This video is sponsored by Masterworks…
Roman Battles are so often imagined from a top view of geometrical formations clashing
with each other, that many don't know how ancient battles actually looked like for
individual soldiers in the ranks. Since the 19th century, dozens of theories have come
forward to explain just how combat was actually performed, and Hollywood gives it no true justice,
despite looking very entertaining on screen. But how did battles really actually look like?
What emotions did soldiers go through? How much space was kept between ranks?
What was the probability of surviving in the front
ranks? And how did they manage to fight for hours without breaks?
After weeks of meticulous research, and the contributions of hundreds of historians,
this series will answer all these questions and more, and reveal an accurate close-up model of
Roman combat. If you stick around until then, you will be an expert on the most
up-to-date theories of combat. If you’re new to the channel, consider subscribing, it helps a lot!
If there is a way to define the state of mind of the average Roman soldier deploying on the
battlefield, it’s the feeling of uncertainty. (zoom out) The long process of forming up for
battle was no synonym of imminent engagement, even if encamped right next to the enemy. Hours,
days or even weeks could pass with both sides facing each other on the battlefield under the
summer heat, trying to spot the enemy’s weakness while showing none in return. Only the eventual
duel between champions or minor skirmishes would break the tedium of standing in full armor for
hours on end. As the day goes on, raging hunger of nearby empty stomachs and the repulsive smell
from companions who, unable to go anywhere, alleviated themselves in the near vicinity,
would add to the equation. Battlefield stress and fear will also play its part here,
as soldiers might experience a series of symptoms ranging from a violent pounding
of the heart and a sinking feeling in the stomach to uncontrollable trembling, cold
sweat, feelings of weakness or stiffness, vomiting and, most unwelcome of all, involuntary urination
or defecation, to name a few. Only the arrival of night would put an end to this situation,
as both sides would retreat to their camps and repeat the same process again the following day.
Such were the days of the soldiers of Scipio at Ilipa; wake up, have breakfast, form a battle
line and repeat, while at any moment the enemy could do something unexpected or catch them by
surprise. Due to this neverending uncertainty, fear and anxiety of being close to the enemy,
it comes as no surprise that many times, Roman soldiers would put great pressure on
their generals to force an engagement and get it over with, but this was rarely for
the best. General Pompey allowed himself to be swayed into combat by his soldiers at Pharsalus,
who were confident in their superior numbers. The forced battle resulted in a devastating defeat,
and the first in his entire career… So even in tough conditions and when they think they
know better, soldiers must maintain unwavering trust in their generals,
and that's easier said than done... When the order to engage the enemy finally arrives,
it acts as a huge psychological catalyst, raising the adrenaline of the soldiers even higher.
Vegetius speaks of a system of composing the cohorts in such a way that the flanks
would comprise of the most promising and experienced fighters in the legion,
to better withstand attacks from 2 possible directions, while the middle cohorts were
filled with the less experienced and younger men, having to only worry about the front.
The famous Roman “checkerboard” formation was very popular in Republican and Imperial Roman armies.
Before battle, the centuries within each cohort would expand to form either a single battle line,
or another checkerboard formation, which will be thoroughly explained later..
At this point, it was not uncommon for generals to ride to the front line and deliver a series
of short encouraging speeches to different sections of the army… The general was seen by
the regular soldier as a strong authority, with enough power to single him out for promotion,
or punish him with death. His mere presence in battle was a huge boost to morale, and his death,
the far opposite. A wise general would use this knowledge to great effect,
motivating them for battle and calming their anxiety. Given the size of ancient armies,
such speeches were either repeated many times, or only given to a small portion of the army. Tacitus
records one such speech given by Paulinus to the 14th legion before their legendary victory at the
battle of Watling street. And Tacitus’ own father in law, Agricola, was a direct witness of it:
“You see more women than warriors. Unwarlike, unarmed, they will give
way the moment they have recognised that sword and that courage of their conquerors,
which have so often routed them. Even among many legions, it is a few who really decide the battle,
and it will enhance their glory that a small force should earn the renown of an entire army.. ..Once
the victory has been won, everything will be in your power.” Tacitus. Annals. 14.36
With the men properly hyped up, the army was ready for battle…
Many of you might have wondered how Roman legionaries advanced into battle. Were they
silent and disciplined as in Gladiator; a compact bloc of professional soldiers
advancing at a steady pace without breaking the line? Or would they be
as loud and noisy as the multitude of tribes they faced over and over again?
Late Roman manuals of Vegetius and the Strategikon both stress the importance of a silent advance
to allow commands to be heard, as well as to terrify the enemy with the quiet and unhuman-like
confidence of advancing lines. However, there is good evidence that this was often ignored.
