojan war is estimated to have occurred between the 13th and 12th century BC. That’s 200-300 years prior to the first horse back riders you mentioned, muppet. While chariots would have been in use, the only calvery shown in that movie didn’t use chariots.
@@insanemakaioshinI think that guy was agreeing with you, he might have had a brain fart and started his comment by stating that the Trojan war is pre helenistic (1000y before Macedonian yadayada) which is a non sequitur to your comment but hey, is the internet.
Against plate armoured opponents in general, I am with Mr Ditch here on the role of arrows (partially). Massed arrows against plate armoured knights is unlikely to find many gaps themselves although could do, but many of the arrow shafts will be shattering and exploding. The shear amount of splinters flying everywhere will be terrifying with people trying to further protect their eyes. So it would work to suppress them. Although here they also have large gaps in armour where they are uncovered.
Incorrect for one key reason-unless all plate-armored opponents belong to the MOST upper class of their society in this specific formation of men, the thickness and quality of plate armor varied significantly. Multiple test videos demonstrate this, showing that arrows can, in some cases, penetrate plate armor, especially when it isn't modern high-carbon steel of exceptionally high quality. Also long arching volleys are not entirely historically accurate. A lot of the shooting could be quite on a horizontal plane, which once again increases power and penetration of bodkin tipped arrows. Sometimes archers were also really well armored (to a degree) and would come close enough, such as 50-100 yards and straight up shoot men in formation DIRECTLY.. Now that is dangerous. Yes, incredibly durable plate armor existed, and even lower-quality versions were still effective. However, it's incorrect to assume that an archer with a 120-160 lb draw weight couldn’t penetrate weak spots. Soldiers in formation aren’t dodging or zig-zagging-they're more idle type of targets that are advancing like a unit. While bodkin tips tend to glance off curved surfaces, a direct hit on average or lower-quality armor has a real chance of penetrating up to 1-3 inches-not deep, but still significant enough for internal bleeding and to cause organ damage. Many modern tests use high-quality steel, whereas historical armor quality varied depending on the era, the intended wearer, and even the country of origin. This is why Tod's Workshop and Dash Rendar are awesome for these tests ngl. Even Dequitem mentions how his armors are at the upper echelon of quality, so well made that you cannot even dent them much with a polehammer strike.. NOW THAT IS AN EXPENSIVE ARMOR SET, but most men at arms didn't have the most expensive, the finest quality armor set. Would you like me to cite some source of archers killing knights with arrows? (also, the 'volley' thing is not entirely real, Archers often shot at will when their commanders allowed them to loose arrows. They didn't wait together and then shoot a volley like some musketeer line xD, they often just kept peppering targets)
Yes and like metatron stated medieval experienced archers were really keen and good to find gaps then add that to elves with "super human powers" like better eyes and can see incredibly long distances.
@@majungasaurusaaaa This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Mailshirts didn't stop arrows. People still wore them. Gambesons didn't stop arrows. People still wore them.
I'm not sure why you disagree with him and then make his point. He said bows are not guns, and they were used to suppress (of course, the real counterargument would be 'guns are used to suppress as well'). That doesn't mean they aren't used to kill people...that's not a mutually exclusive claim. You even made the point...yes, the bow shot might not kill someone, but it would make them flinch, and someone else might be hurt by the ricochet. It was weird...like you were looking for something to disagree with this guy over. ETA: Look at that hill the Rohirrim were going down again. Seriously...that is WAY to steep for a cavalry charge. A single horse going down it? Yeah, I've done that, though still dangerous. But not at a charge, and not with hundreds or thousands of other riders. That's not subjective...that's an objective fact. Still cool to watch though. :)
to be fair, I'm sure even at the time, some military tacticians would disagree among themselves on the use of archers formations, is only natural that historians could disagree on that point too.
Trained cavalry can charge down steeper slopes that civilian riders would never consider. That is part of what trained means. Also in story the Riders of Rohan were the best in the world. Also when the survival of ones nation is at stake and the lives of ones wives and children, one takes risks.
@@TheRealRealMClovinThere is video on this channel of Metatron and other reenactors even less trained than he is, actually moving in testudo. It was done whenever it was necessary to advance on archers.
Unless the horses are cantering, it should be kind of fine. I'd be more worried about the riders falling off if they're not careful. If they're galloping downhill, they can generate enough speed to be relatively fine due to momentum of the speed they're going and the traction they gain from it. Wild horses in Russia will gallop downhill that are just as worse, and these animals understand as long as they go full speed they'll come down okay. This is not like a mountain goat, but more because an animal with hooves like that having good traction. So again, I'd worry more about the riders falling off on accident, or some small unsuspected rock in the way causing a horse to trip rather than it being too steep. Then again, the riders of rohan in its fantasy setting are possibly the finest equestrians, so although the hill if a bit steep for a cavalry formation, with the way it was shot at them galloping it really didn't make me feel 'off' about it. However if they were cantering at a slow pace downhill? Oh no they'd roll, they'd fall and slide down sideways on their bellies and casualties would be enormous.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
i think the horses through a forest part makes sense, with all the roots and shit that's on the ground, it's way riskier for a bunch of horses to run through a forest like that gladiator scene
I agree. Maybe in cleared forests (maintained like in modern time) you could risk it. In Roman times random forests would not be cleared so you'd have lots of shrubbery and dead branches along with roots all over. Galloping on a horse through that would probably be the last usage of that particular horse. Same with the LOTR charge. That hill is STEEP. You may be able to slowly go down on a horse... but full charge? Nah.
That's a good point. While they obviously did it in the movie, they most likely also went ahead and cleared out a path for the riders so that the could go through safely. And they also certainly rode through that same path more than a few times before filming that scene and probably a few times during filming as well. So the riders would have geon in knowing that the path was clear of anything that their horses might stumble or trip on and they knew exactly where they were going since they would have been on that path any number times prior to filming.
As an equestrian I can tell you that that forest is fine. I think we're doing a bit too much on 'debunking' on this part. Horses are dexterious animals, they know where they're going and unless they're goofing around, a trained warhorse or even a courser type of horse wouldn't just trip and break a leg over a relatively clear forest tree-line. Charging downhill is a bit more dangerous but not impossible. This is also a time where men and horses were a lot closer than current modern time, they knew how to ride them better, they knew more about the animals too. In one of the battle of 16th century an extremely similar charge actually happened historically, and the men were in formation while riding too, separating now and then when a tree was in the way only to canter back in the cavalry formation.
@@BattlerEvil I don't think anyone says you can't do it. It's not a good idea is what he says. And probably generals would try to avoid getting an entire cavalry force to charge through a forest for this very same reason.
Two things about horses.. 1. in the LOTR scene the historian is right, that hill is too steep for the horse to run down like that, especially with all the burden he is carrying on his back. He will lose his balance and fall to his death. And if it doesnt fall the risk of breaking a leg is very high. Horses yes can walk down a steep slope. But not with that gradient and not running. But walking super slowly. 2. Horses are scared of woods/forests they know nothing about and they get extremely anxious and nervous in the proximity of one. They will not try to enter it, unless theres a clear path/trail they can walk through safely. If you ever happen to see a rider trying to force a horse to enter a wood/forest with no path/trail visible, the horse just stops moving right away. Why? Because of many reasons: A) Dense wood eliminates the wide field of view of a horse, and not knowing what lies ahead this gets the horse anxious and nervous. B) Risk of injury is extremely high. Roots, bushes, thorns, dense trees with no manuevrability, pointy rocks, stones, disconnected terrain, slippery terrain (wet leaves, mud) et cetera. C) Noises inside a wood/forest gets them anxious/nervous. D) Horses are scared of possible encounters with predators they can find there, because they know that in a dense forest with no path/trails, the second they sense a predator nearby the horses know they are already dead.. because they dont have a way to escape from there because of all the things listed in point 1 and 2. Yes, horses can walk through a wood/forest. But as i said only if: A) Theres a path/trail B) They are accustomed to that that specific wood/forest because they crossed it different times before. C) They are trained to cross woods/forests.
