man that "calm before the storm" moment when Caesar's men stopped right before the charge to reform must have been insanely scary for the guys facing them. Imagine a sizable body of fully armored men jogging/sprinting towards you just to come to a full stop like 20 meters away, reform into a perfect line, and start advancing at a controlled pace. I'd fucking shit myself.

Can only imagine the terror millions of men across history must've felt as they sat in formation, watching an enemy formation slowly close distance. We live good lives, comparatively

I love those movies and shows where they show two ancient armies marching up to each other in perfect formation, only for both sides to break ranks and charge at each other like the whole thing was only for show.

This video was made to be a first-of-its-kind, that dives into a topic that fascinates us all, but is nowhere to be found - the reality of ancinet warfare. This video took weeks to make, and every second of it was done for the purpose of everyone's enjoyment and knowledge. What's better is that Part 2 is half way done, and will be release in 1-2 weeks!

I've always thought that battles looked much more like riot control and group fights than hollywood style free for all or Total War robotic battles where units don't care about their own self preservation. In riot control for example you can see how protesters and police always keep a clear line between themselves at the start, throwing stuff at each other (rocks, molotovs, fireworks - flashbangs, smoke, water) with some small groups at times trying to cross the no-mans-land and fight before retreating or being pulled back by their allies that don't want to start an engagement, while other times instead you see that as the two masses move the shape of the no-mans-land changes with perhaps a confrontations starting at a point or two in the lines where from there it would expand as more people get involved in the fight, eventually encompassing the whole line as a full engagement starts, other times you would see one group be overwhelmed and run away with the other beginning a chase and violently attacking the retreating group (and even here this point is probably where generally the most damage is given) only for the retreating group to eventually regroup, make a new line to contrast the rushing group and counterattack to save their surrounded allies. You see similar things happen during football fans clashes though the engagements are a bit different because there is less formation fighting but still I think that it's no coincidence that often times riots and riot police tactics are often compared to ancient tactics (group formations, testudo, spear walls etc) because the nature of the engagement, technology used usually and the group psychology that controls the two masses should be fairly similar to ancient battles with the difference of course that in the past there was a much greater killing potential by both sides

Historians about WWI in 2000 years: "They probably didn't charge out of their trenches at the blow of a whistle because the battlefield would be too noisy and chaotic for it."

You can still see the reluctance to get into a fight even in sports today. In fencing, for example, specifically in epee, there's a passivity rule that punishes the fencers if no points have been scored after a minute of fencing, which is quite common because neither fencer wants to give up a hit. The massive runaway scores then happen because the trailing fencer has to force attacks to get back into the game or be defeated by the clock. Obviously, this doesn't always happen, but when skill levels are close it's quite common. The rule itself was even created after a particular team engagement where the fencer in the trailing team knew he wouldn't be able to attack to regain points, whereas the fencer in the leading team saw no reason to attack in the first place, because it would only risk his team's lead. Consequently, they simply ran down the clock doing nothing at all. IIRC, this match (a world championship final or semifinal) was meant to be a demonstration of the dynamic nature of fencing to the IOC to convince them to keep it in the roster. Oops.

It's an amazing to see how different this is than Hollywood's representation of Roman battles. The psychological aspect that you have captured is absolutely spine chilling. Awesome video, can't wait to see part 2!

oh I already know I'm gonna bust with this video

This taught me more about battle and war than absolutely anything I’ve ever experienced in my life. I always felt that the missing piece was self-preservation when it came to battles and war in media. The idea that people don’t understand that everyone wants to win but no one wants to fight or die. But it makes so much more sense. Also the feeling of almost no battle being a close one in matchmaking in video games or sports is an amazing observation.

I actually did my dissertation on this exact subject at university, where I looked into the importance of soldier psychology in ancient warfare, even comparing some of Rome's training excercising with modern improvements made in training between WW2 and Vietnam. This model is excellent and I find myself agreeing with 99% of it. I'm glad models like these are steadily becomming more and more accepted.

I’m actually happy you covered this! This would mold greatly with writers and reenactments of battles for ages to come with this perspective!

