Historian Reacts - Why EVERY massive battle is wrong!

[@InvictaHistory]

This topic has been a long time coming and I'm super excited to use our True Size series to continue to correct misconceptions about ancient warfare! What should we debunk next? Go to buyraycon.com/invicta to get up to 30% off sitewide! Brought to you by Raycon.

[@Valchrist1313]

That Unreal 5 simulation is really struggling with those 2-D immobile sprites.

[@anonnymousperson]

Do you have any references for your sources? Feels like a bunch of this information isn't that well known and that you might make the historian's consensus out to be more certain than it actually is. This seemed particularly the case when you talked about how military formations break down and flee. Might just be me though. It is all very interesting.

[@thunder5496]

@InvictaHistory loved the video. However, are you suggesting the front rank remain there (pending death / injury)? Would it not be a better suggestion that the front rank rotates backwards to keep the front rank as the most fresh and allow the battle to go on as long as possible and therefore depth keeps that front rank fresher in that it potentially gets rotated out more often than the opposition. Breaking coming then through tiredness or a sudden breakthrough of wounds or deaths in that front rank. Additionally the crush factor in those front ranks causing an element of fear over how the battle is going but with sufficient training the back ranks can give ground to prevent the crush on the front ranks

[@WetterZuLaub]

Thank you. Would you consider doing a real size illustration of different historical battles?

[@douglasdea637]

I suggest: 1. What percentage of troops would be lost before (and after) a battle due to disease and desertion and random accidents? 2. How many advancements and retreats would a battle contain in a day? 3. What percentage of casualties would an army sustain before everyone calls it a day?

[@nice3333333333]

I have tried to explain this to my wife for years. It's not the length that matters, it's the WIDTH, the GIRTH and tactical enlightenment of the commanding officer that matters.

[@klakier19901]

And? how many children do you have?

[@-_Nuke_-]

Man that's deep...

[@4thdimensionalexplorer]

No silly, it's thick.

[@na-vn5qy]

chode battle tactics

[@hoi-polloi1863]

Right... next explain to her how Napoleon stressed the importance of "La manoeuvre sur les derrieres" and see how she reacts to THAT.

[@WMfin]

One video idea: I have struggled to picture numbers in my mind. What I mean is, when I real say a fantasy book and it says "two thousand soldiers camped outside of the castle", or "ten thousand seen marching this way" or "ten camp/village of the whole army"... I just can't really picture all these numbers. So maybe a video showing different number of people in various stages: -100 soldiers marching, then camping, then on the formation -500 soldiers marching, then camping, then on the formation -1 000 soldiers marching, then camping, then on the formation -5 000 soldiers marching, then camping, then on the formation - 10 000 soldiers marching, then camping, then on the formation - 20 000 soldiers marching, then camping, then on the formation I did get some idea here for the marching part and of course, they would follow a road in a line but then again, seeing how long of a line different numbers make would be appreciated!

[@linming5610]

I picture 10,000 men with 100 blocks of 100 men each. In a battle, there may be 30 blocks at the left, 30 blocks at the right, 40 blocks at the center.

[@GarrettPetersen]

Camping is a good one, because camping takes up way more space than marching.

[@bremnersghost948]

Easy way to picture it is Sports fans on way to a Stadium, yes the numbers sound huge but most of those there are Followers not Fighters.

[@N0d4chi]

I think of it in terms of a meter. One person is roughly a meter wide with shield and a little wiggle room. 10.000 soldiers 10 deep would therefore at the minimum have a1km long battle line. With terrain and such, in reality its probably longer

[@winzyl9546]

Picture numbers what exactly? Theyre at camp, they are not arrayed outside. So just imagine a tent city.

[@AnvilMAn603]

DITCHES DITCHES DITCHES

[@modest_spice6083]

All hail the Ditch-King!

[@AT-rr2xw]

Dig through the ditches and dig through more ditches and even more ditches for DOCTOR ROEL

[@Ryan-jy5hi]

DIG ANOTHER DITCH!!!!!!

[@stayhungry1503]

ditches are nice in theory but they were rarely a thing, except in sieges or some kind of bottleneck where there is no chance of the battlefield movig. they take a long time to dig and could very well be outflanked and thereby be rendered useless.

[@Pan_Blazej]

@@AT-rr2xw So do it, soldier! Do it, soldier!

[@norm3380]

I think one of the biggest failures of Hollywood is the lack of understanding of chain of command, separate units and such. They always show a shocking amount of micro management by the king/warlord and such.

[@N0d4chi]

Yea i agree, once battle starts theres very little command from the top going on. Thats why large armys had really big troubles adapting to a change in the battlefield they didnt forsee

[@dingliedangliedoodle9261]

Although in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields LotR they had them attack as a blob, they did have a little detail with Theoden giving his commanders instructions in person before the attack. Would have probably been more realistic if they had communicated with instruments or signals. Some of those commanders might not even have reached their unit by the time the speech was done.

[@ianover6838]

@@N0d4chi Caesar enters the chat

[@Yandarval]

"Ithink one of the biggest failure of Hollywood is the lack of understanding" You should have left it there. As that succinctly puts what is wrong with Hollywood in general.

[@norm3380]

@@Yandarval lol. You ain't wrong.

[@blasty137]

Another thing that is often misunderstood (especially by those of us who grew up on Total War and historical reenactment) is the amount of casualties and how battles are lost. Armies very rarely got wiped out and fought to the bitter end, it's not unusual even for the losing side to have light casualties. Surprisingly, people are not very enthusiastic about getting killed when they don't have the ability to be retrained or respawn for the next round! :) If they start to suspect that something is going wrong and that the enemy is gaining the upper hand, they may start to retreat even if they only lost like 10%. 30% casualties would be considered quite heavy. And most of the time the winning side wouldn't engage in relentless pursuit - as long as you're in the formation you're safe, but if you break formation and start running after those who are retreating you stand a much higher chance of ending up dead yourself. Battle dynamics often came down to human factor, and this is something that is hard to replicate in games or reenactment. If you look at the fall of Constantinople, for example, the battle itself was really close, and if the defenders had stood their ground they would have had some chance. But when the Italian commander was wounded they started fleeing towards the port to board their ships and get away, the Greeks started running back to their homes to protect their families, even though that was basically a death sentence and they would've stood much better chance fighting at the breach points, etc.

[@jong4120]

Good point. Thats why Sun Tzu talks about the concept of dead ground, where soldiers are intentionally trapped by their commander, placed in desperate straits and forced to fight to the death. This can result in unexpected victory. One example is the battle of Julu by the general Xiang Yu.

[@JohnDoe-ug3su]

Good point. Mongols used this mindset to create a false retreat path that enabled them to pick off and technically hunted those that broke ranks

[@NihongoWakannai]

​@@jong4120 yes, this is why usually you will want to specifically not trap your enemy. Give them a chance to run away because a cornered rat can be very dangerous.

[@stespi99]

I would add that there were battles with high kill counts and they happened when the cavalery chased the retreating army! That is where shlashings happened and they kinda looked like in the movies where they just murder everything that breathes. Not that uncommen especially around middle ages where cavalery became a thing/important.

[@KasumiRINA]

Unless you put difficulty higher so AI "cheats" by having higher morale, Total War DOES have more or less realistic retreats, with bitter end fighting only as last stands, as described in Sun Tzu or Herodothus. Problem is those games that don't have alive PoWs taken, Medieval was good in that majority of enemy casualties are guys you capture alive during retreat. To get ransom.

[@Ajaylix]

I see Ditch Man, i like and click, then i expect him to give me a ditch around my house.

[@ruslann545]

ditch man for 3 minutes

[@BillHimmel]

@@Ajaylix We all love him!

[@josestirtabudi6247]

Tsk tsk! He expects you to dig the ditch!

[@DiaconescuAlexandru2024]

Who is Ditch man 😭

[@dwhitey]

@@Ajaylix only one ditch? Pffft, amature.

[@terenceblakely4328]

Of course Hollywood ignores logistics of these gigantic battles. Feeding an army tens of thousands is horrifically difficult.

[@matrixinterface]

That's why once they had a big army they had to keep conquering people to pay for the army

[@AdrianRolland]

@@terenceblakely4328 1200-1600 Calories for each person.

[@alanbeaumont4848]

And the Confederates went to Gettysburg hoping to loot shoes.

[@NotASandMan]

@@alanbeaumont4848 cobblers must have been short in the supply train lol

[@alanbeaumont4848]

@@NotASandMan Marching everywhere wears out leather fast.

[@ymirfrostgiant]

I feel like what's missing from these simulations is the massive baggage train of wagons and camp followers that would have been required to keep these armies fed and equipped. We rarely see the herds of cattle or family members who would not have been far behind each file they were tasked to support.

[@KasumiRINA]

People be like: гusкі army has 2 million orks in it, it's unbeatable!.. in reality 2/3 of that is support goblins.

[@MartijnPennings]

It's all I think about when I see big crowds like armies on screen: where'd they get all the food?!? Not much different from all these massive construction projects nowadays, like in Saudi Arabia or wherever. They plan this massive luxury project where everyone is rich and happy and I'm thinking: so, where the cleaners and cooks gonna live?