Let’s Imagine, for a moment, the experience of the average legionary in the 3rd row, advancing with
his comrades: his vision is heavily obstructed by the men around him and he can’t run away, given
his position. This is a recipe for panic. But hearing constant shouts of encouragement from men
behind and the commands of his centurion in front, help him overcome his fear and control himself. In
such a way, units and soldiers would use sound to encourage one another, with the rear ranks being
especially noisy in this aspect. We have proof of this, as Polybius vividly describes the contrast
between the Roman and Carthaginian war-cries at Zama. While Mark Antony’s legionaries,
when clashing thousands of swords and shields, frightened off the horses of Parthian cavalry
charging at them in 36 BC. So part of a Roman unit’s repertoire would be the clashing
of swords against shields, before uniformly uttering a war-cry prior to the final charge…
Now, onto the speed and order of the battle line. Roman military manuals recommend advancing at a
jog or sprint, in order to cover the distance with the enemy as quickly as
possible. Only on exceptional occasions would the advance be done in a slow and steady pace,
as the soldiers of Catiline did at the battle of Pistoria. And almost never was an army stationary,
ready to absorb the charge of their enemy. We can prove this from Caesar’s
veteran legionaries at Pharsalus, who finding it strange that their
enemy did not charge them, chose to stop, reform the line and approach them slowly:
“Caesar's soldiers entirely defeated Pompey's hopes, by their good discipline
and experience. For, perceiving the enemy did not stir, they halted, of their own accord,
in the midst of their career; and having taken a moment's breath, put themselves,
a second time, in motion; marched up in good order, flung their javelins,
and then betook themselves to their swords.” Caesar, Civil War III, 93.
The reason Pompey’s men did not counter charge was because their ranks were abnormally deep and
tightly packed for a Roman army, with the purpose of absorbing the oncoming charge and frightening
their enemy. But this was a very rare strategy, and Caesar’s veterans didn’t fall for it.
This quote also nicely proves our next point, that maintaining straight ranks while charging was near
impossible, and even Caesar’s experienced veterans needed to stop and reform the line. Moreover,
in a kilometer-long battlefield, lines would get fairly disorganized in the charge, with the
overall chaos, noise of equipment, and limited vision due to the dust from thousands of boots,
all adding to the equation. This resulted in units reaching the enemy at different time intervals…
Just before the clash, javelins were thrown to soften up the enemy formation and damage their
shields and armor. Not only Romans, but Iberians, Gauls, Germanians, Britons and Thracians also used
some form of javelins in battle, so they were a common occurrence not only before,
but also throughout ancient battles, as some commanders are known to have died from
javelins even several hours after the start of battle… Experiments carried out with the Roman
javelin showed they had an effective range of around 20 meters, and a charging legionary had,
at best, 7 seconds to throw the pilum and unsheathe his sword before the final clash.
Unfortunately, ancient sources never provide a close up description of
Roman battle mechanics. But their countless recorded battles do give
us a set of patterns which we can use to create a close-up image of battles:
Firstly, Roman battles often dragged on for several hours and even days until one side broke,
with casualties from both sides recorded as surprisingly low, that is until one side
broke formation and was routed. In this case, the defeated side would lose between 30-60% of
the whole force in the battle and ensuing rout, whereas the victorious side rarely suffered more
than 5% losses in the entire engagement. Now, there were exceptions to this rule, like the
Pyrrhic victories of the 3rd century BC, but the vast majority of Roman battles comply with it.
Secondly, Roman battles were highly mobile affairs, with sections of the army either
pushing or being pushed back for large distances. For example, Caesar mentions the Helvetii being
pushed back at least 1 mile before they resumed fierce resistance from their new uphill position.