He made some mistakes but the actual charge down the hill was cgi. Being a horseman I can verify that charging down a step hill is a bad idea. If you must descend a hill that steep you do it slowly so on this point I believe he is correct.
You don't even need to be a horseman to realize this. We humans are perfectly capable of taking a tumble when running down a steep hill. Anyone who has ever done so can attest to the weird sense of balance you have to maintain.
Mr. "DITCHES" Himself! I do agree with him, though. The most effective pre-modern defense was a wall and a ditch (bonus points if the ditch is filled with water). Movies don't show it simply because it would be boring to watch an actual siege.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Something a lot of people don't have these days is experience around horses. Even a moderately sized horse can be very intimidating when up close. A purpose bred warhorse in armor... I can easily understand how a bunch of them running at you would cause you to waver.
I grew up near a field that had 2 retired farm horses. It was like having two prime Arnold Schwarzeneggers injected with liquid Ronnie Coleman strolling around. it was intimidating, especially as a small kid.
What does he mean by "in this period"? My dear Metatron, as an old fan of your channel, I would not have expected a question like this to come from you. He refers to the late bronze age period. when the Trojan conflict most likely happened. And yes, at that particular point in time, mounted cavalry was not a thing, this became a thing later on, probably during the 9th-8th centuries, in the Caspian steppes or in modern-day Iran, so almost 4 centuries after the Trojan War.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Not a historian myself so I don't know what the sources would tell but galloping downhill especially if it gets somewhat steep is a very, very bad idea... and if there's such an amount of horses, one of them tripping could trigger a massive snowball of horses. When it comes to galloping through brush and wooden areas it'd depend a lot but in the Gladiator scene it seemed like the horses were kind of spread apart so you'd probably have a good view of what's directly in front of you and most importantly, the horse would have a good view of what's in front of him, you can jump logs easy on them... they just have to be able to see them.
Roel would be correct about a hill that steep. physics would make doing that for one lone horse problematic but maybe possible, but a tight formation like this all doing it at the same time would be probably disastrous. one miss step of a horse would cause a snowball effect that could take down half of them.
I think in a general sense he's right that cavalry by and large did not want to run through woodlands etc where possible. Where you have cavalry advantage you are wise to seek open plains etc as a battlefield like he went on to say
5:08 the old man didn't go for a sniper shot per se; he just couldn't keep holding the arrow back because it's a fricking bow and he's an old man. He loosed the arrow by accident and happened to kill one of the orcs. This is how the battle starts because then the orcs charge because they're now under attack and the occupants of Helms Deep have to think quick because of this one old guy having to hold an arrow at full draw for ages for literally no reason
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Even for the charge of the Rohirrim, which was on an open plane, they checked every single square meter for rabbit holes before filming because they didn't want horses breaking their legs.
I was on a Roman reinactment festival where there was a small group of enactors that really perfected the testudo not only did they manage to switch into a perfect gapless testudo in seconds but also the speed at which they advanced barely slowed down. They also got shot by dull arrows and a scorpio shooting dull sticks. So it would not penetrate the shields but they must have been very confident about their testudo because it could have still gone through the gaps if there were any. When the leader saw that the scorpio was ready to fire he gave command for the first row to kneel and they made a ramp with the shields just enough so that the Scorpio shot glanced off over the formation so they don’t even had to deal with the impact of that stick. While at the same time this alteration didn’t open a gap for the arrows to go through. It was a really amazing display.
The first shot at Helm's Deep was rather accidental, he was drawing with the others but lost grip. On siege ladders putting you in a position of vulnerability; I'm pretty sure storming fortresses is always a risky proposition. Easton was also on Insider, described as a spear expert.
He's right about pulling and holding at full draw, though. That's something that's done with modern compound bows because they have let-off - the draw weight is drastically reduced at full draw. With any other bow, you're drawing and releasing in one motion, holding for maybe an instant.
From what I've heard other historians say, the testudo was almost exclusively used during sieges, for battlefield situations, other types of less fancy shield wall formations (2 or 3 shields in height if my memory serves me right) work just as well while also maintaining a little bit more mobility. Unless missiles are coming from the top (which could happen but would be relatively rare) you have almost no reason to have more than a couple of ranks using their shield to make a shield wall. They will block the shots for the ranks behind them anyways. Also, I do think the hill from hell's deep is borderline impossibly steep to be charging from. Even on foot I'd be moving down slowly.
I have approx. 11 years of experience in horse riding (just regular riding, so not in armor) and I agree with the historian. I love that charging scene in LotR but that slope is way too steep for the cavalry to charge. In reality you'd go down a slope like that slowly and diagonally (to reduce the steepness) - and trying to lay back as much as possible to reduce the weight on the front legs of the horse. Warhorses can be 500-800 kg (plus the rider), and when traversing such a slope most of that weight is on 2 legs (for some short time only on 1) instead of 4, so galloping down would pose a very high risk of injury to the horse (especially with the riders laying forward for the charge, so their weight is also mostly on the front legs of the horses). They can break their ankles (or maybe other part of the leg) or at least trip and fell over, crushing their riders and tripping the other horses behind them. The majority of the horses would surely trip - so yes, everybody would've died in that scene and the orks won in "reality". I agree with the historian on the Gladiator cavalry charge too. Sure, you can traverse that forest, no problem, but not at that speed. The problem is not the level of thickness of that forest (though, in my opinion, this is more than enough to make it impossible to stay in formation), it's that trees have roots - many of which stick out from the ground. It's dark and the horses are galloping, so they have 0 chance to avoid all of the roots - and at that speed it is really not easy to recover from tripping. So lot of them would fall, potentially crushing their riders and getting injured themselves.
I rode a horse exactly once more than 30 years ago. Riding it down a sandy hill that was nowhere near as steep was the sketchiest moment of the ride, even according to the experienced people in the group.
@@immikeurnot that's a brave thing to do with someone on their 1st ride. The sandy ground can make it very slippery for the horse, so in that case I probably would've asked you to get off and walk down with the horse, for your safety. But, otherwise, I hope that you enjoyed the experience in overall.
Ok, we need to talk about bows. 120 pounds, is 120 pounds. A horn recurved bow that is 3 feet across that is drawn at 120 pounds, is the same as a 6-7 foot tall longbow that draws at 120 pounds. It takes the same effort to pull and hold that weight. Now, the LENGTH of the draw can impart more energy into the projectile as it is released. This is why crossbows have much higher draw tensions than bows do, to achieve the same sort of kinetic energy. We're talking physics now, but, arrows and bolts have mass. It takes time to accelerate the arrow and bolt up to the maximum speed. The longer the draw of the bow or xbow that is delivering its kinetic energy to the arrow or bolt, the more energy is put into that bolt or arrow. So, a steppe bow that is strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw of say 24 inches compared to a longbow strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw length of 32 inches, well the longbow will fire an arrow with more energy because it has more time and distance to put that 120 pounds of draw into the projectile. The draw is EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGH.
Edit: braveheart is my fav movie (maybe you can tell) because 6 yo me didn't really care for historical accuracy The Dutch Ditch guy English heavy cavalry got tricked numerous times by big spears during the first war of Scottish independence (I think battle of loughdon hill and bannockburn)
Of course, I'll edit it. My only excuse is that I was walking home after kickboxing so I was tired 😂 Bannockburn is the more famous of the two also@leonrussell9607
On 14:55, I feel what Mr Roel was suggesting is a light jog instead of a full sprint. That way, the soldiers can curb their fear with Adrenaline while also maintaining formation
I could watch videos like this for hours tbh. Metatron vs The Ditch Guy, two knowledgable, sympathetic, smart and pedantic history experts "clashing" is just awesome to witness. More of this please. :)
@ that’s too pedantic… Nowhere did I say they were used like cavalry, but to say that people didn’t ride horses or that horses were to valuable to use in warfare is just blatantly false.
On a pedantic note, that slope in Two Towers is very steep. Too much for infantry charge, even worse for horses. I do remember having that thought first time I saw the film almost 25 years ago and dozens of rewatching didn't change that impression one bit (since it looks like 35 degree incline).