[@Keloking]

@@KasumiRINA random rascism very cool I'm pro Ukraine but no need to be rascist to Russians and before you go on a "russian bot spam" I'm polish to nie rób tego po to jest tylko gupie

[@JosephGonzalez-r4d]

@@KasumiRINA Ruski is winning tho LOOOOL

[@BjornStatenguard]

@Keloking it's not racism tho. That's just information and how military numbers on Wikipedia get so big and what they mean in reality.

[@timbrander]

One of things I’m surprised that is rarely mentioned in most historical sources is that the use of formations is about crowd control. Related to this even in the modern world is just how dangerous it is to be in a disorderly crowd. Without some order in a huge crowd where people are not trying to intentionally kill each other people can still perish due to trampling. We can see examples of this in many historical battles and this shows why battle formations were so important and the epitome of this must be the war between Rome and Carthage. Hannibal’s magnus opus the Battle of Cannae 216 BC worked not because the Romans were surrounded, but because the Romans broke formation. In Hannibal’s previous victories in the Battle of Trebia 218 BC and the Battle of Lake Trasimene 217 BC, Roman forces managed to break through his lines causing huge casualties. The Romans were able to do this because their army was much more uniformed and coherent while Hannibal’s army were much closer to a ragtag coalition that were always going to have some difficulty working together effectively. Hannibal correctly observed in both his victories and before the Battle of Cannae that the Roman’s superior cohesion would destroy him with a bigger version of what had worked in previous battles against him. The bending back of the crescent formation Hannibal used at Cannae robbed the Romans of their cohesion and they turned into a disorganised mob crammed into a tight crowd that were easily picked off by the Libyan pikemen and the Carthaginian heavy cavalry. The soldiers in the crescent and better formation only had to hold them there and it turned into a classic hammer and anvil scenario.

[@KasumiRINA]

True, people spend too much time arguing whether longbows would pierce armor of French knights and too little realizing that Agincourt was basically a giant Black Friday.

[@Raphael4722]

Cool story bro.

[@seanmurphy7011]

I'd like to see a "cinematographer reacts to historian" video...

[@-_Nuke_-]

Cinematographer: "Yeah we tried that but unless you have a camera panning for a dozen minutes or hours to cover literal kilometers, most of the soldiers will never show on screen. So we instead placed them all beside each other"😂

[@masneri97]

Ridley Scott would definitely be funny to watch doing that ahahahah

[@-----REDACTED-----]

“Don’t care, I do what I think looks cool and there will be enough idiots happily gobbling up whatever slop I barely manage to cobble together”

[@LawL_LawL]

@@-_Nuke_- Not necessarily required, Alexander (2004) managed to depict both the scale of the battle lines and also make a reasonably engaging battle sequence that has since been lauded for its attempt at recreating history with authenticity. Nobody said "Wow the lines are so wide, I wish they were all squished together!"

[@NihongoWakannai]

@@-_Nuke_- all you have to do is turn the camera 90 degrees and show the width instead of the depth

[@Robert399]

I'd say the biggest inaccuracies that persist are: 1) that "battlefields" exist, as in these huge open fields (almost steppes) for armies to fight on. Those didn't exist: battles happened on and around farms, vineyards, villages, roads, hills, gullies, etc. EDIT: This is getting *really* repetitive. Yes, grassland exists, flat ground exists, some land wasn't used for anything (though less than you'd think) and armies tried to pick their ground when they could. That doesn't change the fact that there's a VAST library of movies and games that wrongly depict battles happening on giant soccer fields/parade grounds. Our default image of a battlefield should not be the default. 2) The idea that generals could control armies like a Total War player. Generals can't do that today, let alone in pre-radio times. (Gamers especially) often think of complex back-and-forth manoeuvres, like a chess match, but no one could observe and react like that on a battlefield. Battles were won and lost with a plan and maybe a couple of manoeuvres to press an advantage or shore up a weakness. (In the past I would've put the lack of frontlines at number 1 but this seems to be slowly improving.)

[@TheKiltedGerman]

Hehe, I was initially disappointed when I first got to Sekigahara thinking, "darn, they built a bunch of rice paddies on this cool battlefield." Fortunately, didn't take me long to realize I was an idiot.

[@4SeasonProducer]

This is the reason why I generally didn't like games that focus on micromanagement to win. Games that rely on strategic planning were good for me.

[@CZProtton]

About 1), that is true for smaller skirmishes and for medieval period and latter, but during the classical era especially and especially for greek and macedon armies, that is actually false. Phallanx is so bad at going over terrain even as easy as just shrubs and trees, it will break. So ancient greek battlefields actually were just clear fields. Otherwise, the Phallanx would not work. Macedonians, utilizing the phallanx still, had the same problem. It was one of the points of why Rome dominated so hard, because their three line formation with large gaps was very good at moving through bad terrain, up and down hills, dodging trees and shrubs etc, but also staying in close rank with good order.

[@MartijnVos]

@@CZProtton The same is true for early modern pike formations. More mobile than a phalanx perhaps, but tight formation is still essential. Some battles absolutely did take place on open fields, because that's where the generals have the space to maneuver and use their armies the way they want and trained for. But of course it depends on the armies; if one army benefits from an open field, the other probably benefits from a more closed environment.

[@MartijnVos]

The importance of communication and organization is too often ignored. We often focus on weapons and training, but the reason the Romans, Mongols and Napoleon were so effective is that they could perform large, complex maneuvers and perform them reliably in a way few of their contemporaries could.

[@martijnvanderzee5215]

Fun fact about the warcry of a Celtic army: Caesar reported that at the battle of the Sabis in Northern gaul, the Nervii had this sort of battle song. It would start with a sort of chant/humming that would grow louder and louder, until they eventually charged again. Then, when eventually warriors needed to catch their breath it would wind down. Until you would hear the humming/chanting start again, which would inevitably lead to another charge. The psychological effect of this was tremendous, because the humming created fear since a charge would be inevitable. This story also fits perfectly with the dynamic standoff theory, which you briefly mention in this video!

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

It’s called the “barritus” and was reported in use by most barbarians, not just the Celts. Not really a humming - it’s fully vocalised. The resonant quality only comes through when there are hundreds, even thousands, chanting in unison. If you’ve seen the warriors chanting in Zulu (1964) you’ll understand.

[@TheManFromWaco]

One type of I don't think I've even seen in media is the "encounter battle"- where two armies meet unexpectedly and the engagement develops quickly and chaotically. Famous examples include everything from Cynoscephalae in 197 BC to the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. I suppose this is because encounter battles are much tougher to "fit" int the story emotionally (it's easier to build character arcs and story stakes when you have time to discuss how both sides know the decisive clash will take place upon The Inexplicably Empty Fields of Genericus) but the idea of forcing the characters to make split-second decisions with extremely limited information seems like it should be ripe for storytelling opportunities.

[@danielmanogillasheras9955]

The funniest part is that somehow the armies will merge in one massive blob where everybody got a partner to fight with for 20 minutes xD

[@AUTO6]

True, I hate it

[@MartijnPennings]

Luckily, usually one army wears all red and the other all blue, so it's easy to see who you have to kill.

[@naturalbornpatriot6369]

A really cool thing to note about warchants with the tribal aristocracies warfare, before Alexander the Great went into the Achaemenid Empire, he and his army were ambushed in a very bad place, one of his biggest blunders that’s often overlooked. The battle was not even a battle. The tribals had the advantage of surprise and terrain on a slope whilst the phalangites were caught between the slopes and a river. They did their warchants and chest beating so to speak, and the Macedonians were collected and disciplined. Alexander ordered his army to drill. Literally. So they were raising and dropping their sarrisa pikes and marching and maneuvering as they did in drill exercise, and the tribals ran away. That’s right, he won a battle without fighting, but by his force doing their drills. Turned an ambush into a drill exercise and won.

[@DimKanGr]

wow

[@cheesehands3112]

That was his father's army. His father trained the army to do that. Alexander was just copying his father. If you really think about it, it makes no sense that Alexander was at all responsible for just how well-trained, well-equipped and well-ordered the Macedonian army was, since he only had control of it for less than a year. Meanwhile, his father built that army up for 30+ years to be the greatest war-machine in the ancient world.

[@naturalbornpatriot6369]

@@cheesehands3112 It was his army. He inherited it, and the debt that came along with the inheritance. Alexander was broke before he went to Asia Minor. He had to start sacking and plundering or he’d lose his army. Phillip was not responding for the incident I noted above. He was already dead.

[@JohnYoo39]

That's amazing. They made the enemy run from sheer discipline 😂

[@liamjm9278]

@@cheesehands3112 An army is a tool. Tools are useless in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use them. A less competent general may try to fight instead of intimidating them, and get massacred; a thing that has happened many times in history.

[@Stormoak]

The reason for this Hollywood Style to depict large battles is that a massive deep formation looks more Impressive and is easier to shot by one camera angle

[@jonathanlohaller758]

i would say a wide line looks more impressive, but maybe that's because of all the losses I take when getting flanked in war games.