And thirdly, the Romans had a system for replacing wounded and tired men from the front line,
considering it's near impossible for an individual to fight for more than
12 minutes due to physical and mental exertion. So how did they do it? And no,
they probably didn’t systematically replace front liners upon the blow of a whistle. The
battle line would be too noisy and chaotic for it, and we have no real evidence for this model…
On first glance, these rules of Roman battles could seem counterintuitive and
even contradictory, which is why the true nature of Roman battles was under constant debate,
with all agreeing that these 3 points must be accounted for in the model. Luckily,
the “Dynamic Stand-off theory” has been put forward to provide a viable solution for
recreating the Roman battle experience, and it is what we will explain throughout this series…
Maintaining a Roman army took lots of money, resources and years of specialized training,
but they were crucial investments to protect the wealth of the Roman elite. Today, the protection
of wealth has greatly evolved, with some elites doing it through investing. Not just into stocks,
bonds, or real estate, but more exclusive assets, luxury commodities and Collectibles, like fine
art. These assets historically retain–and even gain–value during periods of economic downturn,
which is why in 2022, while most investments and investors were having their worst year since the
2008 financial crisis, the art market sale set all-time high sale records during auction
season… Financial experts from Deloitte expect the global value of art to continue growing
to an eye-popping $1 trillion by 2026.. Until recently, you’d need millions to invest in art,
but thanks to our new sponsor, Masterworks, you can invest in art from legends like Picasso,
Banksy, and Monet, all for a fraction of the piece’s total cost. Thus far, Masterworks has sold
over $45 million worth of art, and distributed the net proceeds to their investors. In fact,
all of their sales have delivered positive net returns, and over 700,000 people have already
signed up. As the economy grows more stagnant, demand grows by the day, so there may be a
waitlist… But our subscribers can skip the line by clicking the link in the description below…
Hollywood likes to represent charges as chaotic and impetuous, with eager
soldiers clashing violently with the enemy. Lines are then broken, order is lost and the
full chaos of a battle royale commences. This may look great on a big screen, but in reality,
would never happen because of mere psychological factors. When faced with an army in front, people
don’t just leave the safety of their comrades next to them to break through the enemy line and
surround themselves with enemies. Here, we can already identify a few that wouldn’t even last
the next few seconds, with a blow coming from any direction. And let’s not forget that every soldier
wants to return home in one piece. Furthermore, if such a thing did happen, the casualties on
both sides would have been astronomical, especially for those in the front, which
violates our first rule of there being low casualties before victory…
Hand to hand combat was a traumatic and tentative affair, where even the most seasoned veterans
could break under psychological pressure at any moment… As cohorts, centuries and maniples closed
the last meters with the enemy, not all of them would have committed to the charge. Some would
have lost heart and kept a safe distance to utter insults and exchange missiles with the enemy,
not yet willing to engage in hand to hand combat. This is also proven by the quote
from Pharsalus when units autonomously decided to halt. The stalemate would continue until one side
got the courage to initiate a charge and resume combat. Officers played a critical role in this,
as their leadership skills could persuade hesitant soldiers to overcome their fear. A notable example
is a standard-bearer at the Battle of Pydna who purposely threw his standard into enemy ranks,
in order to motivate his unit to fight on and retrieve it. While at the battle of Pharsalus,
the whole army was led by a single centurion at the head of 120 brave volunteers… Despite these
individual heroes, the vast majority of the army’s front line would be using more of the shield
than the sword, fighting more to survive, rather than to kill. At any point in time, only a small
number of individuals would work up the courage to throw a stab or bash the enemy with their shield,
in the process of which, they would be greatly exposing themselves to being injured or killed.
Biologically, we humans barely changed from the time of the ancients, and so
did our psychology. So World War 2 studies of US soldiers concluding that 8 out of 10 rifles
in firefights were either not fired at all or fired without aiming due to battle fear,
would have also been reflected to some degree in Roman battles, with only those “2 out of
10” soldiers making the difference. And that’s despite the Romans placing their best natural
fighters in the front... Nineteenth century officer, Du Picq, who studied ancient battles,
puts it nicely as: “Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything he
can to avoid the first and obtain the second”. In other words, fighting would be avoided as much as
possible, but if a section of the army breaks the enemy in front of them, the entire unit and even
those behind them would press on their advantage with a surge of confidence to kill as many enemies
as they can. This overconfidence would then result in even more panic for the breaking line,
as they would offer little resistance when their instinct of self-preservation took over and spread
to the whole army. This phycological phenomena is very well documented in the battle of Zama:
“Consequently the Romans immediately broke the enemy's line at the first attack; then
they pressed on with their shoulders and shield bosses, steadily advancing as the foe fell back,
and making considerable progress as no one offered resistance. Then, as soon as they saw that the
line confronting them had given way, the Roman rear line also began to press hard from behind,
and this gave increased impetus to the rout of the enemy. On the other side,
the second line of Africans and Carthaginians gave no support at all to the auxiliaries as
they gave way; on the contrary, they fell back themselves for fear that the Romans would cut
their way through those of the front line who offered firm resistance, and reach themselves.”
And so, it is the small breaches like these that result in the panic and
withdrawal of entire armies, and change the course of history…
So far, this battle model very much satisfies our 1st point, explaining how casualties were
surprisingly low during combat, but were staggering when they turned out decisive…
But this model is still fairly inaccurate, as we have yet to consider our other 2 points in order
to create a complete close-up battle model. But all this will have to be tackled and presented
in another video, as this topic turned out too interesting and far longer than expected,
and I refuse to quickly sum it up in one video for the sake of time. So make sure you are subscribed
and have the bell notifications turned on so you don't miss the next one, which will
include the more shocking theories of close combat and how victory was actually achieved.
I would like to thank our loyal Patreons for helping us to tackle such intriguing video
topics. Consider signing up and helping us create more. I will see you very soon in the next one!