So glad to see you tackling these challenging but deeply interesting topics!

Thank goodness, I have had the question of what frontline combat in ancient/medieval battles looked like for forever, I'm so glad you are making these vids!

I recommend anyone interested in this topic to read the text "VISUAL EVIDENCE FOR ROMAN INFANTRY TACTICS" by Dr. Michael J. Taylor, as well as his "ROMAN INFANTRY TACTICS IN THE MID-REPUBLIC: A REASSESSMENT".

This sounds like the beginning of a series of how the tactics evolved over time and adapted to different enemies. Thanks for all the work this was amazing! 🙏

Great material! Thanks a lot! :) Can't wait to see the continuation!

One thing that bothers me about this. Combat veterans. It seems to me the video is going on the idea that all the combatants are of the same experience. Not bragging just using my own experiences as a 22 year veteran. My first combat experience was in 1983 in Grenada. I was 20 when the first round whizzed by me I pissed myself. In retrospect I was glad it was raining. Fast forward 20 years and several combat tours to AFG 2003 , I was a SFC leading a 10 man patrol. We were pinned down by a force of at lest platoon strength who had good cover and were a 100 meters up a mountain with RPGs and at lest 1 NSV heavy machine gun. I had 3 wounded and we were taking cover in a small ravine . I half expected them to over run us. All we could really do is conserve ammo and wait for air support which I had called in. Out of the 10 men I had with me only 3 had taken fire before. We had been like this for 15 min or so and I looked down the line and saw 2 of these men were side by side and one was laying on his back the ravine being at an angle eating an MRE while his buddy kept look out. When he was finished they swapped places. When the second had finished I called them over. I had them go down the line and let the other 4 men have a break doing the same thing. Me being the first. My point with this long story is that soldiers will look to those who are fighting with them especially the ones with experience on how to act a lot of times before looking to their leader. I saw this time and time again. You get use to being in a life or death situation and it becomes your normal outlook on the world. My best example is being in a FOB and getting some decent sleep and the FOB came under mortar attack. I woke up listened to see which direction the fire was coming from and how close it was. Seeing that it was not coming close to me I went back to sleep, sleeping through the whole thing. In a Roman battle line for every 80 men there was a Centurion and by all accounts they lead from the front. Each Legion having approximately 59 Centurions. Also the whole front line was the lest experienced men and the deeper you went into the line them more experienced the soldier. With all the inexperienced men looking to the Centurion sand those with more experience than them for guidance. Do not under estimate the effect to training. It 's not a normal thing for one person to kill another. That is were training kicks in. I had an instructor to us one time tell us just that. And he was there to teach us otherwise. When your mind shuts down in combat and it does your training kicks in. All of this turns into morale. The most important thing in combat. At the time the Roman military was the best trained, best disciplined and equipped military of it's time. I call into question the statement that a whistle could not be heard over the din of battle. If 20 soldiers can hear my command to cease fire while modern weapons are being used and while wearing helmets that provided some hearing protection the Romans could hear a whistle. Those around the Centurion most certainly could. Who more than likely would use some sort of hand signal to those in front of them to get them to switch places. As I did as a paratrooper when finishing the soldier who was in front of me equipment check after we stood up minutes before we went out the door by smacking his helmet a couple times. You cannot hear a thing in the jump bay of a C-130 with 2 doors open or the rear door open, it's as good as being deaf. Going back to discipline and morale. I doubt very seriously that there was much there was much screaming or talking in the battle lines of a Roman legion, I point to discipline and training. In hand to hand combat there is little if any talking it takes to much air, energy and breaks your concentration. Do you see Boxers or MMA in a fight talking or yelling at each other in the ring. They might in a clinch. The idea of yelling while running into combat is stupid and mostly a Hollywood thing. A Roman front line while moving to engage would have been silent and moving no more than at a military pace. I only ran in combat for one thing only to get out of the line of fire. The Romans knew well the effect of morale. The sight of a Roman battle line coming at you no sound other than them walking, while maintaining formation would rattle all but the best trained soldiers. Look to warfare in the Napoleonic era and WW 1 trench war fare to see good examples of training and discipline. There are other things these are just the things that came to me first. My apologies for such a long post. I like to explain things when disagreeing it saves misunderstandings. Thanks for reading till the end. I am going to go get a beer and some popcorn ready for all the Carl's to tell me how wrong I am etc.