Regarding antique pre battle speeches: I believe it was done the same way as it was done for example during the Napoleonic Wars: that it was prepared on the eve before battle, handed out to the officers and read by them to their troops. I mean usually in the ancient Roman army of the late Republic and early Principate (by the way, that's a modern distinction. As far as I can tell, in the Roman mind the Republic continued at least till Diocletian) the legate or the army commander gathered all his officers on before the battle to talk tactics and strategy. As a prerequisite to become a centurion was the ability to read and write, I think it's highly likely that at these meetings slaves would hand out wax tablets with the battle speech for all the centuries to read out to their men before the battle.
My problem with the ditch guy is that he uses Athenian sources that are negative to Spartans because they don't like their society all the while he ignores the only Athenian historian who actually lived among the Spartans and has written about them meticulously from first hand.
Regarding cavalry charging through a forest. My understanding was that was to be avoided because it's nigh impossible to maintain a formation when you're dodging trees and it would at least slightly lower your charging speed, either of which would leave you more vulnerable to being attacked. Also, harder to spot the enemy in a forest, increasing your odds of being ambushed. Doesn't mean it was always a bad idea though, as your cavalry could be the ones springing the ambush against your enemies.
Idk man, i seem to remember Caesar's veterans charging Pompey, then stopping their charge to reorganize their lines when they noticed the enemy wasn't counter charging, marched forward, discharged their javelins (pila), then charged again. Seems like charging was more of a morale shock tactic or a means to cross the "danger zone" to get to grips with the enemy than what we see in the movies however.
23:11 In this period means the bronze age when the legend of Troy took place. And in that time there was no cavalry as it is depicted in the movie, rich people used carriages pulled by horses that were a little bit bigger than ponies
Compared to many other historian reactions, this one in particular felt very heavily edited and cut down. If we give the expert the benefit of the doubt, most of his clarifications and citing of sources may have ended up on the cutting room floor, especially if the editors don't have enough context to judge which statements are relevant or necessary for his points
Metatron, check the battle of Arbedo between the "Swiss" and the Milanese. The guys form Uri jumped in the middle of the horses and stabbed the beasts in the belly. The Milanese thought that these men were crazy as they (the Milanese) were heavy cavalry (the same than the ones of the battle of Verneuil 2 years later). For Troy, he is talking about the cavalry in the 12th century BC. There was no warrior on horse back (chariots yes but not horse back).
I wonder while I agree that infantry wouldn't charge and would stick to formations... would they just get say a few front ranks or formations to increase pace to seemingly prepare to charge just to scare some enemy into routing, or maybe trick the enemy into sending reinforcements to a certain area, or even to check for a weak point in a formation like maybe a few drop their spears or shields or something in fright. Like screaming a battle cry was an early form of mental warfare and maybe a false charge could be useful. I mean it was a common tactic of cavalry to look as if they were engaging but in reality turned away before they collide.
With his statement about arrows being "a weapon to keep heads down", I believe he is not talking about targeted shots at individuals. His reference seems more about archers raining arrows down on a large grouping of enemies, as opposed to a lone archer taking aim at a single lone individual.
the idea of suppressing fire is very 20th centuary. massed archers are slowing advances, not stopping them, which is the idea behind suppression; to deny the enemy manoevre, not just slow it.
I think cavalry in that period was very much an exception rather than the rule. Macedonians and Persians were probably the first to use it in history, which is understandable because stirrups weren't invented yet.
Yes. At 4:45 you get on holding your arrow back. My strongest bow is 80 lbs. There is no way I'm not releasing the moment I'm on target. Holding that back is just insane. No archer would do it, not unless you have a compound that'll ease that weight off of you at full draw. Even then you can practically feel the arrow itching to fly.
at 23 minutes. He says there's no cavalry at that time. I think because the battle of Troy happens in around 1100 BC, whilst the macedonian cavalry is many centuries later.
In Roman times we know they used bolt throwers when attacking hill forts because digs have found the stone balls, platforms where the bolt throwers were stationed, and even the remains of a poor SOB who died in the ditch after a bolt went through their spine. So yes the Romans used bolt throwers to clear defenders off walls and cause terror inside.
For Troy, I always thought with the stakes are there for when high tide comes in maybe? The beach looks like the water comes up pretty high (that’s probably just how they set it all up)
Regarding the horses charging downhill: if I remember correctly, you don't want to push too hard a horse downhill because the danger of the horse having the legs broken is pretty high!
He did a full review on Troy in a separate video. He mentions that cavalry was used later by the Greeks, especially during Alexander’s time. According to him, cavalry wasn’t really a thing during the Trojan War.
As someone who's all about old timey archery, I gotta say that it's wildly underrated. There's a variety of arrows out there for every need. And even if the arrow doesn't peirce the armor, then the kinetic force will at the least make a statement. My lil 40lb recurve packs a punch, the war bows from back when must have been absolutely nightmarish.
I assume he means that there would not have been cavalry at the time that Troy was supposed to exist, which what, 800 or 1000 years before Alexander the Great?
I always thought when they gave those pre-battle speeches, other officers or squad leaders if you will, would repeat what the leader was saying so that people too far away to hear him would still know what he was saying
So I could be misremembering here, but I do remember reading that there were some instances of "charges" when one force vastly outnumbered the other and wanted to overpower the smaller force quickly. IIRC, Julius Caesar wrote about it in the Gaelic Wars, but essentially the idea was that the Gauls outnumbered the Caesars legions and tried to overwhelm them with brute force to take away the advantage of cohesive military formations. Like I said, I could be misremembering here, but I don't think "it happened sometimes" is incorrect.
In regards to Helms Deep, the fighters are comprised largely of peasants and farmers as stated by Theoden, the Rohirrim archers most likely overestimated their abilities and copied what they saw in movies
Right, right, right... that's actually excellent! I disagree! I can't imagine mounted horses with heavy knights on top to be able to: 1 RUN downhill on gravel... 2 In formation... 3 In the dark... (cause if the sun is behind the mountain, situation is not "just before the dawn"...)... 4 On a specific "non steep" 35° slope. I agree it is not steep for Alpine skiing, I disagree that someone from the riders will survive to feel the rising sun.
I think he's actually right about the testudo but he worded it wrong. The Testudo was a formation meant to move up to a fortification under heavy from defenders and it works wonderfuly at that but if your enemy isn't an actual fixed emplacement you're wasting a lot of effort covering your sides and being really compact instead of spreading your formation out more, soldiers can use their shields to cover their front and high angles without it being an actual testudo and still be reasonably protected, probably better than in Testudo if soldiers make up a less dense target. And having more width and spacing in a formation is going to be very important when you make contact, even if the troops can rearrange very quickly, it's just an extra complication to add to a difficult enough situation.
I do not disagree with his last point. The Trojan war would have taken place in the bronze ages (1500 years before the Macedonians). There were chariots but they had not yet bread war horses at that point. A horse strong enough to carry a full grown man and equipment was bread to do so, especially if used on battlefield.
Bows were mostly for harassment, disruption and demoralization. Killing and wounding were just icing on the cake. If they could kill effectively then no hand to hand combat would be required. Just sit at the distance and keep emptying your quiver and you win? That's not how it works. Only shock can decide a battle.
Suppressive fire - as you should know - has nothing to do with not killing your enemy. If that were the case, suppressive fire wouldn't work. Suppressive fire still has the high potential of killing or wounding, but it will keep the enemy at a distance where you still have some control of the battlefield. In the military "someone pulling it off" is not a thing. Either all can do it or none should do it (with very few exception). Macedonian cavalry is likely more than 1000 years later than the period of Troi. It was at the end of the Hittite Empire.
He said a lot of stuff that was written in history books not long ago (and still is). I think people slowly change their mind due to some dedicated people who do stuff like reanactments, weapon and armour tests and also discoveries in archeology that gives us new insights. To give an example, take the color on roman statues. Only when they found out that they were indeed painted it became clear that everything was more colourful.
Regarding the massed charge, I remember that greek hoplites had such massed charges which they trained extensively and used for devastating effect at Marathon, when they caught the persians off guard.
I don't know man. That hill in LoTR DOES look too steep for horses to run. I remember thinking exactly the same thing while watching it in cinema, one lifetime ago.