[@lampad4549]

​@@jonathanlohaller758nah it only looks more impressive cause of audiences like the wear the aesthetic of authenticity, it makes them feel more intellectual and talk down on hollywood

[@rabbijacoobbenjaminisraelb7095]

@@lampad4549 But that's tthe thing though, if it's a historical movie it should depict it how it was. Often times that is a lot more impressive and interesting than to see ever reoccuring tropes

[@SeanCSHConsulting]

@@rabbijacoobbenjaminisraelb7095 naw you're being very selective with your blinders - why not pick on other things? weather? sound and language? behaviour? smh

[@rabbijacoobbenjaminisraelb7095]

@@SeanCSHConsulting the aesthetics should be historically accurate. people are missing so many interesting things in the ever occuring hollywood stereotypes. Example being: Biker leather jacket vikings, compared to, norsemen with woven tunics, actual norse aesthetics etc. or medieval battlefields where also things like floral ornamented scabbards (which are what gothic art looks like) compared to simple brown or black leather sheaths. That grey in grey aesthetic is uninteresting. The past was a lot more colorful and creative and that should be depicted.

[@Ultraelectromagnetic]

Some of the favorite historical battles depicted in film in my opinion are Gettysburg (1993), Sekigahara (2017), and Waterloo (1970), because they make an effort to depict the battlefield as a real place/setting with their actual varied terrain and important points to fight over, and they show you how the generals and armies try to adapt to that battlefield. Gettysburg and Waterloo give you a very good sense of how the armies are deployed, where the heaviest fighting is happening, and why it's happening there. Sekigahara on the other hand shows the battle shifting from place to place: fields, hills, woodlands, while also depicting how difficult it was for commanders to see how the entire battle is going and the challenges of communicating with the different units in their army. Gettysburg and Sekigahara also show what happens in the armies' camps behind the frontline too - the headquarters, logistics, medics/wound-treatment - which I loved bec. armies weren't just all fighting men that formed a battle line (Sekigahara even shows battlefield looters as well, taking valuables from dead and wounded left on the battlefield). Gettysburg does deployment and formations the best out of the three, since Sekigahara and Waterloo both have moments where they kinda fall into the trope of having disorganized masses of men advance toward each other.

[@legionarybooks13]

All great points. My one issue with Gettysburg, which got so many things right, was casting reenactors as all the extras, given they were mostly "old" men in their forties and fifties, with many being overweight. Your average combat soldier across history has averaged around twenty-two-years old, with a plurality still in their late teens. Waterloo (one of my favourite movies of all-time) cast actual soldiers as extras, hence why most of the rank-and-file look much younger.

[@noreply-7069]

​@@legionarybooks13 I can forgive them that since they used reenactors which is an understandable choice. They get to do what they enjoy and works out logistically.

[@alancoe1002]

​@@noreply-7069as extras in Gettysburg, we were well fed and got to be in a movie based on The Killer Angel's, which we all had read. That was our payday.

[@noreply-7069]

@@alancoe1002 Sounds cool! I would enjoy that experience as well.

[@UltramanII]

idk about Western armies, but I read a few ancient Chinese military books, and then I realized every single Chinese TV shows and movies about ancient warfare are wrong, too. The biggest issue is the usage of flags. In shows and movies, the battle flags have the general's surname or dynasty name written on it, and they serve no actual use in battle, it's pointless to make so many soldiers carry it. But according to the ancient military books I read, actual Chinese armies of old use five colors of flags to designate the formations in front, end, left, right, center. When in battle, if the general wants to move a formation of a certain direction, he tell a guy to wave the flag of corresponding color to give signals from afar, and then that formation commander receive the signal and make movements accordingly. Flags have an actual use of conveying orders in battle. Because the general's order cannot be heard from a distance, that's why battle flags were invented in the first place.

[@stephenmudiecastles.2938]

Hollywood loves boss fights, two bosses who could be mixed in with thousands of other soldiers somehow find each other to just stand and chat for a few minutes before fighting.

[@WritingFighter]

16:30 - Depth also helps protect you from missile weapons if you've got polearms, especially long spears and pikes. Having a forest of sturdy, wooden shafts angled outward disrupts the volley of pelting stones and arrows. Depth is also good for keeping more lengthy polearms forward in concentration and (in theory) allows men to rotate out. I know there's some debate about that but it makes too much sense to me. After 3-6 minutes of fighting a healthy human is simply going to start getting exhausted and extremely fatigued. You can see this in a lot of professional sports, you can only press on for so long. If you're only 4-5 ranks deep, everyone is committed simultaneously and if you start taking casualties, it's very difficult to fall back, regroup, even an orderly retreat. [Some] depth also allows troops from the rear to plug holes, readjust, and reinforce the front without calling in an entirely whole new unit of reserves which would get chaotic. . Still, obviously not the same as a mobbed mass of bodies in a clumped mess.

[@sassuskrassus3166]

honestly using unreal or other 3d programms is such a cool way to show stuff like that especially with the 3. person view its so much easier to understand what actually happens for soldiers itself because usually you see battlefield only from a map

[@thisguyaintfunny1881]

Invicta x Dr. Roel Konijnendijk?? Hell yeah!

[@MaxHohenstaufen]

He's worked with them for some time, or so I read in another video.

[@sitrilko]

FWIW - I once played on a Bannerlord server where each soldier was an actual player. Top we got was ~ 110v110. We also had a few rules in place to make things more tame and true to IRL. It was quite enlightning on how the dynamics of troops work. Your description of how files work vividly reminds me of those times.

[@AyeYoBoxingWithMadiba]

@@sitrilko can you elaborate on this massive pvp?

[@hodor8388]

There were already battles with more than 600 players in Bannerlord

[@blazinchalice]

This is fascinating! Great job. It's important that we have a clear understanding of the reality of ancient history. Little by little we are able to peel back the layers of time to get closer to a more realistic depiction of ancient history.

[@LeonidasSparta-Fun-History]

Fabulous job guys! Always great to see these visualizations and Roel! Always love to see it when you manage to get our footage in too, just feels so cool 😎

[@stayhungry1503]

What is never, ever shown is the switch system. And what that means is that lets say a guy at the very front (the ones that were actually fighting) got hurt or exhausted, he needed to be pulled out of the line and replaced by someone behind him, to literally "hold the line". I believe it is when this "switch" system began to fail that units routed (well one of the reasons, also from being surrounded, leaders being killed, lost banners etc). One noteable thing is that in later battles during the 18th and 19th century, despite much more deadly weapons and less possibility for protection, routing was actually quite unusual. Because by this time the quality of the training and especially discipline was so much higher.

[@wolf2965]

HBO's Rome did show a switch system and the importance of staying in formation in a close-rank fight in the very first episode, but that is the only example I can think of.

[@NatrajChaturvedi]

Exactly. Very surprised he didnt cover that aspect in the video when the discussion is about formation depth, troop morale etc. As you said, yhe man at the front will get exhausted or at least slightly injured over time. So he has to be replaced by a fresher man behind him. Then the guy behind him and so on. In all the battles I have seen on film, HBO's Rome did show it in at least the very first battle in Episode 1. You see the centurian blow a whistle to signal the time to do a switch.

[@nbrothEon]

Of course 'discipline' also meant that you wer shit by your own people if you retreated -> WW I

[@stayhungry1503]

@@wolf2965 oh cool, i need to watch that show.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

Historians don’t actually know how you switch out troops from hand to hand combat. The details are nowhere mentioned in the sources. It certainly happened with the Romans, but they were extraordinarily well trained.

[@thegermaniccoenus2525]

This is what I've studied in the this year as well. I came into the realization, especially after studying Arrian's description of Gaugamela, there were some mistakes in the Oliver Stone's Gaugamela battle scene. When it came to the deployment of the phalanxes against enemy infantry, the movie also doesn't show the battalions being deployed in a *double-phalanx*. A double-phalanx is a formation that increases the depth of the phalanx by combining and reinforcing one Macedonian syntagma with another syntagma together from the rear. When a phalanx forms a *synaspismos* or locked-shields, the depth of the formation decreases from 16 ranks to 8 ranks, but it increases from 16 columns to 32 columns. In a double-phalanx, the columns of hoplites not only retain 32 columns but also increase their ranks to 16. Hence, what we should have seen in most of the battalions in Gaugamela is a front line of six rectangular blocks of three *pentakosiarchies* (that is a unit of 512 hoplites). This was done as by increasing the depth of mass, it would increase the weight and strength of the forward impetus of a sarissa phalanx, making it more impossible to oppose and defeat in the front.

[@Fresh562]

My headcanon: - Initially you have fighters in the front fencing, prodding, etc. Here, whichever side has higher range has the advantage. I think this is why the phalanx was so effective at its time: It's very convenient for the fighter's individual psychology as they remain at range to their enemies and don't voluntarily put themselves in danger. It doesn't require great individual skill or cohesion. A phalanx would ideally try to remain in this state for the entire battle. - I don't believe these formations should be thought of as super static. Even if you're just prodding with a spear, this becomes very exhausting after a few minutes. You might also just get injured. I imagine frontline fighters attempting to disengage after a while and move to the back of the formation while someone else takes their place. There is I think some evidence for Romans even doing this in a systematic way with entire small units, which of course requires an entirely different level of coordination. - Range disadvantage isn't that big of an issue as soon as you have large enough shields and strong enough discipline to commit to one concerted charge. The unit only needs to get past the speartips ONCE to gain an advantage, but it does take a lot of courage. This is why I would give trained Roman Legionnaires the advantage over a Greek phalanx militia: They are trained enough to go for that charge and then outfight them in hand-to-hand-combat. - While a charge will initially be repelled most effectively by holding formation, as soon as the state of hand-to-hand-combat is reached, units have an incentive to loosen their formation to give individuals space to fight properly, and achieve small-scale numbers advantages. By this I don't mean the formation breaking completely (although that may of course happen), but just loosening it. That may however not always be possible for countless reasons (like terrain). - I don't think pushing was an intentional strategy, it probably occurred involuntarily/circumstantially as soon as a fight had reached hand-to-hand-combat, and probably often for bad reasons rather than for good reasons. There is no way you are fighting an opponent in the front line and appreciate random idiots behind you pushing you into them. You want to push forward when YOU want and move back when YOU want.