Cant wait for part 2!! Amazing stuff.. in movies they always portrait it as large casualties on both sides, brave soldiers on both sides but it is much more likely most soldiers were fearful and just tried to survive.

I was curious about that for a loooong time, thank you for explaining it in a simple way.

Excellent video and animation about a very interesting and unknown topic, looking forward to part 2!

Good video, guys!! Such an interesting topic but unexplored, glad you're changing that! I will wait for the next one 🎉😊

Out of some 30 and change subscriptions, this is the channel which I monitor daily, eagerly waiting for a new video on Roman history! Thank you for doing such wonderful work, I know I've said it countless times before but you're the best!

What an amazing video. such an interesting topic most get wrong or dont get talked about enough. cant way for the next in the series!

This was great! I am excited to see part 2, I definitely will subscribe so I don't miss it. This is a subject I am very interested in. I have recently thought that battles may not even look like they do in Total War, where soldiers stand shield to shield with the enemy. Instead, each side stands just beyond weapons range and segments will step up to make an attack after they have built up their courage, followed by stepping back or pushing forward if the enemy steps back. This comes from participating in/observing some large-scale LARPs and watching police riot actions. I know LARP is missing the fear of death factor but that might increase people's hesitation to close the distance even more. This also allows for battles to be mobile and to rotate soldiers out of the front easily. I very well could be wrong though, looking forward to the next video.

Thanks, this was really interesting. These battles must have been so unbelievably terrifying that I think it's important to recognize what these people went through, both on conquering, and conquered sides, and remind ourselves that there were real people there.

Thanks so much for making this. Still watching but damn I've wanted this for years.

An excellent video. As someone who studies and practices the ancient battle/duel techniques, this information is invaluable. It really does help paint the picture of a realistic and accurate battlefield. Simply learning the techniques of fighting is not enough as the psychology and strategy are much more important. Thank you very much for this. P.S. Would you consider doing a video of the effects of cavalry charges upon infantry? I know it wasn't as common for the Romans but I often wonder how a cavalry charge would be executed and how effective they were against a formation of soldiers.

The study you cite on WWII battles comes from S.L.A. Marshall, a historian whose conclusions have been heavily scrutinized on their research methodology. He did a lot of interviews, but he also claimed to have done many more and a lot of his work is less than up to academic par.

I’ve always struggled with the relief mechanic for resting their fighters on the frontline. I keep envisioning mass slaughters as I the individuals try to disengage in the midsts of a pitched battle. Then I remember the amount of spacing between them and maybe I think they may have had the relief forces slide forward in the gaps? Great video, been loving all your content, can’t wait for the next!

This. I need more of this. Great work and keen eye to detail!

this was awesome. great idea for a vid series/topic. looking forward to the next one

I've been studying roman history for over 20 years and there is a lot of evidence that even the hardest, battle proven soldiers would suffer from PTSD. In one particular case I read about a Centurion who couldn't sleep without hearing the noise of battle, comrades dying all around him and the evil smell of guts and blood. I'll dig into my books and let you know who wrote about it

Dunno if this will come up later but from modern experiments (some of which I've been part of), there are quite a few things you can do in an infantry formation in contact with the enemy to get a few sneaky hits on your opponents if the people in your formation are used to working together and quick on the uptake. A single fighter on your side, for example, can use his weapon or shield to temporarily displace the weapons of one or perhaps two or three enemy fighters and create a moment of vulnerability where his own comrades can strike them in relative safety, if they can react quickly enough. Formations using long spears or pikes are especially vulnerable to this. It's worth using spears, though, because they allow an infantryman to target not just the enemy directly in front of him (who is likely to be prepared for his attacks) but also the adjacent files of the enemy front rank, who are likely focused on the men in front of them and thus more vulnerable. You thus need to watch not only the enemy in front of you, but every enemy soldier to his left and right who might plausibly be able to hit you with a spear, both to ward off incoming attacks and also to spot and exploit momentary openings while they were distracted by your comrades. If you have javelins, you can reach even farther (but only as many times as you have javelins). The latter trick might, incidentally, be why pawns in chess capture diagonally. We do know that roman infantry trained as a unit quite a lot, so it's reasonable to assume they were quite good at these kinds of techniques.