Running forward to meet the enemy. I think he meant run forward but stopping a few meters from the enemy to form back up. Don't want to be under missile fire for long. Still, keeping formation was probably preferred by most people... depending on terrain and culture of course. I bet fighting in the forest would be like small groups moving around instead of one big formation all together,
Link to the original video
ruclips.net/video/xPGdOXstSyk/видео.html
All the good links:
Come watch me live stream on Twitch! Almost every night 9pm CST
www.twitch.tv/metatrongemini
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize!
ruclips.net/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOwjoin
I have a Patreon page with extra content!
www.patreon.com/themetatron
My second channel about languages
www.youtube.com/@metatronacademy
My third channel about gaming
www.youtube.com/@TheProtectorate-yq7vi
My Twitter/X
x.com/pureMetatron
300 was an adaptation of a comic which was an adaptation of greek history
This is a time when I think it would be appropriate to react to the whole video.
Oh...oh no. Metatron and The Ditch Guy at odds?? My universe cannot support this.... this is divide by zero territory
Thats terrance howards next endeavor in evolving human thought lol@infinitesimotel
Right? I like em both too
@@Trevor_Bolin this is divided by ditches !
C'mon, who doesn't love ditch guy?
Don Ditch
Metatron, he clearly states cavalry was not a thing in this period, meaning during the period the Trojan war allegedly happened. Yes, the macedonians had cavalry, but this was almost 1'000 years later.
The Trojan war and Alexander the Great are as far apart from another - in the sense of a timespan - as a medieval knight and an actual modern tank
to be precise, he said "mounted cavalry" wasn't a thing, which is true... but "Cavalry" was, in the form of our beloved Chariots. =P (chariots, Chariot and more Chariots in the old "armed race of Chariots" xD)
Cavalry during Alexanders time is also misunderstood. People think that Cavalry in the time acted as a hammer and delivered kinetic charges into well ordered infantry. No. It didn't. I mean, I imagine it happened, rarely, because it was a terrible ideal.
The manner in which Alexanders cavalry fought, was less lancing people on the fly(unless they were lancing people who were running, or otherwise disordered), and more, ride up to spear distance of the enemy, and then use their large two handed Kontos' to fight in melee combat from the height of a horse. Then there is the fact that Alexanders cavalry was accompanied by infantry, pretty much at all times, everywhere it went. Which fits in with the idea that they rode up to about 10-20 feet away from the enemy and then stabbed at them. The accompanying infantry was there to fill in the space and protect the horsemen.
Then we also know that Alexander and the Companions fought as Dragoons. As in, they used their cavalry to ride to a position, dismounted, and then fought on foot, accompanied by their foot infantry.
Kinetic, lance down, plow into infantry blocks is more of a medieval thing, and then even then, this would have been an extremely rare, and extremely risk occurrence. Then when you consider that many of the incidents that are brought up to defend the idea that cavalry lowered lances and plowed into ordered infantry, are usually a result of something happening that broke the infantry up, and ALLOWED the cavalry to charge into them.
Perhaps the best example of this is the Battle of Kircholm. The popular conception of this battle is that Polish Winged Hussars lowered lances, charged teeth first into Swedish pike squares, and shattered them.
The problem with this popular conception is that this isn't what happened. What happened was, first, the Swedish pike squares basically had no pikes. Second, the Swedish "pike" broke their formation to allow their own retreating cavalry to retreat through their infantry. The Polish cavalry exploited this opportunity to dive into the Swedish infantry as they were opened up, to allow the Swedish cavalry to pass through.
This is a highly impressive feat IMHO, but it absolutely is not Polish Hussars lowering lances and riding over pike squares.
I think it is just misunderstanding.
Because saying it is in ”this period” will mean ancient era, which spanned from 3000BC-500AD.
While the ditch guy could maybe have used different words.
@@TheRealRealMClovin The quote actually is "In the period where/when the poem is set"... that means the Illiad... so it actually only covers the Trojan War, not the whole ancient era.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Regarding Macedonian cavalry, when he said "in this period" he meant the Trojan war period which is theorized to have taken place in 13th or 12th century BC many many years before Phillip II of Macedon, Homer does mention chariots in the Iliad, this historian Roel Konijnendijk specializes in Ancient Hellenic history, he's really good regarding his expertise IMO.
First thing I was going to do was find out when the Trojan war was supposed to have taken place as I thought Metatron had misunderstood his comment. You did it for me. Thanks.
Yeah, Macedonian cavalry was much much later... trhough, there was mounted cavalry back from the 15th century BC, so 300 years before the troyan war... but I couldn't find the role (if they had) in the battlefield... but yes, back in those days the "Army Cavalry" were Chariots, Chariots, Chariots and Chariots xD
Yeah so the historians comments about why cavalry not being used were odd cos chariots where defenitely extensively used
@ It's not quite the same thing. Chariots weren't always used to charge into the enemy infantry. They were most often used, and I think ALWAYS used at the time of the Trojan war, to fire missiles from. So, the historian was correct. From what I can find out, it seems that the Greeks didn't employ cavalry as part of their tactics until around 500 - 400BC. And can you imagine going into war, charging at your enemy, fighting at close quarters, without stirrups to keep you balanced? At the time of the Trojan war, they were still some 500 years out from being invented, or at least something similar to what we now know as stirrups.
@@MrJpc1234 "Calvary" refers to a much more specific type of mounted fighter/warrior than you might think. By the very virtue of being mounted, this precludes chariots from being cavalry. As there is nobody riding any of the horses.
Essentially cavalry refers to soldiers who by design, fight from horseback.
Chariots in the bronze age were used in one of two ways. Either as a platform for archers, or as what a lot of people call 'battle taxis'. That is, they were used to move people around, who would then dismount and fight on foot. Somewhat like how a dragoon would fight. The Egyptians are essentially the archtype here.
There is some overlap between the use of chariots and that of true cavalry, but they really are two different things, belonging largely to two different eras (though again there is some overlap). It is also patently clear that chariots are the main thing that true cavalry developed out of.
Mrs. Metatron: It's your turn to do the dishes.
Metatron: I disagree...
23:00 Isn't Troy the middle of the Bronze age, like more than 1000 years before Alexander the Great?
yeah during the Bronze Age pure mounted cavalry wasn’t used, chariots were king.
Horses were too small to ride. Selective breeding made them riddler ridable later, but I'm the times of Troy they could only pull things.
@@babilon6097This is absolutely untrue. It's true that mounted cavarly wasn't common, but horse size is *not* the reason for that. There is period iconography of horses the same size as horses used in combat hundreds of years later.
What you're referring to is a single study based on a horse skeleton found dating back to the period in a completely different geographic area.
Meaning it could have just been that specific horse was smaller than normal or that particular breed of horse was smaller. Not *all* horses were smaller.
Also, for the record, a pony is a "rideable" horse. Being smaller isn't what makes a horse unsuitable for mounted warfare. If a horse can pull hundreds of pounds of chariot + people in said chariot, it can support a person on it.
Horses were not used for cavarly during the time of Troy because horses were very expensive to raise and train and were seen as a status symbol. It's why only a few people would have been mounted, like the general/king/emporer
@pacmonster066 I'll give you one thing. "Size" was an oversimplification. The important characteristics are back strength and general stamina. A horse must be strong enough to carry a rider for an extended period of time and in gallop and to do it without injury so that after some rest it is good enough for more battles.
The fact that you can get on a horse and ride it for a few minutes is not enough.
Warhorses are distinctly bigger AND have stronger bones (and are probably more muscular but we can't check it directly) and you need quite a few generations to produce such breed.
I know that a pony is not a young horse but a small breed of horse. As such "size" was a bad way to put it.
@@babilon6097 Literally none of what you said is relevant to anything because again, horses *were not smaller* during the time period. Back strength or stamina included.
A "warhorse" is any horse trained for war. You're using definitions that won't exist until the midieval ages, where there were many different classifications for types of horses used for different purposes.
