I'm pretty sure this is what Brought most of us here

Well no man can play total war and dont like history :P

Dr. Love I love it for the soundtrack

Dr. Love also Britain forever

The best total war game is Shogun 2

WheresWallace4883 I know it is kind of boring but the problem is that it is really effective. There's a reason it became the standard tactic for several hundred years if not almost 2 millenia. Why go back to the older tactics that are less effective. I mean normal hoplite battles were mostly pushing contests that ended when one flank gave in.

Was thinking that exact same thing.

Starring Alexander the Great and Hannibal.

There's a reason it's one of the most popular battle tactics in antiquity (and perhaps modern time).

WheresWallace4883 The fun is when your opponent tries the same all while trying to protect his own flank, and trying to win the infantry engagement

:D

It's 3 AM here as I'm reading this comment. What is up with youtube recommending these at such hour?

2:36 am but pretty close

3:21 and i see this, are you a wizard my guy.

I am literally watching this at 3 am

The ancient equivalent of a small loan of a million dollars.

Alexander didn't conquer the world in his 20s more like early 30s look it up

@@capatani1152 he campaigned for 11 years Died at early 30s So he was literally conquering longer as a 20 year old

@@capatani1152 Alexander died at 32 and took the throne at 20. He then began campaigning for up to 10 years after according to historians. I think you're the one who should "look it up"

@@jhonnyjhonson2664 Fair enough but I just hate how everyone says he conquered the world at 20 years old. Like wtf he was only throned at 19 so by the time he was in India which is a massive feat yes, he was probably late 20's possibly 30 yano Also if was his father who was the true mastermind behind the campaigns. Although he was a master tactician (Even if those tactics were invented by Philip)

Exactly my thoughts. The conditioning to get to that point. great stuff

If there is an afterlife I bet the Macedonians hang out with the Mongolians, they’ve got a lot in common

@@bkr1895 Numidians>>> mongols in terms of horse riding skill. Mongols used saddles and stirrups. Numidians rode bareback and controlled the horse with a small rope

@@MuhammadUsman-mi4jk Huns >>> Everybody else. No saddles, no stirrups and yet extreme precision with a bow and arrow on horseback

@@misterdream5558 the Huns used saddles and it was either them or the avars who brought stirrups to Western Europe. Both of those inventions came from the steppes the Huns inhabited anyways

Preußischer Jäger I’m sure Philip would be proud of Alexander anyway.

@@SpookyMarine Nah, he was most probably killed by Alexander himself ...

Siddarth Reddy Really? What makes you say that?

ULTRA MEHREEN well, besides some subtle historical evidences, think about it, Philip was killed when he was at the peak of his power, so it’s most unlikely that his death was the result of an outside force. Therefore, Alexander is considered a suspect.

Koala on a Whale True but he was also aged 46 at the time, back then that was beyond maximum life expectancy. Plus it’s not the first time for someone to die at the peak of their power. Hell it happened to Alexander himself

“CAVALRY!” “CHARRGE!!!”

SWIFT HORSES AT YOUR COMMAND!!

“Hoplites READYYY!”

These are not soldiers, only frightened rabbits running from our men !

@@Soronacabricot i heard that in his voice 🤣

A Quite Old, yet still Quite underrated Comment

FUCKING PATRONS ALWAYS FIRST

It's a full series. Prepare yourself for when the greeks are conquered, we would be marching across Asia minor, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Gedrosia, India and all the way to the edge of the known world!

yo yo Greeks were united*

MrPanos2000 United by conquest*

yo yo by the council of Corinth*. Besides most Greeks didn't participate. Italiotes, Syracusians, Lakedaimonians, Epeirote, Pontics, none of them showed up or helped in the conquest. Chaironia was a show of force to intimidate some into joining the league

vesteel Genius.

Well, in a world full of boxes, the better box won. And one day they made such a big box with such a long stick that they defeated themself with it... Actually the sarissa had a big disadvantage - much weaker ranged proptection due to teh samler shield. But that was negated by the Maccedonians already having good cavalry before that reform. And the shieldbearers took over the flanking/flanking protection duty.

Interestingly, in Rome total war multiplayer, there was a popular tactics called boxing which is just the getting a bunch of Phalanx in a square formation so it couldn’t be flank. It mocked as noob box. The most effective and popular way to defeat these boxes are baiting the enemy into pushing out of the formation, open up a gap and exploit the inflexibility of their formation.