[@catocall7323]

The whole pushing thing sounds to me like a misunderstanding coming from scholars that have no concept of fighting. "Pushing" to this day is still in use to mean advance or attack, it doesn't mean literally pushing as a main tactic

[@baronvonbrunn8596]

This actually reminds me of the couple larp battles I've been to. As you say, we kept distance, sometimes having to lunge forward to land a hit, and we also had to let the "dead" walk back through, which wasn't as hard as I thought it would be, as long as our leader kept an eye on it. (For context: battles mostly 10v10 or 30v30, most with shields and padded weapons or bows, each has 2-4 lifes + respawn point. Fighting for areas, flags, quest items, anything the organisators came up with. It's like reanactment turned into a game.) I didn't notice our formation loosening though. If anything, we could momentarily bunch up, but spacing in which one could fight was our default. Then there are things I can't really comment on, like pushing or collisions. We avoided that for safety reasons. Like you, I assume it happened irl but only if necessary (e.g. pushing through a chokepoint) or when hyped up. I also don't really know how things would play out with a larger and deeper formation. And off course I have no experience with how blood, screams of the dying, real chance of getting killed or going through several near-death experiences during a single day affects a soldier.

[@linming5610]

@@Fresh562 i imagined pushing happens as the losing side gets exhausted or timid begun falling back within the safety of their formation. In a normal engagement, there might be 1 or 2 guys doing that in a unit of 60-100 to rest their nerves for a while. Imagine more people doing that. They will practically fall back as they try to maintain cohesion.

[@iapetusmccool]

​@catocall7323 This confusion about what the terms actually mean reminds me of a Voices from the Past video I was watching recently, about early Japanese encounters with the Portuguese. The Portuguese were teaching a Japanese noble to shoot a musket, and included the instruction to "rectify your heart". (This is the English translation of a Japanese account of an instruction translated from Portuguese probably through Chinese to Japanese). The noble was confused, interpreting this to mean something like "you must be of good character". I (and a couple of other commenters) thought that maybe they meant "calm your heart rate", because this is something that can affect your aim. (At least it can with precision rifle shooting - I don't know how relevant it is for muskets). Then an actual Portuguese explained that it just meant "don't flinch".

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

It’s not just about “pushing”. When a huge pike phalanx advances, 16 or 8-men deep, it looks like monstrous unstoppable juggernaut heading your way. It’s fear that destroys most opponents, not the spear tip.

[@belegthoron8603]

Ditch guy= instant click

[@Lame_Duck]

@@belegthoron8603 Same here 😅

[@stayhungry1503]

show me the great historical battles where there is historical evidence of ditch digging to any major degree. i can only think of a few at the top of my head. for example battle of the golden spurs, but even then they did not have a decisive effect on the battle.

[@DrRoelKonijnendijk]

@@stayhungry1503 Ditches and earthworks are more common in siege warfare, but there are plenty of examples of ditches used in pitched battles, from the semi-legendary Battle of the Trench to the battle of the Long Walls of Corinth, the battle of Mantineia (207 BC), the battle of Dara, the battle of Loudoun Hill, and so on

[@b.elzebub9252]

@@stayhungry1503 Open battles not so much. But they were very common in sieges. Watch the original videos where Dr. Roel Konijnendijk explains this.

[@Altrantis]

Chile!

[@ultrasuperkiller]

Would love to see the true size of Napoleons artillery & cavalry army. Especially see how they moved such heavy cannons and its heavy ammo, how it was relocated during battle and so on

[@awesomehpt8938]

Me: how many ditches should someone have? Ditch guy: Yes!

[@b.elzebub9252]

I'm so happy Dr. Roel 'Ditchdoctor' Konijnendijk decided to do more of these videos. He's genuinely such a fun and charismatic guy.

[@phunkracy]

About disciplinarians: as a boy scout we marched in columns and deployed in formations, we found it organically that a rear disciplinarian is a must to keep the column cohesive plus a designated guy that would run from front to back of the column to relay commands. The columns would also be headed by seniors who would dictate the pace and stop at the designated field where we would deploy for assembly before setting up a camp, they would direct the units left and right for their designated spots. So yeah, we pretty much trained military deployment in a timeless manner which Im sure was inherited from military, as most boy scout traditions were worldwide. I'm sure many of fellow watchers have had similiar experiences in their boy scouts!

[@hoi-polloi1863]

Roman Centurion: Alert, boys, ALERT! We got Webelos at the gates!

[@anaussie213]

Yep, the rear guards to keep the column in formation.

[@hereandnow3156]

This was a really cool look into ancient armies. It helped me visualize the psychology of a soldier marching into battle and standing as they wait just a little bit better.

[@черепахаестклубничку]

I would love to see a video with thist type of visual representation about logistics of marching columns. If we take 10 thousand soldiers, marching 4 people in a row, it would be line about 1,5 km. And this is without supply wagons, pack animals and so on. Always kinda fascinated me how much distance this huge columns should've covered

[@alpotenciano4437]

The part where the historian mentions depth I feel hits hard. I was playing Pharaoh Total War recently and it made me realize that unit size, especially for cavalry and chariots just gets in the way and makes the units in general feel unwieldly when moving around.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

12:50 Spartans: WHY THE FUCK is there a Roman from 500 years in the future leading us? And why we all have this rod in our asses?

[@hoi-polloi1863]

To the first part... that was just, er ... science fiction, yeah. To the second part... well. This *is* Classical Greece. Just lie back and think of Delphi.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

@@hoi-polloi1863 Maybe the 2nd part is also sci fi... Vlad the Impaler went 2000 years back in time.

[@KatonRyu]

Yeah, what are we, Athenians?!

[@kahunab7400]

@@KatonRyu the Spartans were even more wild in that regard, iirc

[@nvmtt]

Basically total war medieval 2 vs total war warhammer. in medieval 2, doesnt matter how deep your ranks are, you get hit in the flanks, you lose half the unit. Meanwhile warhammer be like: lmao, what is a flank?

[@charvakpatel962]

In Medieval 2, you demoralize your enemy to win. In Warhammer, you got to kill them.

[@TheArchaos]

No, not even remotely. Units with high attack or high charge stats are absolutely deadly in a flanking attack or charges, respectively.

[@ColonelSandersLite]

@@charvakpatel962 As the total war series went on, the way things like unit cohesion works and the importance of flanks and such got slowly looser and looser. If you can make them work, it's really interesting to look at shogun 1 and medieval 1. They're much more oriented towards *trying* to be realistic simulations. What's really ironic though, is that if you dive into those old game files, the mechanics are very strongly based on an old edition of the warhammer fantasy battle tabletop system.

[@shimazutakuma1031]

Rome total war 1 and Medieval 2 total war have the most satisfying flank and rear-side charges... reason why i still play these games from time to time to get my mind off of work... 😅

[@AzekZero]

I really wanted to like TW Warhammer, but its got too many issues weighing it down.

[@wolf2965]

11:05 I see a Roman column moving through a forest, a northern forest at that, notably missing any screening forces - and I do have to worry if Publius Quinctilius Varus isn't the one in command. It would be good to demonstrate that the main force on the move is not the total movement of the troops.

[@sassuskrassus3166]

Guys! the Ditch Man is back 🗣

[@OneOnOne1162]

18:20 - I've always been confused as to where the confusion comes from with the "pushing" thing. I've always interpreted the "pushing" as being mostly symbollic where you try to "push" the enemies away in the sense that you attempt to drive them from the battlefield by poking your spears at them. If you're a soldier and you see these spears coming at you, you're going to instinctively want to run away. So in that sense they push you off. Which is also, I imagine, why the sarissa was so effective. Because instead of just one spear in your face and being able to put your own spear in the enemy's face, you had like 5 spears in your face and you can't even reach the enemy with yours. So you're gonna want to flee a lot more.

[@robertthomas4163]

My house has a flood irrigation system, in other words….. I have a ditch with water in it around my house. The ditch man would be proud!!!!!!

[@PaladinDansesGirlfriend]

I hope Ditch man sees this!

[@DraconimLt]

I believe that is called a 'moat'...😆

[@SJK-ROW-K]

The visuals you have created prove that armies in formations can look visually epic as apposed to the cliche Hollywood hordes we get in movies.