The bronze age Greeks didn't use horses like they would 1000 years later but *other* civilizations did. Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indus valley civilizations have iconography of horse mounted fighters going back to that time. So again, the size of the horse was not the reason they weren't used for that purpose. You're conflating a single piece of evidence for one particular small horse breed with a sweeping justification backed on unproven information.
Roel is a good friend of mine and good friend of the channel, wonderful historian! As for his comment regarding cavalry in Troy, he would be correct. In this period chariots would have been present, but typically more like a taxi service for the elites on the battlefield, but actual shock cavalry don't really exist in the Homeric period, even into the archaic and classical most mounted forces were mounted archers. Macedonian cavalry existed, but remember that the siege of troy is thought to have taken place around 1200 bc, which is hundreds of years before.
Overall I'd say you seem to agree with him on almost everything too
Yeah this video is clickbaity. I like most of these expert reacts but the title is odd considering they mostly see eye to eye here.
@Subutai_Khan that's what I was thinking, little misleading
He is a great guy, and I agree that cavalry wouldn't really be much of a thing back in 1200 BC, however the other points Metatron disagreed with are definitely true. Roel is awesome but that doesn't mean he cannot be wrong, we're all humans after all and I definitely think sometimes he can go a tiny bit overboard, as if human beings lowkey robotic. Anyway, yes in Trojan war cavalry existing is super unlikely, Chariots are slightly more likely but Cavalry? Eh. not too possible at the time at least.
Yep, felt like Metatron says he disagree way too fast only to have the same point 5 secs later. See 15:14 mark.
One thing I think Metatron was right about, though, was the testudo formation. I was surprised to hear the historian say it was rarely done and in desperation.
metatron seeing a 45 degree angle hill "eh i can ride that"
I remember thinking it was kind of steep even back as a kid when I first watched it. Still awesome scene, though.
AKA 100% grade.
Going down that hill? Hell no.
How dare you disagree with our Ditch Guy! He's a world treasure. Lol.
He also writes scripts for one of the big history channels, Invictus or History Marche.
Writes*
@@SerAvaros thank you, fixed it
@@jake5773 *nods in grammar nazi*
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
Now Metatron is going to tell us he's against digging ditches as well!
Nah he is right about that
Ditch guy is always 10/10
Not necessarily but in warfare matters yes it's his expertise in that subject
well 9/10. He do get some things wrong but obviously everyone don't know everything in history.
Side note, Phillip the 2nd and his Alexander the Greats Macedonian Cavalry is like, over a 1,000 years after the Trojan Wars supposed time frame.
I hate Phillip II and Alexander the Great so damn much 😡
The ditch man knows his stuff
"In this period", he is referring to the time of the Siege of Troy. The Bronze Age. 8-900 years before Macedon was anything.
23:15 - Macedonian Calvery wasn't a thing until the Hellenistic era, not the Mycenean era.
it is even pre helenistic era, it's bronce era, around 1000 before Phillip and Alexander. THe form of cavalary used at that time (and it was in it's infancy) were chariots, mostly as archery platfo9rms or messangers, about around 1000BC there are mentionings of the first Horseback riders in battles, but also those were mainly archers, proper melee cavalery only formed arund 7-500 BC.
@@wolfsruhm The Trojan war is estimated to have occurred between the 13th and 12th century BC. That’s 200-300 years prior to the first horse back riders you mentioned, muppet. While chariots would have been in use, the only calvery shown in that movie didn’t use chariots.
@@insanemakaioshinI think that guy was agreeing with you, he might have had a brain fart and started his comment by stating that the Trojan war is pre helenistic (1000y before Macedonian yadayada) which is a non sequitur to your comment but hey, is the internet.
Against plate armoured opponents in general, I am with Mr Ditch here on the role of arrows (partially). Massed arrows against plate armoured knights is unlikely to find many gaps themselves although could do, but many of the arrow shafts will be shattering and exploding. The shear amount of splinters flying everywhere will be terrifying with people trying to further protect their eyes. So it would work to suppress them. Although here they also have large gaps in armour where they are uncovered.
Incorrect for one key reason-unless all plate-armored opponents belong to the MOST upper class of their society in this specific formation of men, the thickness and quality of plate armor varied significantly. Multiple test videos demonstrate this, showing that arrows can, in some cases, penetrate plate armor, especially when it isn't modern high-carbon steel of exceptionally high quality. Also long arching volleys are not entirely historically accurate. A lot of the shooting could be quite on a horizontal plane, which once again increases power and penetration of bodkin tipped arrows. Sometimes archers were also really well armored (to a degree) and would come close enough, such as 50-100 yards and straight up shoot men in formation DIRECTLY.. Now that is dangerous.
Yes, incredibly durable plate armor existed, and even lower-quality versions were still effective. However, it's incorrect to assume that an archer with a 120-160 lb draw weight couldn’t penetrate weak spots. Soldiers in formation aren’t dodging or zig-zagging-they're more idle type of targets that are advancing like a unit. While bodkin tips tend to glance off curved surfaces, a direct hit on average or lower-quality armor has a real chance of penetrating up to 1-3 inches-not deep, but still significant enough for internal bleeding and to cause organ damage.
Many modern tests use high-quality steel, whereas historical armor quality varied depending on the era, the intended wearer, and even the country of origin. This is why Tod's Workshop and Dash Rendar are awesome for these tests ngl. Even Dequitem mentions how his armors are at the upper echelon of quality, so well made that you cannot even dent them much with a polehammer strike.. NOW THAT IS AN EXPENSIVE ARMOR SET, but most men at arms didn't have the most expensive, the finest quality armor set.
Would you like me to cite some source of archers killing knights with arrows? (also, the 'volley' thing is not entirely real, Archers often shot at will when their commanders allowed them to loose arrows. They didn't wait together and then shoot a volley like some musketeer line xD, they often just kept peppering targets)
Yes and like metatron stated medieval experienced archers were really keen and good to find gaps then add that to elves with "super human powers" like better eyes and can see incredibly long distances.
@@BattlerEvil These were rare exceptions. Armor stopped arrows. Otherwise people wouldn't bother wearing it.
@@majungasaurusaaaa This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Mailshirts didn't stop arrows. People still wore them.
Gambesons didn't stop arrows. People still wore them.
I'm not sure why you disagree with him and then make his point. He said bows are not guns, and they were used to suppress (of course, the real counterargument would be 'guns are used to suppress as well'). That doesn't mean they aren't used to kill people...that's not a mutually exclusive claim. You even made the point...yes, the bow shot might not kill someone, but it would make them flinch, and someone else might be hurt by the ricochet. It was weird...like you were looking for something to disagree with this guy over. ETA: Look at that hill the Rohirrim were going down again. Seriously...that is WAY to steep for a cavalry charge. A single horse going down it? Yeah, I've done that, though still dangerous. But not at a charge, and not with hundreds or thousands of other riders. That's not subjective...that's an objective fact. Still cool to watch though. :)
He did say bows are meant as surpressing weapons, no they were made to kill.
Also he do get things wrong, like saying you can't move in testudo.
to be fair, I'm sure even at the time, some military tacticians would disagree among themselves on the use of archers formations, is only natural that historians could disagree on that point too.
Trained cavalry can charge down steeper slopes that civilian riders would never consider. That is part of what trained means. Also in story the Riders of Rohan were the best in the world. Also when the survival of ones nation is at stake and the lives of ones wives and children, one takes risks.
@@TheRealRealMClovinThere is video on this channel of Metatron and other reenactors even less trained than he is, actually moving in testudo. It was done whenever it was necessary to advance on archers.
@@MarkHorton-n3t also, also, also... physics exist m8.
Dr. Ditch: "Yeah, Testudo kinda sucks"
Metatron: "...and I took that personally"
Yes, yes I did!
10:35 no this hill always looked waaaay too steep to me even when I watched it as a kid. Still very epic scene.
And looks to be covered in something like gravel, which probably wouldn't help the horses not slip much.
Unless the horses are cantering, it should be kind of fine. I'd be more worried about the riders falling off if they're not careful. If they're galloping downhill, they can generate enough speed to be relatively fine due to momentum of the speed they're going and the traction they gain from it. Wild horses in Russia will gallop downhill that are just as worse, and these animals understand as long as they go full speed they'll come down okay. This is not like a mountain goat, but more because an animal with hooves like that having good traction.