Thank you, finally my question of how pre modern era army fight in the battlefield answered, nice video,keeps on

This is pretty great. It really resonates with what I've found about early 16th century warfare, and it was explained really well. Top notch content! :D

This was one of the best videos about Rome that I watched. For a very long time I was trying to imagine how warfare back then would have been for the individual man, but movies, games and whatever always gave an unrealistic feeling as if all these men weren't afraid of dying and under immense stress

I'm really happy to help you for this video ! I've learnt a lot of things especially about the surprising fact about the battle casualties , didn't know about that . Can't wait to see part 2, being as eager to help you as i was for this first part Cheers

Your quality is so high, I like the vids before I watch. They are just that good. More fort tours as well please.

Outstanding presentation and well documented. Like many, I've wondered about the very questions you're providing plausible explanations to. Highly credible.

Man you never fail to impress me with the videos you come out with your content is absolutely killer keep up the amazing work!

this was great! I can't wait for the next one! as always THANK YOU for your hard work!

Phenomenal video, can't wait for part two

I waited and searched for so long for this topic! Thank you!

3:50 generals and speeches 5:08 advance, noise 6:40 speed, sprint and being stastionary 7:40 lines well charging, skirmisheing 9:00 the battle 12:10 breaking ranks, Hollywood batttle 13:10 battle chash fear and currage

I forgot which battle, but it was one where a Roman line pushed the enemy into a route, went to raid the camp, but the rest of the army was losing. Then, an unnamed centurion gathered men to leave the raiding of the camp and flank the enemy and save the battle. This centurion must have been highly respected.

Great call in making a second d vid! Amazing content, looking forward to the next one, and def recommending the channel!

Very well done! Awesome that you plan to put out a series of these. Based on the content here I’m sure I’ll enjoy whatever units you decide to cover but I am hoping that’ll include some Hoplite on Hoplite action and a theory on how a lanced calvary charge might actually realistically be used to break infantry lines.

I asked this on reddit once but was downvoted to hell. "Why would people charge into a wall of spears" well according to this, they probably didnt or when they did, it was qith great hesitation not like the totalbwar games. Thank you for the video. It really gives a great insight to the human aspect of it all. I wish we had massive reenactions of this stuff so we could learn more about the ideosynchrities of ancient battles.

As a soldier who fought in the front lines in Iraq, my NCO would asked me why I shot my rifle infrequently, I told him I only fire when I have a target in sight, running out of ammunition is a real fear of a modern soldier. Many of our guys fire their weapons often when the target was not visible, and later found themselves short on ammo

Yes... You are right to divide the topic into several videos. I enjoyed the detailed explanations and visuals.

Not a bad start to the series. You might cover it later, but its also worth considering how credible the sources are. Most are written from a Roman perspective and have obvious agendas, and so aren't always reliable. The other thing worth mentioning (and again, you might cover it later), is that single combat and battlefield looting seems to have been a pretty common occurence in warfare, particularly in the Early and Middle Republic eras. There are numerous accounts of Roman warriors taking on Gauls and claiming their torcs, and there were also a number of awards and honours available for doing so. It fits into the dynamic standoff theory as well, since in between all the posturing one brave warrior might call out another and enter an impromptu 1v1 that might play a role in breaking the deadlock.

Phenomenal presentation of the "pulse" theory. Can't wait for the follow-on videos!