[@VitorHugoOliveiraSousa]

They probably started this as a limitation, before CGI they had to use extras and at best try to compose more unitys in-frame and even after CGI they probably like to use some extras as reference, at least in the early days of CGI. And without drones the cheaper they could get a aerial shot was in a crane, with a crane would be hard to get a angle that do justice for a huge line, a deep shoot show the scale of the army better. Once the pattern was established in the public consciousness even if modern CGI and drone tech allows the line, directors will be less inclined to deliver something that goes against what the public expect.

[@VitorHugoOliveiraSousa]

It's similar to how is very hard to break down the irrealistic cliches of TV sci-fi/space battles.

[@SJK-ROW-K]

@@VitorHugoOliveiraSousa yes totally agree but now they have cgi, drones and all the tools at hand there’s no excuses for unrealistic period battles so really hope to see the reality and creativity coming to TV and movies soon 🙏🏻🙌🏼

[@SJK-ROW-K]

@@VitorHugoOliveiraSousa I still haven’t watched Ridley Scott’s Napoleon so I’m curious to know if, with all the tools at hand he showed formations in the battle scenes.

[@TheKiltedGerman]

@@VitorHugoOliveiraSousa Go watch Spartacus, the old one. Final battle shows the entire Roman army forming into line in frame, all extras. It was possible even then. Hollywood just doens't want to fork out the resources for it. Movies like that are a rarity.

[@b.a.sbadassugar5007]

I loved the use of unreal engine to show us from a human perspective, i hope to see more! But now im curious, you showed gaps between the different legions, not in the depth but width, would that be done in antiquity also?

[@RZ-ey9jk]

"What have you done today, soldier?" is the wrong question. It rather shall be: "how many ditches have you dug today?"

[@inadisguise9824]

Think the main reason is that the movies go for depth formations over length is that it harder to film a long line formations, and depth formations can get in one shot and looks kewl.

[@ariavachier-lagravech.6910]

Alright I can definitely see how it's going with Ancient Greeks context. Especially with depth and width stuffs. I am juat wondering whether it works the same way with Ancient Chinese battles

[@linming5610]

Should be the same but ancient chinese battles were already in levels of early modern european battles early on. As far as I read, their battles have lots of maneuvers than engagements. With that, I think they care less on the width and depth and more on the numbers of their troops, positioning, and logistics. As their territories and populations are bigger, they may have larger armies but they still have wider land to protect. They rarely concentrate their entire armies to engage in a single field battle. They fought in brigades or similar formations so it's pretty common to see the chinese fought battles in one location for days, months, or even a year before the outcome gets decided.

[@syjiang]

The honest answer is that we don't have a very clear idea. The writings that scholars left are a bit sparse on the specifics of unit tactics and focused a lot more on the operational/strategic level maneuvers. But there are things we can glean from some of the writing as well as artwork depiction, especially the Terracotta army pits. IMO, there was a long transition period between mid-Han to Jin dynasty when the military emphasis began to shift from infantry to cavalry. Frequent contact and constant warfare with nomads drove the development of the cavalry arm during the Han period. After the fall of the Jin and entering the Sixteen Kingdoms period, Northern China was ruled and fought over by Sinicized barbarian elites that built their military formation around nomadic cavalry core. This influence was subsequently reinforced with the later conquests under the Mongol and Manchus. That being said, Chinese infantry retained an important and complementary role in garrisoning and sieges. The Terracotta army was a depiction of forces under the QIn and represents pre-Han era. What we see is primarily a infantry formation in a combined arms format. A pretty large contingent of archers was deployed in the front rank in linear fashion. Behind them are multiple regiments of heavy infantry arranged into distinct deep columns. The two flanks of the column had solders turned 90 degrees to face their respective flanks. Chariots are interspersed or behind the infantry. The formation is definitely distinct as I have not seen such a depth depicted as battle formation. It may be a marching column but the deployed archers in the front and the side facing flank guards argue against it. So it is possible they employed a very deep formation to bolster the morale of conscripted soldiery. By the Han era, the infantry depth appears to have shrunk to 5-10 men deep. There are tomb figurine depiction of a infantry regiment 6 rows deep with the front 3 rows shield bearer and the rear 3 rows archer? (bit unclear as the weapon was missing). I have seen mentions that each squad is a combined arms unit consisting of shield-bearers, polearm and archer. Sharing similar idea with late Byzantine infantry formations. Cavalry is positioned behind the infantry unit.

[@kameraldbahrul3432]

​@@syjiangso basically pitched battles in china became rare by the time late spring and autumn period to warring stres because mass conscription and standardized weapon? So its more became campaign or series skirmish, pitched battles, and ambush?

[@kameraldbahrul3432]

According ralph sawyer, the reason pitched battles become prevalent in europe and middle East is because lack of mass conscription, standardized weapon, and centralized bureucracy which influenced by geography and culture, this battle emphasize set planned battle where sometimes both armies meet in place where both sides think its the best place to maximize its advantage While in china especially during western zhou and early spring and autumn period pitched battle still prevalent withb addition weird ethic and law until late spring and autumn period and warring stres coming because war happen in every place forcing regional ruler to creative in making and expand its army for offensive and defensive and thus pitched battles become rare and ended in grand campaign or multiple battle and skirmish in border area

[@roychen5235]

​@kameraldbahrul3432 when you look at Wikipedia about some of these chinese battles with massive armies and casualties. One thing you'll notice is that unlike pitched battles they're actually more like campaigns with fighting taking over weeks or even months. This is more in line with early modern or even modern European battles. Units would be rotating and engaging the enemy at different points at different times. There was a lot more on maneuver and strategic positioning. It's not literally 10s or 100s of thousands of Chinese in a giant mosh pit.

[@jonwacken4312]

Would love to hear more about mortality rates of various units, and maybe a glimpse into their lives off the battlefield if such a thing were possible to some degree of accuracy

[@Cdre_Satori]

Its funny that the great swedish invention in 17th century was just wider line of gunners :D century later, French create deep attack regiments to survive volleys and engage in melee while brits form thin red line, wider formations to get more dudes firing on the enemy (and appear more numerous than they really were) and hillariously thats also the best tactic in most total war games where flanking beats staying power.

[@raggarex]

I did like the opening battle scene in Gladiator. It seemed to depict something much more resembling reality, including the difficulty keeping the units lined up in difficult terrain. Except for the fire arrows. And the idea of lighting the forest you're fighting in on fire.

[@DraconimLt]

In the case of that Kingdom of Heaven scene, I just want to point out that they were not arraying for Battle. Saladin's force arrived with the intent of besieging or demanding the surrender of Kerak, thus was formed for march and then widened the front for the intimidation factor, Jerusalem's force therefore arrived with the intention of intimidating them in turn. If you look carefully you can see the Crusaders at least are marching in parallel collumns about a dozen wide, with a bit of a gap between each. And indeed, they parlayed and there was no battle. And Napoleon's French Armies specifically went for Columns instead of lines... As someone else said, that 'darting out of the ranks, spear fencing and darting back into line' thing is a way to get killed without the protection of the group, and leaves a gap in the line that can be used to pry into it and split your army. Bad idea, in short. Ironic that 'Triarii' meant the 'third line', but with the inclusion of the skirmishers at the front they were technically the fourth line.

[@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968]

skirmishers are not technically part of the battle line they screen the main body as it sets up and harass the opposing army then they retreat before the battle proper takes place and guard the flanks or the camp as needed

[@DraconimLt]

@@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968 Oh I know, that's why I said 'technically', because while the Triarii are the third line of battle, they are still the fourth 'force' to engage.

[@cedricgist7614]

Thanks! Well done!

[@pyrrhus6264]

If you subscribe to the “pulse” theory of combat (which I think makes the most sense) then depth provides another advantage: as men up front get tired (which would happen very quickly), wounded, or killed you have more replacements in the formation to take their place to maintain cohesion and fight in the next pulse. Psychologically those men further back in the deeper formation would have been under less proxie stress from seeing the fighting, giving you fresher men to keep cycling through the fighting if necessary.

[@ashleyrodd8729]

That many people pushing would likely lead to a crush as their own men get suffocated so I'm highly sceptical... and even then, the people within the push would be absorbing it a lot themselves, it's not 1+1+1+1+1=5.

[@Chris-mf1rm]

@@ashleyrodd8729 indeed. There’s also the risk of the front rankers tripping and causing a crush, and the more pushing from behind the greater the risk it f death from crush. Sadly there have been several instances of crowd crushes in recent decades at, eg sports stadia.

[@lafoonxiii5311]

1:08... initially I thought he was listing off various documentaries and I was like "What...those don't sound like history docs/podcasts...".

[@4thdimensionalexplorer]

When I see those massive armies like that all together I always wunder who was saposed to have fed all those men and horses. Were looking at whole city populations needing a meal on either side. If an army was that big the supply lines would be intense. Now I want to know how big the biggest fighting force in history was and more so I want to know the logistics that fuelled the campaign. Supply chains are fascinating to me and rarely given the spotlight. Thanks for such an interesting video.

[@piaten]

I think you got paritally the wrong idea. Yes, they would probably have some sort of a supply chain, but until modern times, living off the land, seems to have been the norm, meaning, demand, extort, plunder and/or scavenge whatever you need.

[@JustDan718]

you should check up on how steppe nomads would travel with their massive horde armies, the baggage trains following would be much larger than the fighting forces.