Duy Linh Chu Ha or use archers and horse archers to destroy their units, especially the back line.

So they follow the seccond two guys what is your point

A time when a leader actually lead

@@davidjarkeld2333 Just going to charge to your own death doesn't make you a better leader.

@@bilib1891 leading from the front doesn't mean charging to your own death. The example here being Alexander, but anyway I was referring to the origin of the word.

@@davidjarkeld2333 It made sense back then for leaders to be somewhat involved, as they didn't have guns and radios. Nowadays it makes no sense for leaders to be on the frontlines as battles cover far more distance, your leader can be shot from 500 metres away, and if they are in base with equipment and infrastructure they can more effectively use communication technology to command their troops

Not due to him routing Darius twice?

His on the move decisions saved countless battles, while he was leading the charge himself, the GOAT 🐐

yo yo actually Baz Battles did Alexander's Conquest in his channel, but I would love Historia Civilis' rendition.

Japhet Falcutila oh right I forgot about that. You are right Historia Civilis might not make this seiries.

Since he did Phillip and now this I doupt he will quit now.

@Joshua JO If it "hasn't been done", it's hardly ever decently researched... bit like "Inside the Sphinx's ear", if you get my meaning ;)

This comment aged well!

parts of it were taken from carthage in the punic wars i believe, im sure he covered this in other videos This process started with the Roman acquisition of the former Carthaginian territories in southern Hispania and along the east coast as a result of defeating the Carthaginians (206 BC) during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), leading to them leaving the peninsula. This established Roman territorial presence in Hispania. Four years after the end of this war, in 197 BC, the Romans established two Roman provinces. They were Hispania Citerior (Nearer Spain) along most of the east coast (an area roughly corresponding to the modern Spanish autonomous communities of Valencia, Catalonia and part of Aragon) and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain) in the south, roughly corresponding to modern Andalusia.

Short story: Carthage had Iberia. Rome beat Carthage into a pulp. Rome had Iberia. End of story.

cjonesabc That was mostly the eastern and southeastern portions of Iberia. There are other parts though, such as the northwest corner of the peninsula that I know nothing of how Rome came to occupy it. This applies to most of the western half of modern Spain and Portugal for me, and I'm to lazy to spend 15 minutes looking for a good source of the information and reading it

+Nobody Important Carthagae and Rome had a agreement to divide Iberia up to an certain river (Sadly i dont remember ne name. they had one province in Iberia already when they conquered the rest from Carthagae. And it wanst until Pompej that they completely conquered it. The Iberer fought a guerrilla war there.

Nobody Important carthage started colonizing it prior to the punic wars and when taken by rome, were folded into the empire

Actually, I think it's more "The bull is crowned" (Bulls were used regularly as sacrifices to the gods, and a crowned sacrifice sounds like Phillip, doesn't it.) "All is done." (Sounds like it does) "The sacrificer is ready." (Alexander is ready to carry out the strange assassination?)

Unless Phillip himself is the sacrificer, Give his life to ensure victory. Very Interesting...

Shouldn't the sacrificer be Pausanias, Philip's murderer, actually ?

@Alex Imagine the intelligence required to script that shit 😂

@@44Minutes100 Many scholars and historians believe Alexander to be the conspirator who murdered his father ...

Bruh

Get better? You mean win every battle besides siege battles

@@VioletMilks meh siege battles are pretty simple, just flood or use engines lol

We all have, the Macedonians invented the ancient European system of battle and basically everyone ripped them off to some extent for like 2 thousand years

Vito C nice reference ;)

ENOUGH! I don't stand a chance against your skills... NASDROVIA, a drink to your victory...

Because you insist, I get your gist.

As Macedonian Kingdom unified the other Greek Tribes/States/Kingdoms (in Metropolitan Greece/Hellas) of that era this is the logical outcome. If it was Athenians, Thebans or Spartans (etc.) it would be *mainly* Athenian, Theban or Spartan (etc.) history.

@ziggyonthemoon, thank you for stating what should be obvious. In any case, we live in an era that everybody wants to form history according to his views. Greek History has A LOT of good and bad moments. I do not reject any of them and I do not want to be credited with something which has not happened (e.g. saying that Roman Empire is Greek :P). Alas!