So again, I'd worry more about the riders falling off on accident, or some small unsuspected rock in the way causing a horse to trip rather than it being too steep. Then again, the riders of rohan in its fantasy setting are possibly the finest equestrians, so although the hill if a bit steep for a cavalry formation, with the way it was shot at them galloping it really didn't make me feel 'off' about it.
However if they were cantering at a slow pace downhill? Oh no they'd roll, they'd fall and slide down sideways on their bellies and casualties would be enormous.
The Flying Ditchman (Dr. Konijnendijk) was talking specifically about cavalry in the Archaic Greek period, not the Hellenic.
This guy (Roel) is the "dig more ditches" guy.
I like ditch guy
How could the Roman disagree with the ditch digger guy? Roman legions dug ditches everyday!
Macedonian cavalery? You mean almost a thousand years later? What has that to do with the battle of Troy?
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
i think the horses through a forest part makes sense, with all the roots and shit that's on the ground, it's way riskier for a bunch of horses to run through a forest like that gladiator scene
I agree. Maybe in cleared forests (maintained like in modern time) you could risk it. In Roman times random forests would not be cleared so you'd have lots of shrubbery and dead branches along with roots all over. Galloping on a horse through that would probably be the last usage of that particular horse.
Same with the LOTR charge. That hill is STEEP. You may be able to slowly go down on a horse... but full charge? Nah.
That's a good point. While they obviously did it in the movie, they most likely also went ahead and cleared out a path for the riders so that the could go through safely. And they also certainly rode through that same path more than a few times before filming that scene and probably a few times during filming as well. So the riders would have geon in knowing that the path was clear of anything that their horses might stumble or trip on and they knew exactly where they were going since they would have been on that path any number times prior to filming.
As an equestrian I can tell you that that forest is fine. I think we're doing a bit too much on 'debunking' on this part. Horses are dexterious animals, they know where they're going and unless they're goofing around, a trained warhorse or even a courser type of horse wouldn't just trip and break a leg over a relatively clear forest tree-line. Charging downhill is a bit more dangerous but not impossible.
This is also a time where men and horses were a lot closer than current modern time, they knew how to ride them better, they knew more about the animals too. In one of the battle of 16th century an extremely similar charge actually happened historically, and the men were in formation while riding too, separating now and then when a tree was in the way only to canter back in the cavalry formation.
@@BattlerEvil I don't think anyone says you can't do it. It's not a good idea is what he says. And probably generals would try to avoid getting an entire cavalry force to charge through a forest for this very same reason.
@@hellegennes the guy literally did say it cant be done lmao
You never expect Ditch Guy... but you should
But…. It’s the ditch guy….. I like the ditch guy
I want a collab between these two.
Two things about horses..
1. in the LOTR scene the historian is right, that hill is too steep for the horse to run down like that, especially with all the burden he is carrying on his back. He will lose his balance and fall to his death. And if it doesnt fall the risk of breaking a leg is very high. Horses yes can walk down a steep slope. But not with that gradient and not running. But walking super slowly.
2. Horses are scared of woods/forests they know nothing about and they get extremely anxious and nervous in the proximity of one. They will not try to enter it, unless theres a clear path/trail they can walk through safely. If you ever happen to see a rider trying to force a horse to enter a wood/forest with no path/trail visible, the horse just stops moving right away. Why? Because of many reasons:
A) Dense wood eliminates the wide field of view of a horse, and not knowing what lies ahead this gets the horse anxious and nervous.
B) Risk of injury is extremely high. Roots, bushes, thorns, dense trees with no manuevrability, pointy rocks, stones, disconnected terrain, slippery terrain (wet leaves, mud) et cetera.
C) Noises inside a wood/forest gets them anxious/nervous.
D) Horses are scared of possible encounters with predators they can find there, because they know that in a dense forest with no path/trails, the second they sense a predator nearby the horses know they are already dead.. because they dont have a way to escape from there because of all the things listed in point 1 and 2.
Yes, horses can walk through a wood/forest. But as i said only if:
A) Theres a path/trail
B) They are accustomed to that that specific wood/forest because they crossed it different times before.
C) They are trained to cross woods/forests.
He made some mistakes but the actual charge down the hill was cgi. Being a horseman I can verify that charging down a step hill is a bad idea. If you must descend a hill that steep you do it slowly so on this point I believe he is correct.
You don't even need to be a horseman to realize this. We humans are perfectly capable of taking a tumble when running down a steep hill. Anyone who has ever done so can attest to the weird sense of balance you have to maintain.
You want to be at full speed. Slow canter down steep hill = fall
Mr. "DITCHES" Himself! I do agree with him, though. The most effective pre-modern defense was a wall and a ditch (bonus points if the ditch is filled with water). Movies don't show it simply because it would be boring to watch an actual siege.
I really like that guy. He does sort of generalize it a bit but that's more cause he's talking to a general audience.
I think you're being a bit too disagreeable here, since you misunderstand him at many points or at least choose the worst interpretation.
Metatron is known for the lack of comprehension like that. that's why he asks to defend the shovels of salt with him. or buckets or whatever
Nooooo
I dont want to have to choose between you and Ditch Guy
It's 2025, and people still think 300 was trying to be a documentary,....
When he says "in this period" he is referring to the setting of Iliad. That was a thousand years before Alexander's time.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
In this case… I’m Switzerland
Something a lot of people don't have these days is experience around horses. Even a moderately sized horse can be very intimidating when up close. A purpose bred warhorse in armor... I can easily understand how a bunch of them running at you would cause you to waver.
I grew up near a field that had 2 retired farm horses. It was like having two prime Arnold Schwarzeneggers injected with liquid Ronnie Coleman strolling around. it was intimidating, especially as a small kid.
It was quite possible for 9th century Vikings to take a 13th century castle. As Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis showed in the 1950s film The Vikings 😂
It's also possible for King Arthur to assault a 14th century castle but the local constabulary prevented him from capturing it.
What does he mean by "in this period"? My dear Metatron, as an old fan of your channel, I would not have expected a question like this to come from you. He refers to the late bronze age period. when the Trojan conflict most likely happened. And yes, at that particular point in time, mounted cavalry was not a thing, this became a thing later on, probably during the 9th-8th centuries, in the Caspian steppes or in modern-day Iran, so almost 4 centuries after the Trojan War.
I feel like Metatron has kinda been falling into more "drama" like content sadly.
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
@@dhimankalita1690 Dude, spellcheck your comment before copy-pasting it everywhere xD
Not a historian myself so I don't know what the sources would tell but galloping downhill especially if it gets somewhat steep is a very, very bad idea... and if there's such an amount of horses, one of them tripping could trigger a massive snowball of horses.
When it comes to galloping through brush and wooden areas it'd depend a lot but in the Gladiator scene it seemed like the horses were kind of spread apart so you'd probably have a good view of what's directly in front of you and most importantly, the horse would have a good view of what's in front of him, you can jump logs easy on them... they just have to be able to see them.
Roel would be correct about a hill that steep. physics would make doing that for one lone horse problematic but maybe possible, but a tight formation like this all doing it at the same time would be probably disastrous. one miss step of a horse would cause a snowball effect that could take down half of them.
23:10 Macedonian cavalry, sure. But doesn't Troy take place much, much earlier. Before the Bronze Age Collapse
I think in a general sense he's right that cavalry by and large did not want to run through woodlands etc where possible. Where you have cavalry advantage you are wise to seek open plains etc as a battlefield like he went on to say
5:08 the old man didn't go for a sniper shot per se; he just couldn't keep holding the arrow back because it's a fricking bow and he's an old man. He loosed the arrow by accident and happened to kill one of the orcs. This is how the battle starts because then the orcs charge because they're now under attack and the occupants of Helms Deep have to think quick because of this one old guy having to hold an arrow at full draw for ages for literally no reason
Metatron isn't a historian or expert in a specific field of history
He is an utube arm chair historian trying to build a utube carrier riding on prevelant woke basing cukture. I respect him for trying to tap on the right wing demographic and make money lmao
@20:40 ... "They did film it".... Yeah and they probably had people clearing the ground of every branch and rock ahead of time, for days
Even for the charge of the Rohirrim, which was on an open plane, they checked every single square meter for rabbit holes before filming because they didn't want horses breaking their legs.