[@wallabapi]

@@piaten Living off the land would definitely exhaust a region's supply. They def have a supply chain going on if they're going to feed 100,000 soldiers.

[@richardstephens5570]

Every army had a baggage train. They would also forage when possible.

[@roychen5235]

@4thdimensionalexplorer in friendly territory baggage trains didn't have to get very far because of nearby forts, castles and friendly rulers. In enemy territory you had to capture those. Fortifications like castles were heavily defended storehouses.

[@mszalans4817]

To imagine large army I always use one real life experience that I was in. I witnessed a very big reenactment event (600 anniversary of battle of Grunwald), where vast majority of observers were standing on one side of one hill. I stood under this hill, so I could see them all. Then the speaker said that there are about 100000 tourists observing the battle right now. So, I assume that there was something between 75000 and 100000 of people there in one place. So, I have a "print screen" image of this always in my brain. And every time someone speaks about army numbers, I imagine that and for example cut it in half (when they talk about 40000-50000 soldiers). And so on. It's also not that hard to imagine how these soldiers marched into battle in narrow column(s), or formed a long thin battleline. Because I also seen people on their way onto such events, squeezed into tight passages limited by roads, vegetation, fences and so on.

[@koookeee]

As for the psychological effect: (many) years ago when I first read Keegan I was astonished about the observation that formations break at the rear. Simply the men in the front ranks cannot just turn (there is someone directly behind them obstructing their way) and run (and besides, are much more likely to be simply stabbed in the back). So it makes perfect sense that deep formations are for the benefit of those in the back, not the front.

[@4thdimensionalexplorer]

My family has some journals from the Civil War. I guess we had family on both sides of the war running intelligence. One worked with the culper ring and mostly were a glorified courier and scout. His notes on the battles made them sound like chaotic and unorganized mixed units comming to head in little pockets with more mobile units trying to get around to either flqnk or directly attack artillery positions. A reply different picture than the organized lines pelting eachother with volley after volley. It's really cool to see some truth to his words and beyond just the American frontier at that

[@hoi-polloi1863]

To be fair, the Civil War was really after the pike-and-shot era, where you did have lines of arquebusiers hammering away at each other for hours. By the 1860s, the guns were getting too good, and it was dangerous to keep massive formations out in the open.

[@mnk9073]

People underestimate the sheer size of a single battle, we see the neat little blocks in red and blue facing eachother but fail to realise that for example the battlefield at Gettybusrg covered an area of 46 square kilometers, that at Austerlitz even stretches over an area of 400 square kilometers. The individual soldier probably saw his own unit and the ones on his left and right as well as 3-4 on the opposing side but he might as well just have clashed with a single unit of the enemy or just sat out the battle entirely because the lines never got close enough to exchange fire.

[@ahall9839]

This video has nothing to do with the Civil War but ok

[@JaefisonSanchez]

This was one of the best videos I seen on the reconstruction of ancient historical armies, ever. It would be nice if you went even further into detail on how different tactical units on a battlefield would affect the outcome of a battle, like how Antigonid Macedonian Hetairoi squadrons were hundreds of men strong, while a Roman cavalry squadron was a Turmae of 30 men. Anyways, great work.

[@mnk9073]

The only movie that got scale and organisation of a battle right is _Waterloo,_ no other has or will ever come close. And even that was "just" 17'000 soviet soldiers and a "mere" 2'000 horses compared to the 150'000 men and 40'000 horses that were actually present that fateful day.

[@mercb3ast]

Gaugamela in Alexander is the best representation of an antiquity/medieval period battle ever.

[@mnk9073]

@@mercb3ast True, _Alexander_ is a great movie. People love to give it crap but it's easily the closest we come so far to a historically accurate pre-gunpowder movie.

[@Ludvigvanamadeus]

​@@mnk9073people give Alexander crap for the plot, dialogue and overall being poorly written - but it is pretty much universally accepted that the battle scenes (especially Gaugamella) were masterpieces.

[@Bartek-to6fr]

Amazing work! Changes my perspective on not just rank depth, but also on command of basic, squad-level groups.

[@John333Scout]

I think it would be a good point to demonstraight how the Roman system wasn't really linearly that deep because they staggered their different ranks. Where here they are all shown in a straight line back but in reality their actual depth was almost half of what was shown because the Principes manipuli weren't right behind the hastati manipuli but to their back left and right so really their depth wasn't even as deep as shown. the gap between Hastati and Triarii was empty.

[@pax6833]

Also good point. "Depth" wasn't just about pushing or morale, but having reserves who can be committed to the battle if the frontline breaks, or could be redeployed to face an attack on the flanks.

[@b-art6098]

Anyone who played Rome TW or Medieval TW knows this, you make your army wide, the center strong and you try to go behind the enemy with cavalry. If any of the flanks is in the trouble you enforce it with the reserves from center or with fast cavalry if they are being overrun.

[@ReadingOcelotl]

Awesome video! Love the unreal simulation, i am learning it in my free time as well and its amazing to see it being used for this :)

[@hoi-polloi1863]

For antiquity-era armies, there were practical limits to the depth of a formation as well. The revolutionary Macedonian sarissa was up to ~23 feet long. Considering you needed space in the file, you can't get more than say 12 guys usefully deploying their spears at once. The Macedonian phalanx was typically 16 guys deep, allowing both for reinforcement and extra "pushing weight".

[@mercb3ast]

This really depends. There were innovative and or novel tactics that were utilized where depth could be extreme. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the Battle of Leuctra. Where the Boeotian League overloaded their left flank with the Sacred Band + the rest of their elite forces, to a depth of 50 ranks. They advanced in oblique order and just smashed the Spartiates. I think this battle is very interesting because I think in many ways it sort of reveals the truth about the concept of a shoving match. Generally speaking, if a person has any understanding of large crowd dynamics, you know that there was no shoving match. It would be suicide for all the men in the front ranks on either side that were crushed and suffocated by the press. However, anyone familiar with the concept of rucking or a scrum in rugby knows what happens when a large group of dudes push together against a smaller group that have no ability to withstand that push. I think that is likely what happened to the elite Spartan Spartiates at Leuctra. The Thebans and the other Boeotians stacked 50 ranks deep running into ~8-12 ranks deep. They just pushed straight through the Spartans. The Spartans didn't have the mass to cause a press which would have prevented it from happening so they got essentially rucked over. Columns of dudes 50 ranks deep, just pushing on each others backs to bowl over the much lighter force they were pushing into. If the Spartans had the depth to match it, it wouldn't have happened because the press would have killed the front ranks on both sides, but the Spartans didn't, so nothing prevented the Thebans from just bowling through them. Once the Spartan lines broke, the battle was over. So there were always novel examples where a very deep formation could be used as a battering ram to just press through an enemy line.

[@pax6833]

The funny thing is that it would be easier/less expensive for hollywood to accurately depict historical formations. Because they'd have to spend less on CGI/extras. Fewer people on screen and more people further away is less expensive. The only exception I can think of his movies that wanted very, very historically accurate battles using actual 10s of thousands of extras (Gettysburg/Waterloo).

[@Kalleosini]

besides flanking I think there is also another point to make between real battles and movies. perspective. if you stack your forces 100 man deep the enemy may think you have much less troops than you do and feel emboldened. but if your formation stretches as far as they can see, they might feel worried. in movies they do these shots where the perspective is much higher than a mans heads. so for the army to have the same psychological effect on the viewer, you'd need deeper formations to cover more of the viewers perspective. but that would be pointless in real life, if the formation you're standing in front of is 10man deep or 100 man deep, you can't tell the difference unless you have the high ground. so a wider formation would have a bigger impact on the enemy mentality.

[@disguy6556]

21:54 I beg your pardon?

[@Dantheman813]

🤣🤣

[@MrDubyadee1]

The sizes of ancient armies are much exaggerated. We know this for a number of reasons. 1) the populations of the warring states; 2) logistics - people eat, sleep, and crap. How is the food gathered and distributed? What about water? It’s very heavy and bulky. So armies of a few thousand were common. Armies of the Middle Ages tended to be smaller than in late ancient times because there were few very large populous states with standing army and military infrastructure. Especially after the plagues hit. A Roman Legion had about 10,000 people - soldiers and support. The entire party on the march was a bit larger. But how many battles involved more than 3 legions or so? Not many. There were only about 30 for the entire empire at peak. An army of 50,000 was about as big as you could provision and control on the march.

[@JoseMartinez-wy8jb]

You did not forget the "war cry". Most important and mentioned in many accounts of ancient and medieval battles. Great explanation and display.