Hellas Commentor aka the beginning of western civilization

true. What is this trend with Pepe avatars? 3 comments and 3 with almost the same avatar :P

@@pasal99 gayreece gayreek

This is a Greek city state.

Medeival Thats the stuff. I mean, then we Will have evrythin in HD

@@sybedb We just need a graphically better Medieval 2, I can't think of anything the new engine does better other than the unit response time.

Thats intresting. How come?

@@shweatypalms4423 I believe the purpose of it was to basically create such density so that nothing could penetrate it. You kill one guy with a sarissa, right away another one comes up with his, just makes it impossible to get through it

@@nono-kr7um Makes perfect sense. Thanks very much

@@shweatypalms4423 The Macedonian reserve force were on the flanks, so they did the phalanx so deep to get shure they will not break for any price.

Kinda same, I was thinking about Mjolnir but uhh... that is a little far south and out of culture for that heh

@@rico1346 Wouldn't it be a bit early too?

Uhh

Underrated comment

me neither!

1905parth same

Facts!!

Never came so fast before

pretty ordinary video... U must need a doctor around when you see a great video come out.

Xd good luck with that u moron🖕🖕🇬🇷

Olympic games were only for Greeks and guess what, Macedonians were there... So Find luck with that...

@@Johnny-xi4ti so you probably hate Macedonia. If so, why did you watch this video? You hate both Greece and Macedonia, so you don't have a side in this argument.

@@IMAK1063 that's what she sad lololo🖕🖕🖕🖕

@@Johnny-xi4ti oh my god ask any historian, they categorise macedonian history along with the rest of greece. Its a shame you have no identity and you are so committed into trying to steal ours. Try as you might, you will never become Greeks. You will always be slavs.

I reacted to that too. It seam highly unlikely that that would ever happen because you have 2 enemies that are looking to kill each other and also not die them self. So marching well within the range of your opponents weapons just to get so close so that the enemy could punch/stab you in the face seams like a very bad strategy to win any fight.

I was looking for this comment. Faith in mankind restored.

stony990 Plus your shield is just an obstacle to fight around if it's bound to your opponent's shield. Sure they are in the same situation, but if another enemy strikes at you you're dead.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this discussion / critisism: Hoplites also carried a sword, mostly a short sword called a xiphos, but later also longer and heavier types. This very short xiphos would be very advantageous in the press that occurred when two lines of hoplites met, capable of being thrust through gaps in the shieldwall into an enemy's unprotected groin or throat, while there was no room to swing a longer sword. (Note that this is not the full text of the paragraph; only what's useful for this topic. You can visit the Wikipedia page about hoplites to read the whole thing.)

Casper Kersten That certainly sounds more realistic than the sports day version, although it is wikipedia so pinch of salt. Edit: also aren't hoplites and phalanx slightly different? P.p.s while I'm at it if you got this far I should also note that tbf it is still an interesting and well made video on the whole.

Outstanding video as always, btw. I'm​ a big fan, I just fail to understand this specific detail and it has bothered me for a long time now.

Anguel Roumenov Bogoev Its a false fact and I tired of hearing it all the time too

Their ancestors are current day offense linemen….

You're on the right path to not accept information from youtubers without doubt.... then you go ahead and ask youtuber commenters as your best source. So close.

@@nykidxxx I'm asking for a source so I can check it myself.

From the Athenians, perfected by the Spartans (by having the only professional military). Phalanxes were the dominant military formation and the supporting troops would often negate each other (cavalry would chase each other's peltasts away then chase each other around as they weren't able to do much against an unengaged phalanx even with a flank attack). It's strategic inbreeding, but it happened. "My Life and Times" by Xenophon (Athenian general circa 300BC) has a good description of how the Greeks saw it was the perfectly manly way to wage a war - the strongest at shoving the others off their feet won. There were other tactics to break up the "phalanx scrum", such as widening the phalanx upon engagement (trying to wrap around the enemy) once the initial charge had been absorbed, or deploying the same number of men into more phalanxes to outflank the enemy, however since the phalanx with more momentum (from deeper ranks providing more pushing power by pushing your shield against the guy in front of you) usually wiped out the phalanx with less momentum on the initial charge (i.e. pushing them off their feet) these strategies were considered questionable at best. It was usually determined by the strength of your soldiers (generally depending on how well trained they were) and the number of hoplites in the phalanx that carried the day. Then Leuctra happened and 200 years of inbred military theory got turned on its head... about 20 years before Philip of Macedon.