Thanks a million for this !! Subscribed 😊

Looking forward to the next video, as this has long been a topic of wonder for me from the ancient world to the modern

My understanding is that SLA Marshall’s studies of the Second World War American army were methodologically flawed and underestimated that amount of aggression that most soldiers showed, far from the findings of timid and inactive troops. Great video regardless - The Roman Army At War by Adrian Goldsworthy was excellent, and sounds like you used it as a source

Amazingly detailed descriptions. Thank you so much. It's very well appreciated

This is a very good and seldom explored aspect of ancient battles. I think an interesting future video would be exploring the surprisingly small percentage of fatalities in these clashes unless one side was routed.

Ah I loved this. These are things & the details that level of wanting to know. Love all your vids & this one was really really interesting! 🫶🏼

As a Veteran of the Total War Rome 2, I can attest that the first part of the series to be true. Once the enemy routes its a free for all with the help of the calvary. LOL This video was very interesting and I can't wait for the other parts. :)

Great video!

Great video. Looking forward to the series. Am especially interested in how the subject of the use of the pilum will be treated.

Oh boy time to get some new Rome 2 strategy ideas

Great video - quick little grammar tip with the title - it should be "what ancient battles really looked like" or "how ancient battles really looked" what is there currently is incorrect

Incredibleby well-researched and depicted using R2. This is like my dream documentary - where instead of actors wearing cheap replica armor we can use games modded to show historically accurate gear, armor, and weapons to depict what was described by primary sources while narrated by experts. Subscribed!

Thank you! As much as like seeing two armies "box" it out on the battlefield it just looked like squares running into each other.

The pursuit is still where most are killed on the modern battlefield…at least if you’re led by a general that’s a killer and not an administrator. Not many of those. This is an exceptional video that I’d use to educate young officers, had I not just retired. So many threads you can connect to the present. I’m subscribing.

I think a core point to understanding pre-firweapon battles is understanding how everyone really wants to have at least 2m distance to an opponent with a pointy thing. Even a well trained soldier would rather keep his distance than risking a fight on life and death. Or as you mentioned it: Every soldier wants to return home in one piece.

Amazing video, cant wait for the next parts!!!!

Outstanding quality!

The assumption that a soldiers psychology hasn't changed feels like it's missing something. We have the example of Napoleonic era soldiers, who somehow convinced themselves to face off against each other in firing lines, or WW1 soldiers who would walk into machine gun fire. If the psychology of combat hasn't changed, that would suggest that indoctrination plays a big part, and raises the question of what the 'risk culture' was within the legions.

I would be careful applying war psychology from 20th century wars to the ancient world. Firearms are used at range, & the majority of fire would be used for suppression, not directly neutralizing enemy forces. In contrast, soldiers at the front of the line were directly engaged face-to-face with the enemy & expected to hold the line for as long as they could until they were either too injured or tired to press on, upon which time they'd cycle out with the man behind them. There's no getting out of combat if you're at the front, yet most warriors still avoided combat simply by being in the rear or in reserve units that didn't end up getting used.

I'm eager to see more realistic info about Roman battles (and other battles). Subscribed!

Fantastic high quality video. Please more like this

Incredible video, I was delighted to see every point I learned through multiple readings (in French and English alike) through the years about ancient and most specifically Roman warfare, and even the post WW2 psychological studies, I've read general Richoux's book which lead me to Michel Goya's and now I'm about to read Stéphane Audoin-Rousseau "Combattre. Une anthropologie de la guerre moderne" / "Fighting. An anthropology of modern warfare". Everything in here is valid and extremely documented content. Can't wait to get the rest!

I've read that many people think combat was kind of like a boxing match. Soldiers clashed for a max of five minutes apiece. Formations weren't guys rotating in like robots just kind of tapping in. So wrestling and boxing plus swords and shields. That's why battles like Cannae were rare. It's thought by some historians part of the Roman collapse at Cannae was mainly due to complete panic due to adrenaline falling away and exhaustion slipping in.

I'm waiting for the next ones... excellent video !

Filax my dude . its been a while since i last commented , im sorry . BUT YOU ARE KNOCKING IT OUT OF THE PARK WITH ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO ! You NEVER disappoint.