[@user-lv5bt3nt3r]

The greeks had a separation of units that is kind of a proto-roman republic formation, since the main body of greek formations was the classic shield and sarissa hoplite. But just the mere fact of being a greek hoplite identified the warrior as an adult male of some wealth and maturity. Less mature, and less wealthy, fighters were formed into skirmishers, slingers and other auxiliary support bodies. The endeavours of those support units are not well documented for the simple fact that Greek military prestige centred on the hoplites (with the exception, perhaps, of the various ways of fighting listed in the Iliad, which describes a mish mash of different time periods in Greek warfare, much of it pre-hoplite combat). The other thing to note in Greek mass warfare is that the rounded shields meant that men in the front ranks probably had a tendency to tuck their exposed weapon bearing side behind the overlapping shield of the man to their right. Leading to a situation where Greek massed formations of hoplites/phalanxes tended to echelon with the men at the right end of the line leading the approach into combat. This accounts for the tendency in Greek battles for the line of contact to turn counter clockwise, occasionally performing a full 180 degree turn during the fighting, one some occasions that turning of the line had decisive consequences. The later curved shield of the romans eliminated that problem by providing a fighting platform that shielded the entire body from right to left. Its also the case that, in earlier large scale battles, command and control was always a serious problem, especially in Greek hoplite warfare, because the noise of a large scale army, muffled by helmets, would make command in combat impossible (and even if you could issue commands how could they be implemented?). So "command" in Greek battles was often mostly just effective in the pre-contact phase of setting up the army. A Greek leader usually being in the front ranks, once the army was committed to the fight, command and control went out the window (Even Alexander the Great fought in the front ranks of his armies - as his various wounds attested ). Again, while armies commanded by Alexander had rudimentary command and control, it wasnt until the roman period that this issue was seriously addressed. The signal flags of the renaissance italian armies - which are still used today but only for displays - are the best our predecessors could do to address command and control issues, along with various sound methods, which the romans mastered with various trumpets and horns. The Greeks used rudimentary horns and trumpets but not with any particular system like the romans. Without that kind of command and control, breaking a mass army into smaller components could be extremely dangerous. And having long lines created the problem that in the dust of battle neither wing of an army could tell how the other end of the line was faring. It was not uncommon for one end of the line to collapse while the opponent's lines were collapsing at the other end (especially in Greek warfare where the strongest warriors tended to be at the place of honour on the right end of the line.

[@overworlder]

To me the odd thing is audiences would be fascinated by a representation of the real thing.

[@pendantblade6361]

Please Dr Roel just make your own KZbin channel!

[@PaladinDansesGirlfriend]

Right? How has the use of ditches changed over thousands of years? Ditch ranking use in movies and shows, so many possibilities!!

[@Jeep4X]

Each one of those warriors and if they have them horses, requires water, food, shelter, blacksmith, etc. The logistics support would have to be huge compared to those army/warrior formations. An army does march on its stomach after all.

[@richardstephens5570]

They had large baggage trains.

[@JohnDoe-ug3su]

they had forager detachments to "procure" food

[@WritingFighter]

Some years ago I devised a Fantasy unit for one of the more militaristic factions, their typical line troops had 200-man regiments divided into 20 "ranks", with each rank of 10 performing the purpose of a file; every rank led by a sergeant, corporal, a standard bearer, medic, and watch (oversees most of the equipment, designated as a lookout, and first to take a night watch; received grievances of support servants, slaves, or prisoners; support messenger, and fetcher), with an additional man trained to serve as a backup standard bearer and another as a musician. The regiment was overseen by a lieutenant or a captain who would have a musician in their rank. They could march in double columns 5 men each following the sergeant or corporal. In peacetime, only 180 men of the regiment were on duty at a time, as 20 were expected to be on leave or elsewhere. In wartime a similar composition would be assumed to account for sick, injured reserve (wounded expected to recover in a timely fashion), MIA, or KIA, those guarding the baggage trains or supply runs... having an extra literal two ranks was considered a bonus especially as war dragged on. Typically they would deploy in 20 ranks deep at most with each rank of men readjusting and reforming as needed (this is a very skilled force that knew how to react to multiple tunes and reshape several formation types with each officer knowing how much autonomy they were allotted for each formation). They generally went 10 to 50 men wide depending on what the terrain allowed and the type of foes they faced (which would be many and unique since it is Fantasy).

[@Drpepperspray1010]

So what happens when the front of the line gets tired? Do they switch with the guy behind them?

[@n0rman908]

As far as I'm aware there are a lot of conflicting theories here. Even just looking at the romans, they definitely did rotate people into and out of the front line to keep people from getting exhausted. But its debated whether they rotated within the unit, IE guy in front goes to the back and everyone else shuffles forward. Or if they rotated entire units, IE the whole 80 ish man unit would step backward and allow a different 80 man unit to take their place. In the writings it shows evidence that they had a method of doing it with entire units but I think the sticking point is people cant figure out how the hell you would pull that off in the middle of a battle with an enemy actively pressuring you. Although it is pretty well supported that the idea is that the first ranks of Hastatii and various skirmishers would do a majority of the fighting and attempt to wear the opposing force down and then the second line aka Principii would be relied upon to step in at some point and actually win the battle. When you think about it this makes sense because the first line were the least experience in the army and knowing you have the all stars behind you ready to takeover probably helped a lot with morale. The third line of Triarii was often kept out of most battles frontline and utilized as the video suggested for more spur of the moment things like forming up to allow a withdrawal instead of a route or serving as a last resort to prevent the line from being flanked. For phalanxes its probably far less likely that people could rotate in and out. The formation is far tighter especially in the case of the pike phalanx, they would have a 12 foot spear outstretched, moving that around while everyone else also has theirs out is probably not likely. It is a different philosophy for sure. It was not the hoplites role in the greek construct to smash the enemy line, their job was to be immovable and eventually other parts of the army would deal the winning blow or the armies would just disengage. That would maybe give them time of low pressure to reorganize and switch people out. On the flipside the roman legionaries job WAS to beat the enemy line into submission. Not to just hold ground and wait for the enemy to disengage but to be the battle winning force. Feel free to correct me anyone if you disagree, just going from what I have read personally, i know theres a lot of disagreement here.

[@nobbytang]

Keeping your battle line in tack with no breakthroughs was the most important feature of 95% of medieval and antiquity warfare ….outflanking or breakthroughs spelt a Rout and that meant disaster….movies especially BBC depiction of battles result in thousands of one on one melee which didn’t happen….and rarely did the commanding general take part himself …oh yeah it happened to sure up a potential weakness but that’s it ..

[@bananabonzai]

Would love to see this type of content for the Mongol Horde or Napoleonic line warfare

[@b.thomas8926]

We studied this in ROTC. We used to line up as a training company on a football field and practice maneuvers. Here's what we learned. Width vs depth comes down to how easy it is to move the unit. Depth means moving in column. Or in one way direction. This is used to move large units into position efficiently. They move faster, and in better order than lines which move much slower to prevent the formation from developing weaknesses. Lines are battle formations, and used to deploy as many fighting units against the enemy as possible. Psychologically, columns have more 'weight' to them, and yes they can push through an enemy line but not by 'physically pushing' but by rotating out the tired or injured soldiers and have MORE in reserve to push through THAT POINT against a line formation. In other words, Columns are meant to break through and have men in reserve to carry on the fight, but they're weak in that they have more flank exposed. Napoleon used columns to great effect until the British did a mathematical study and determined that if they stretched their lines even more, they could bring more firepower to the front than the enemy. Enough in fact, to decimate, or even destroy a column. So columns have their use on the battlefield, but its a tactical decision on when and where to deploy one against an enemy line. Basically, if you think a line is near the breaking point, send in a column against it. Training will impart upon the unit in just a few days how to move your files around and how to deploy from column into line. Its not just about follow the leader so much as knowing your place/job in the squad/file. Example, squad leaders have to know what the other squad leaders roles are depending on the command. The soldier next in line needs to know this job as well just in case the leader becomes a casualty. So its almost inevitable that the squad leaders are more experienced. Depth also is a way to rotate out tired fighters. The space between the soldiers usually is not as close as what's depicted in movies unless its a 'shield wall' formation. Which isn't always used. In fact its normally not used unless its to protect from a projectile or calvary attack. The formation has to be a little loose or the soldiers cant use their weapons. This 'shoulder length' distance is JUST ENOUGH room for a man to sneak back through the ranks if he's hurt or needs to rest. Its also a way to pass up water or supplies while the unit waits. When a man retreats back, it creates a temporary gap that's supposedly filled by the next soldier in the line who would move up to take his place. On a micro level, if an enemy rushes into this gap, that poor fool is now engaged on three sides, and is most likely to fall if he follows. And in the heat of battle, he usually does unless he's well disciplined. This phenomenon was used by the Romans in their checkerboard formations on a macro level to great effect. Man, I can go and go on this subject. Having stood in formations and 'played' with my fellow officer candidates doing exactly this exercise, I have ground level experience. We had a lot of fun doing it.

[@Slajerskii]

This video made me dig three lines of ditches around my house. Now my family is secure and my mind is at ease. I wonder what else awaits me when I go past the thumbnail.

[@bastiaan7777777]

How about a drone?

[@Quasimodo-mq8tw]

In regards to the pushing the reenactment footage got me a idea: If it is used as a blunt attempt to break open a line, then the deeper formation has still a reserve that is more or less in battle order when the opposite formation breaks by the simple fact that they can not move out of the way and where not really engaged.

[@terryjohnson5579]

What bugs me is how archers are depicted. These archers would have been beasts among men. Not scrawny dude that chill in the back and don't do much. And we never have ditches.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

You also see it with women in fantasy novels. "Oh yeah, Peggy is our archer." instead of "Yeah, that hulking guy with the massive shoulders is our archer".