@@jarrodbright5231 But why do it in the first place? I can't believe that two spear-wielding units would walk within spear range and not use the spears. As I've said before, I can believe phalanxes got pressed together sometimes but not that they _intended_ to, given they're armed with spears.

​@@Robert399 If they weren't fighting other phalanxes they wouldn't; they would use the natural advantage of the phalanx of having 3 people fighting each individual enemy due to being in closer formation. However if you have a phalanx and the other side has one, the most decisive way to win is to break their phalanx formation up. Momentum from the charge pushes enough people in the phalanx that doesn't charge out of formation that they are no longer locked shield-to-shield. Worse, the enemy phalanx is now inside your phalanx, in formation, and can form a fighting square, arrow-wedge or similar formation (there is documentation of a few of these though few first-hand accounts of it happening as people would just run if their phalanx was broken). Some of the people in the phalanx getting pushed out of formation will get trampled or stabbed by the spears of the charging phalanx and the rest will be at a severe disadvantage. There is also a significant morale factor of being physically pushed out of your formation if you're planning to fight a battle a certain way and it just isn't working out, and you no longer have the advantage of knowing where your friends and enemies are on the battlefield whereas your opponents know very well that everyone outside of their formation is an enemy. Since each side using a phalanx know the other side will do this even if they don't, both sides inevitably charge to avoid giving the other side such an overwhelming advantage. It's worth mentioning that the front rank would try to aim their spears at the other side as they charged, but remember that spears tend to break when they hit bronze shields so this would inflict minimal casualties. Spear and short sword thrusts would definitely happen once the phalanxes are shield to shield, however with large hoplon shields, helmets, greaves and armored kilts, these would do a lot less damage than you might think. The strategy at this point would be to win the battle as decisively as possible to minimize casualties on your own side (i.e. people like to survive the battle). If you kill the guy in front of you with a spear or sword thrust you have someone else replace him as soon as his body is out of the way. If you break the enemy formation and force your phalanx into their phalanx you win the battle because now only one side is fighting in formation. Most enemies will flee at that point and that's the battle won and hooray you live to fight another day. Also, with spear and sword thrusts, only the front 2 ranks of the 8-20 ranks of the phalanx can get involved in the fighting (as opposed to the front 6 ranks with a Macedonian phalanx). With shields to the backs of the guys in front of you, all of the ranks can get involved. Now those thrusts did happen because they would disrupt the enemy's momentum / pushing power, but they wouldn't be the main way to win the battle.

10 second video: "We got lots of guys and chariots. CHARGE!"

Razzy1312 dummy

Γιατί δεν ξέρει

Shoving matches is extremely bizarre and din't happen regularly if at all. Why arm men with spears then just get into a shoving match? Why not just give them all knives or swords and do the shoving?

@@elessargriz1736 Worked fine for the romans

berserkkkkkk

TBF The Winged Hussars arent really special, theyre memorable because their moment of Glory is about as good as any military doctrine can ever hope for. The Companion Cavalry is better because of specifically the unified strategic and tactical order the armies were able to employ.

@@F14thunderhawk not realy winged boys were special

Well did the winged hussars ever conquer the same land mass as the companions?

Simon Hagsten no

HacaPotato 3 fucking countries in the World use this mile and foot shit. One of them is america and you expect the Rest of the World to learn this unlogical shit? Hell no

HacaPotato so let the rest of the world convert so you can stay the same?

Imperial makes more sense

Well since you know both then there is no reason to not use the metric system so all of us can understand.

No, sorry, we can't. That'd be like calling Cleopatra (VII) Egyptian, when she was Ptolemaien (and thus mainly Greek).

Sheesh you’re bright! ....

@Ilija Stojanoski youre a fucken idiot honest to god. Theyre different Greek City states, Macedon defeated the all the others and grabbed control over southern Greece. Its a fact.

@@ares5273 looking at his name and the comment he made i bet he is from FYROM .

@Ilija Stojanoski also do you want me to slap you with some history books to at least learn something in this life and not spout nonsense?

"As for Cavalry i should point out that it is now widely agreed that the wedge formation was designed to ride past the exposed ranks and scythe through the enemy much like cavalry columns of the Napoleonic era or indeed the function of any light cavalry." -- Interesting. Do you have any sources to support this argument?

Samithon James lmao calm down buddy