Pre modern warfare can basically be defined with two words: peer pressure. Even in the gunpowder era until the American Civil War, a time and technological phase when it was totally absurd to fight in lines, men fought in lines. The fear and uncertainty probably never went away, but it's a lot harder to make that decision to run when all your comrades were doing the same thing, in it together, marching to the beat of a drum.

It really triggers the pedant in me when people say something is "how they looked like." It makes sense to instead say "what they looked like" or "how they looked." It's like asking to describe something's appearance by saying "that looks like how?" It doesn't make any sense, but it would make sense to ask "that looks like what?" or "how does that look?"

Got a subscribe for this video 🎉 looking forward to the next one in the series!

soo interesting, can't wait for the next video.

First

This video put me into the frame of mind of an ancient soldier. Seeing the route begin, knowing there is nothing you can do to stop it. Imagine the piles if excrement around a battle field after a few days? Then having to walk hundreds of miles to get home, or die. Life is pretty good today. Maybe oil isn't so bad, huh?

Such glorious content. I love this channel

Been waiting for this since I subscribed

thanks for this video!!!

Wow, fantastic video. Great job!

i realy like this kind of video!! thanks!

Dude this video is AWESOME, tnahks a lot! 👏👏👏

i don't always click a video as soon as i see what channel posted it but when it's Filaxim Historia the click comes as swift as a spear thrown by the mightiest of Spartans.

Very interesting and I learned a thing or two! The early Roman Republic learned that many things could happen, almost randomly, to an otherwise good army, even when well-led. They seem to have concluded that randomness was more of a threat then poor leadership or excellent enemy qualities. So they developed the SPQR system of standardization. The leaders all 'knew' how to fight, taught from a century of record keeping. The Roman army had the same elements, arranged in the same way, and committed to battle scenarios modified from the system. The open-order formations evolved from the 'stronger' phalanx/shield system because of the mountain fighting vs the Samnites, as maneuver and recombination of various battle elements was more likely to win a battle, rather than the pure frontal application of more force. As such, they realized the value of flanking effects, sought these out, and tried to reduce the opportunity of the enemy force to use these stressors against themselves. When all else failed for Rome, they had a system to replace a lost cohort, or legion, or army, or leader. The manpower issue was hardly every serious due to massive populations from broad agriculture, the material replacement was not a serious bottleneck as their economy was superior, and leaders were ready and willing as younger men Must command in battle to qualify for a higher political role in the Tribe and then in the Senate. In a sense, Roman armies were more confident because they knew that, in battle victory or battle defeat, the war would almost certainly be won by their own side. And if everyone followed orders, the chance of personal death was relatively small. As an American in Texas, USA, this seems very similar to our own ideas on warfare/economics/leadership. We may not ever be 'excellent' compared to various allies and enemies, but this is the point. We are predictable and very replaceable, until victory.

Great video, very great & good research done for it indeed

One of the best videos on this topic

This is cool, can’t wait for part 2. But I’m devastated that they didn’t use whistles to replace the frontline 😢

incredible video. super informative!

Glad I rediscovered these

Perhaps this is a point you will make in the next part, but an historian on Roman history (Goldsworthy?) described two factors which made the Roman legion system so devastating against most all opponents. One, mentioned, is that they had a system to methodically replace men on the front line. The other is that there was a subtle tactic woven into / dependent on the large broad shield and the gladius short stabbing sword. When the Roman soldiers stood in a line each facing a man to their front, they did not stab at the man to their front, but instead stabbed towards 2 o clock i.e. the man standing in front of the Roman to their immediate right. That enemy would carry his shield on his left arm and focus his slashing / hacking / stabbing on the Roman facing him leaving his sword arm and that side relatively open to receiving a gladius thrust from that unexpected direction. This tactic required much discipline to be most effective. The line would have to be maintained i.e. no melee fighting, in order to work.

Incredible! Thank you. ⭐

Awesome video, really made me understand more what was it really like to be an actual soldier, and not a holywood CGI.