[@terryjohnson5579]

@hoi-polloi1863 ya like Hawkeye in comics is insanely jacked like practically a super soldier I mean if Peggy is jacked and trained let her shoot the bow.

[@terryjohnson5579]

Hell even in training for hunger games Jennifer Lawrence was jacked Stephen amell who played Green arrow for nearly ten years was doing salmon ladders constantly.

[@legionarybooks13]

Absolutely! Modern History TV did a great video on that. Jason Kingsley is pretty fit, but he was dwarfed by an archer he had on the show. One needed great strength and muscular stamina to keep loosing arrows with those heavy draw bows.

[@terryjohnson5579]

@legionarybooks13 like five or so years ago they found an ancient battlefields and some of the skeletons were warped from how they muscles had to grow and reform to constantly shoot the war bows

[@shimazutakuma1031]

Main problem with the depth is it is easier to surround it, like what usually happens with the hoplite vs legionaire battles (or what happened when the romans did a deep but narrow formation at Canae)

[@awesomehpt8938]

Where are the ditches?

[@juanignaciocaballerogarzon977]

The video was good although it could be more insightful including at least the mention several keys: - width vs deep: in the Greeks you could check epaminondas oblique attack which provide the superiority to Tebas, it was purely based on deep vs wide although not getting flanked - Roman's had 3 lines, the velites were not in ranks, they were auxiliary and probably their main use was to act as glue between hastati princeps and trialing. Also the Roman's were able to change among lines. One thing it raises, lines of 6 ranks would probably to small to resist a charge of cavalry. That's an important trade off. Also what you show is the heavy infantry, but the most armies probably had more light-medium infantry which would not rank as well. Despite of this, I think it's a good video and it really helped me to see the armies in a different way

[@mercb3ast]

Macedonia and successors ran 16x16 in their syntagmas (what the organization of 256 men was called). The formation was symmetrical for maneuver purposes. You didn't stretch the formation out to be wider than the depth, unless you didn't want them to be able to turn effectively or wheel. We don't know that much about the drill of the Macedonian style pike phalanx (syntagma), it is assumed that they did not have the same drill techniques of later famous pike wielding forces of the medieval period. However, the symmetry of the formation remained paramount in antiquity, and in the medieval period. A pike square is a highly mobile (in terms of turning) formation that has nearly unstoppable forward momentum.

[@jonatanolsen37]

Pike formations can be deeper than spear formations, since the pikes in the back still can help the fight. A spear can only reach through 1 rank, i pike can be 2-3 times longer.

[@ChillyEmpire]

This is such good insight. I love the psychological test. I really hope future storytellers takes these lessons.

[@paavobergmann4920]

I don´t think anyone who is part of an army deployed for battle, especially after making contact, would leave their rank, step out of formation, engage in a duel, and step back in. I call BS. From perosnal experience in reenactment, what happens is, you tear a hole in your own unit´s frontline, you are toast, and you just exposed your whole formation to getting rolled up. the whole shebang happens within 5sec. Point in case: Polearm formation facing swordsmen with closed ranks. Sounds easy. One glaive man stepped out 1,5 paces, unit got instantly rolled up. Repeatedly. You very quickly learn that your life insurance is touching elbows with the guys left and right. And you stick that way. What´s gonna happen for the symbolic part is, both units will almost automatically stop 2m apart, when their spear tips ar just touching, and start flashing their weapons around, wave them a little, try to slap the other guys spear tip a little. It will take a lot of effort to actually start pushing in earnest at this point, it´s a rather exhausting mindgame of mental pushing, both yourself and the enemy. there´s a thin line between scaring them and throwing yourself into a spear.

[@erdelegy]

all very sensible, but the video did say it was the young warriors who would do the skirmishing "pulses" --- all hopped up on adrenaline and ego, trying to make a name for themselves, and feeling immortal --- all very typical young male stuff...

[@paavobergmann4920]

@@erdelegy Yes, but they wouldn´t come out of the closed ranks, there were specialised Skirmisher units for that, who would run around in loose groups and harass and soften the enemy before the main units made contact. Once you are in contact, stepping out of your line is a death sentence for you and everyone around, that´s just how the mechanics work. As I said, learned it first hand, didn´t believe it before, either.

[@erdelegy]

@@paavobergmann4920 Cool, yeah, maybe someday soon we'll have a Hollywood movie that actually shows all this stuff accurately. Probably not though, because it might be less "flashy" or "showy" i guess idk oh well

[@NatrajChaturvedi]

@@erdelegy People do enjoy seeing the authenticity more. Except in the 'summer blockbuster' genre movies and shows like Lotr or game of thrones, I definitely see a push towards showing more authenticity in historical shows and movies. They cant make it 100% accurate but making it authentic looking is good enough I guess.

[@paavobergmann4920]

@@erdelegy Yeah, my most memorable impressions from my fist battle reenactment were: how relatively small the zone of contact is, how completely irrelevant you can be 5m away, and how little there seems to be going on from a distance, and how utterly terrifying and completely confusing it is if you are engaged in direct contact. it looks like a bunch of people pushing each other around, but the mental strain is real. Your world is 1m around your feet, and you are really busy there. It makes sense there is a captain who looks around and a sergeant who looks down the ranks, that´s 2 full jobs.

[@adamstevens5518]

I might have missed it, but in some of the examples given, it seems the environment often dictated the depth of formations. A town or castle can only be so wide, and even fields have their limits depending on the region. In many areas, woods or other natural barriers surround everything, which might lead to deeper formations compared to regions with more open terrain, like parts of Greece or Rome.

[@REAPERthePRUSKIE]

0:26 what's wrong with this?? This is literally how you say it's supposed to be

[@InvictaHistory]

Basically the problem with these diagrams is that they are not proportional. Boxes for units should be even thinner and longer to accurately show the realistic proportions. We have a video demonstrating this with the battle of Cannae coming up.

[@REAPERthePRUSKIE]

@InvictaHistory Ah! Thank you I understand now 👍

[@alfrancisbuada2591]

​@InvictaHistory Hi there! I'm watching your videos to accurately portray how a medieval battle was done, along with raising, training, and levelling up my soldiers realistically. Thanks!

[@nsahandler]

I have to applaud his restraint against saying "like ditches" when talking about shoring up a flank anchor

[@andrewcombe8907]

Massive armies don’t appear out of nowhere like in LOTR. Noise, dust, smoke, night time fires, disturbances of wildlife by troops and animals on the move mean an enemy would be known hours before they arrived. And a mass battle would never have lasted more than three hours due to fatigue.

[@deepdungeon8465]

dude, the front on Mt. Doom where the Alliance Marches in LOTR is barren wastes or deserted. It is after the siege at Black Gates were the massive armies marches through the foot of Mt. Doom. The fertile land is at the very back far away from the Mountain where Orcs and the forces of evil have huge farms.

[@blakeprocter5818]

@@deepdungeon8465 He's probably talking more about how 6,000 Rohirrim show up at Pelennor without the orcs noticing. 6,000 horsemen do not form orderly onto a large plain without anyone noticing from miles away. That example in Kingdom of Heaven as well, where the Crusading army shows up "My lord, Jerusalem has come!". Saladin would have seen the dust kicking up from miles away. But this is a common trope in Hollywood, where large armies just appear as if by surprise. If I remember correct, Game of Thrones was pretty bad for this trope also.

[@klausroxin4437]

The movie Waterloo depicts that very well. Both sides see that reeinforcements will arrive at the battlefield hours before, but they can't see who will arrive, Blücher or Grouchy.

[@deepdungeon8465]

@@blakeprocter5818 oh ok

[@musthaf9]

there are historical accounts that reported that massive battles can last days, the battle of Yarmouk and Qadisiyah last up to around four and six days respectively. True, if the battle were massive simultaneous 1v1 duel like frequently depicted in movies, they would tire very quickly. So clearly, this is not the case

[@jackxiao9702]

I would think thin lines would also be good for morale. If you’re going to battle and on the front line of a very deep column, you start being afraid that you will almost certainly die.

[@dyak0]

Superb video! Plus, a little extra: how many lines medieval cavalry (a.k.a knights) formed? The correct answer is two! The first line was the knights proper, the second line was their squires. The knights had open gaps between them, and when they smashed into the enemies and stopped, the second line had to plug the holes in the first line and join the melee. That was so because only one line of cavalry could make a shock, and more lines would be just a waste. Beware, that could be different in Antiquity! Those times, the cavalry did not have stirrups and special saddles, so it is likely that they even did not attack on full gallop, and their tactics could be very different, but we know very little about that.

[@miketacos9034]

This was a really eye opening video. But I can only imagine how expensive it’d be to make this fit on screen and still look impressive. The big horde is not only cheaper but easier to show.

[@zycoz]

Pushing on ur own guys that are infront of you is a common thing in organized hooligan fights (40v40ish). It basically is a way to prevent the front lines from stop moving. This happens early in the fights until the formations always breaks

[@Nozylatten]

this was amazing!! really makes you think the way you explained marching to battle and lining up. I would have loved to experience that first hand.

[@pbroadway55]

Very Interesting. Being in the first rank must be very tiring and after 5 minutes of fighting if not injured /killed would need replacing. this must be difficult as might leave a gap in the line or seen as lagging moral. I wonder how this was done?