I was on a Roman reinactment festival where there was a small group of enactors that really perfected the testudo not only did they manage to switch into a perfect gapless testudo in seconds but also the speed at which they advanced barely slowed down. They also got shot by dull arrows and a scorpio shooting dull sticks. So it would not penetrate the shields but they must have been very confident about their testudo because it could have still gone through the gaps if there were any. When the leader saw that the scorpio was ready to fire he gave command for the first row to kneel and they made a ramp with the shields just enough so that the Scorpio shot glanced off over the formation so they don’t even had to deal with the impact of that stick. While at the same time this alteration didn’t open a gap for the arrows to go through. It was a really amazing display.
10:18 The hill is WAAAAY too steep. When I saw it the first time it felt like complete lunacy lol.
The first shot at Helm's Deep was rather accidental, he was drawing with the others but lost grip.
On siege ladders putting you in a position of vulnerability; I'm pretty sure storming fortresses is always a risky proposition.
Easton was also on Insider, described as a spear expert.
He's right about pulling and holding at full draw, though. That's something that's done with modern compound bows because they have let-off - the draw weight is drastically reduced at full draw. With any other bow, you're drawing and releasing in one motion, holding for maybe an instant.
From what I've heard other historians say, the testudo was almost exclusively used during sieges, for battlefield situations, other types of less fancy shield wall formations (2 or 3 shields in height if my memory serves me right) work just as well while also maintaining a little bit more mobility. Unless missiles are coming from the top (which could happen but would be relatively rare) you have almost no reason to have more than a couple of ranks using their shield to make a shield wall. They will block the shots for the ranks behind them anyways.
Also, I do think the hill from hell's deep is borderline impossibly steep to be charging from. Even on foot I'd be moving down slowly.
I have approx. 11 years of experience in horse riding (just regular riding, so not in armor) and I agree with the historian. I love that charging scene in LotR but that slope is way too steep for the cavalry to charge. In reality you'd go down a slope like that slowly and diagonally (to reduce the steepness) - and trying to lay back as much as possible to reduce the weight on the front legs of the horse. Warhorses can be 500-800 kg (plus the rider), and when traversing such a slope most of that weight is on 2 legs (for some short time only on 1) instead of 4, so galloping down would pose a very high risk of injury to the horse (especially with the riders laying forward for the charge, so their weight is also mostly on the front legs of the horses). They can break their ankles (or maybe other part of the leg) or at least trip and fell over, crushing their riders and tripping the other horses behind them. The majority of the horses would surely trip - so yes, everybody would've died in that scene and the orks won in "reality".
I agree with the historian on the Gladiator cavalry charge too. Sure, you can traverse that forest, no problem, but not at that speed. The problem is not the level of thickness of that forest (though, in my opinion, this is more than enough to make it impossible to stay in formation), it's that trees have roots - many of which stick out from the ground. It's dark and the horses are galloping, so they have 0 chance to avoid all of the roots - and at that speed it is really not easy to recover from tripping. So lot of them would fall, potentially crushing their riders and getting injured themselves.
I rode a horse exactly once more than 30 years ago. Riding it down a sandy hill that was nowhere near as steep was the sketchiest moment of the ride, even according to the experienced people in the group.
@@immikeurnot that's a brave thing to do with someone on their 1st ride. The sandy ground can make it very slippery for the horse, so in that case I probably would've asked you to get off and walk down with the horse, for your safety. But, otherwise, I hope that you enjoyed the experience in overall.
Ok, we need to talk about bows.
120 pounds, is 120 pounds.
A horn recurved bow that is 3 feet across that is drawn at 120 pounds, is the same as a 6-7 foot tall longbow that draws at 120 pounds. It takes the same effort to pull and hold that weight.
Now, the LENGTH of the draw can impart more energy into the projectile as it is released. This is why crossbows have much higher draw tensions than bows do, to achieve the same sort of kinetic energy.
We're talking physics now, but, arrows and bolts have mass. It takes time to accelerate the arrow and bolt up to the maximum speed. The longer the draw of the bow or xbow that is delivering its kinetic energy to the arrow or bolt, the more energy is put into that bolt or arrow. So, a steppe bow that is strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw of say 24 inches compared to a longbow strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw length of 32 inches, well the longbow will fire an arrow with more energy because it has more time and distance to put that 120 pounds of draw into the projectile.
The draw is EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGH.
I feel like movie makers see people shooting compound bows and think all bows can be held at full draw like that, not knowing about let-off.
Edit: braveheart is my fav movie (maybe you can tell) because 6 yo me didn't really care for historical accuracy
The Dutch Ditch guy
English heavy cavalry got tricked numerous times by big spears during the first war of Scottish independence (I think battle of loughdon hill and bannockburn)
*Bannockburn
Of course, I'll edit it. My only excuse is that I was walking home after kickboxing so I was tired 😂 Bannockburn is the more famous of the two also@leonrussell9607
Yt deleted my previous reply, anyways thank you! I've edited it @leonrussell9607
by period he meant trojan wars.
On 14:55, I feel what Mr Roel was suggesting is a light jog instead of a full sprint. That way, the soldiers can curb their fear with Adrenaline while also maintaining formation
I could watch videos like this for hours tbh. Metatron vs The Ditch Guy, two knowledgable, sympathetic, smart and pedantic history experts "clashing" is just awesome to witness. More of this please. :)
For Troy he means the Bronze Age or around 1,200 BC.
That said they absolutely did ride horses and used chariots quite liberally in warfare.
Yes but as "taxi" just pick warior up to the battelfiel. And horses were rarher small.
@ that’s too pedantic… Nowhere did I say they were used like cavalry, but to say that people didn’t ride horses or that horses were to valuable to use in warfare is just blatantly false.
Troy is in the bronze age metatron
Your channel is so entertaining.
Keep up the top grade videos.
Respect from loyal follower from Guyana 🇬🇾.
Thanks!
TBH I would love a video about mozzarella
On a pedantic note, that slope in Two Towers is very steep. Too much for infantry charge, even worse for horses. I do remember having that thought first time I saw the film almost 25 years ago and dozens of rewatching didn't change that impression one bit (since it looks like 35 degree incline).
Regarding antique pre battle speeches:
I believe it was done the same way as it was done for example during the Napoleonic Wars: that it was prepared on the eve before battle, handed out to the officers and read by them to their troops. I mean usually in the ancient Roman army of the late Republic and early Principate (by the way, that's a modern distinction. As far as I can tell, in the Roman mind the Republic continued at least till Diocletian) the legate or the army commander gathered all his officers on before the battle to talk tactics and strategy. As a prerequisite to become a centurion was the ability to read and write, I think it's highly likely that at these meetings slaves would hand out wax tablets with the battle speech for all the centuries to read out to their men before the battle.
- waiting anxiously with my shovel ready,
to see weather im about to dig a ditch or not. -
I have played Civilizations and I know that with enough bonuses spearmen can defeat tanks!
It's actually possible in real life too.
I love the ditch guy
Metatron: "I do NOT agree"
Comment section: "That's simply because you're wrong and here's 50 reasons why you're wrong"
Yeah people take the words disagree as an insult. They clearly have never set foot in academia. Disagreeing is a good thing.
i could've sworn the old man who looses the first arrow at helms deep was one eyed..
"Greeks and Macedonians spears were extremely long"
Cleopatra: That's what she said
spear in the pants
My problem with the ditch guy is that he uses Athenian sources that are negative to Spartans because they don't like their society all the while he ignores the only Athenian historian who actually lived among the Spartans and has written about them meticulously from first hand.
What’s the name of the historian you’re referencing, the one who lived among Spartans? I’d like to check it out
@russergee49 xenophon , he also wrote Cyrus anabasis the story that inspired the 80s movie warriors
@@GothPaoki Perfect, thank you
Regarding cavalry charging through a forest. My understanding was that was to be avoided because it's nigh impossible to maintain a formation when you're dodging trees and it would at least slightly lower your charging speed, either of which would leave you more vulnerable to being attacked. Also, harder to spot the enemy in a forest, increasing your odds of being ambushed.
Doesn't mean it was always a bad idea though, as your cavalry could be the ones springing the ambush against your enemies.
Idk man, i seem to remember Caesar's veterans charging Pompey, then stopping their charge to reorganize their lines when they noticed the enemy wasn't counter charging, marched forward, discharged their javelins (pila), then charged again. Seems like charging was more of a morale shock tactic or a means to cross the "danger zone" to get to grips with the enemy than what we see in the movies however.
23:11 In this period means the bronze age when the legend of Troy took place. And in that time there was no cavalry as it is depicted in the movie, rich people used carriages pulled by horses that were a little bit bigger than ponies
Compared to many other historian reactions, this one in particular felt very heavily edited and cut down. If we give the expert the benefit of the doubt, most of his clarifications and citing of sources may have ended up on the cutting room floor, especially if the editors don't have enough context to judge which statements are relevant or necessary for his points
Metatron, check the battle of Arbedo between the "Swiss" and the Milanese. The guys form Uri jumped in the middle of the horses and stabbed the beasts in the belly. The Milanese thought that these men were crazy as they (the Milanese) were heavy cavalry (the same than the ones of the battle of Verneuil 2 years later).
For Troy, he is talking about the cavalry in the 12th century BC. There was no warrior on horse back (chariots yes but not horse back).
Ditch guy: Dig more ditches!
Metatron apearing in the middle of the soldiers: I disagree
I love that image
@metatronyt Thanks
I wonder while I agree that infantry wouldn't charge and would stick to formations... would they just get say a few front ranks or formations to increase pace to seemingly prepare to charge just to scare some enemy into routing, or maybe trick the enemy into sending reinforcements to a certain area, or even to check for a weak point in a formation like maybe a few drop their spears or shields or something in fright. Like screaming a battle cry was an early form of mental warfare and maybe a false charge could be useful. I mean it was a common tactic of cavalry to look as if they were engaging but in reality turned away before they collide.
Macedonian cavalry came 1000 years later
With his statement about arrows being "a weapon to keep heads down", I believe he is not talking about targeted shots at individuals. His reference seems more about archers raining arrows down on a large grouping of enemies, as opposed to a lone archer taking aim at a single lone individual.
the idea of suppressing fire is very 20th centuary.
massed archers are slowing advances, not stopping them, which is the idea behind suppression; to deny the enemy manoevre, not just slow it.
I think cavalry in that period was very much an exception rather than the rule. Macedonians and Persians were probably the first to use it in history, which is understandable because stirrups weren't invented yet.
Yes. At 4:45 you get on holding your arrow back. My strongest bow is 80 lbs. There is no way I'm not releasing the moment I'm on target. Holding that back is just insane. No archer would do it, not unless you have a compound that'll ease that weight off of you at full draw. Even then you can practically feel the arrow itching to fly.
at 23 minutes. He says there's no cavalry at that time. I think because the battle of Troy happens in around 1100 BC, whilst the macedonian cavalry is many centuries later.
In Roman times we know they used bolt throwers when attacking hill forts because digs have found the stone balls, platforms where the bolt throwers were stationed, and even the remains of a poor SOB who died in the ditch after a bolt went through their spine.
So yes the Romans used bolt throwers to clear defenders off walls and cause terror inside.
For Troy, I always thought with the stakes are there for when high tide comes in maybe? The beach looks like the water comes up pretty high (that’s probably just how they set it all up)
Regarding the horses charging downhill: if I remember correctly, you don't want to push too hard a horse downhill because the danger of the horse having the legs broken is pretty high!
He did a full review on Troy in a separate video. He mentions that cavalry was used later by the Greeks, especially during Alexander’s time. According to him, cavalry wasn’t really a thing during the Trojan War.
The mongols came up with a creative counter to the ditch/wall fortification, which was filling the ditch with the corpses of defeated enemies.
As someone who's all about old timey archery, I gotta say that it's wildly underrated. There's a variety of arrows out there for every need. And even if the arrow doesn't peirce the armor, then the kinetic force will at the least make a statement. My lil 40lb recurve packs a punch, the war bows from back when must have been absolutely nightmarish.
I assume he means that there would not have been cavalry at the time that Troy was supposed to exist, which what, 800 or 1000 years before Alexander the Great?
I always thought when they gave those pre-battle speeches, other officers or squad leaders if you will, would repeat what the leader was saying so that people too far away to hear him would still know what he was saying
So I could be misremembering here, but I do remember reading that there were some instances of "charges" when one force vastly outnumbered the other and wanted to overpower the smaller force quickly. IIRC, Julius Caesar wrote about it in the Gaelic Wars, but essentially the idea was that the Gauls outnumbered the Caesars legions and tried to overwhelm them with brute force to take away the advantage of cohesive military formations.
Like I said, I could be misremembering here, but I don't think "it happened sometimes" is incorrect.
10:20 this type of cavalry charge happened in the Battle of Vienna
In regards to Helms Deep, the fighters are comprised largely of peasants and farmers as stated by Theoden, the Rohirrim archers most likely overestimated their abilities and copied what they saw in movies
Right, right, right... that's actually excellent! I disagree!
I can't imagine mounted horses with heavy knights on top to be able to: 1 RUN downhill on gravel... 2 In formation... 3 In the dark... (cause if the sun is behind the mountain, situation is not "just before the dawn"...)... 4 On a specific "non steep" 35° slope. I agree it is not steep for Alpine skiing, I disagree that someone from the riders will survive to feel the rising sun.
Remember. Gandalf gives everyone in his company a massive boost in courage and fortitude
I think he's actually right about the testudo but he worded it wrong. The Testudo was a formation meant to move up to a fortification under heavy from defenders and it works wonderfuly at that but if your enemy isn't an actual fixed emplacement you're wasting a lot of effort covering your sides and being really compact instead of spreading your formation out more, soldiers can use their shields to cover their front and high angles without it being an actual testudo and still be reasonably protected, probably better than in Testudo if soldiers make up a less dense target. And having more width and spacing in a formation is going to be very important when you make contact, even if the troops can rearrange very quickly, it's just an extra complication to add to a difficult enough situation.
I do not disagree with his last point. The Trojan war would have taken place in the bronze ages (1500 years before the Macedonians). There were chariots but they had not yet bread war horses at that point. A horse strong enough to carry a full grown man and equipment was bread to do so, especially if used on battlefield.
Bows were mostly for harassment, disruption and demoralization. Killing and wounding were just icing on the cake. If they could kill effectively then no hand to hand combat would be required. Just sit at the distance and keep emptying your quiver and you win? That's not how it works. Only shock can decide a battle.
Suppressive fire - as you should know - has nothing to do with not killing your enemy. If that were the case, suppressive fire wouldn't work. Suppressive fire still has the high potential of killing or wounding, but it will keep the enemy at a distance where you still have some control of the battlefield.
In the military "someone pulling it off" is not a thing. Either all can do it or none should do it (with very few exception).
Macedonian cavalry is likely more than 1000 years later than the period of Troi. It was at the end of the Hittite Empire.
He said a lot of stuff that was written in history books not long ago (and still is). I think people slowly change their mind due to some dedicated people who do stuff like reanactments, weapon and armour tests and also discoveries in archeology that gives us new insights. To give an example, take the color on roman statues. Only when they found out that they were indeed painted it became clear that everything was more colourful.
Regarding the massed charge, I remember that greek hoplites had such massed charges which they trained extensively and used for devastating effect at Marathon, when they caught the persians off guard.
I don't know man. That hill in LoTR DOES look too steep for horses to run. I remember thinking exactly the same thing while watching it in cinema, one lifetime ago.
Running forward to meet the enemy. I think he meant run forward but stopping a few meters from the enemy to form back up. Don't want to be under missile fire for long. Still, keeping formation was probably preferred by most people... depending on terrain and culture of course. I bet fighting in the forest would be like small groups moving around instead of one big formation all together,