I Do NOT Agree With This INSIDER Historian

[@metatronyt]

Link to the original video kzbin.info/www/bejne/roGqlYKOqNmGr80 All the good links: Come watch me live stream on Twitch! Almost every night 9pm CST www.twitch.tv/metatrongemini Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! kzbin.info/door/IjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOwjoin I have a Patreon page with extra content! www.patreon.com/themetatron My second channel about languages www.youtube.com/@metatronacademy My third channel about gaming www.youtube.com/@TheProtectorate-yq7vi My Twitter/X x.com/pureMetatron

[@ektran4205]

300 was an adaptation of a comic which was an adaptation of greek history

[@Tarquin21723]

This is a time when I think it would be appropriate to react to the whole video.

[@ArtC-ym3xy]

Oh...oh no. Metatron and The Ditch Guy at odds?? My universe cannot support this.... this is divide by zero territory

[@papercitadel4221]

Thats terrance howards next endeavor in evolving human thought lol​@infinitesimotel

[@Trevor_Bolin]

Right? I like em both too

[@domeah]

@@Trevor_Bolin this is divided by ditches !

[@daviddavies3637]

C'mon, who doesn't love ditch guy?

[@jensmaas555]

Don Ditch

[@NemeanFury]

Regarding Macedonian cavalry, when he said "in this period" he meant the Trojan war period which is theorized to have taken place in 13th or 12th century BC many many years before Phillip II of Macedon, Homer does mention chariots in the Iliad, this historian Roel Konijnendijk specializes in Ancient Hellenic history, he's really good regarding his expertise IMO.

[@daviddavies3637]

First thing I was going to do was find out when the Trojan war was supposed to have taken place as I thought Metatron had misunderstood his comment. You did it for me. Thanks.

[@ubiergo1978]

Yeah, Macedonian cavalry was much much later... trhough, there was mounted cavalry back from the 15th century BC, so 300 years before the troyan war... but I couldn't find the role (if they had) in the battlefield... but yes, back in those days the "Army Cavalry" were Chariots, Chariots, Chariots and Chariots xD

[@MrJpc1234]

Yeah so the historians comments about why cavalry not being used were odd cos chariots where defenitely extensively used

[@daviddavies3637]

@ It's not quite the same thing. Chariots weren't always used to charge into the enemy infantry. They were most often used, and I think ALWAYS used at the time of the Trojan war, to fire missiles from. So, the historian was correct. From what I can find out, it seems that the Greeks didn't employ cavalry as part of their tactics until around 500 - 400BC. And can you imagine going into war, charging at your enemy, fighting at close quarters, without stirrups to keep you balanced? At the time of the Trojan war, they were still some 500 years out from being invented, or at least something similar to what we now know as stirrups.

[@whyjnot420]

@@MrJpc1234 "Calvary" refers to a much more specific type of mounted fighter/warrior than you might think. By the very virtue of being mounted, this precludes chariots from being cavalry. As there is nobody riding any of the horses. Essentially cavalry refers to soldiers who by design, fight from horseback. Chariots in the bronze age were used in one of two ways. Either as a platform for archers, or as what a lot of people call 'battle taxis'. That is, they were used to move people around, who would then dismount and fight on foot. Somewhat like how a dragoon would fight. The Egyptians are essentially the archtype here. There is some overlap between the use of chariots and that of true cavalry, but they really are two different things, belonging largely to two different eras (though again there is some overlap). It is also patently clear that chariots are the main thing that true cavalry developed out of.

[@LeonidasSparta-Fun-History]

Roel is a good friend of mine and good friend of the channel, wonderful historian! As for his comment regarding cavalry in Troy, he would be correct. In this period chariots would have been present, but typically more like a taxi service for the elites on the battlefield, but actual shock cavalry don't really exist in the Homeric period, even into the archaic and classical most mounted forces were mounted archers. Macedonian cavalry existed, but remember that the siege of troy is thought to have taken place around 1200 bc, which is hundreds of years before. Overall I'd say you seem to agree with him on almost everything too

[@Subutai_Khan]

Yeah this video is clickbaity. I like most of these expert reacts but the title is odd considering they mostly see eye to eye here.

[@LeonidasSparta-Fun-History]

@Subutai_Khan that's what I was thinking, little misleading

[@BattlerEvil]

He is a great guy, and I agree that cavalry wouldn't really be much of a thing back in 1200 BC, however the other points Metatron disagreed with are definitely true. Roel is awesome but that doesn't mean he cannot be wrong, we're all humans after all and I definitely think sometimes he can go a tiny bit overboard, as if human beings lowkey robotic. Anyway, yes in Trojan war cavalry existing is super unlikely, Chariots are slightly more likely but Cavalry? Eh. not too possible at the time at least.

[@noisuledesoidnarg7762]

Yep, felt like Metatron says he disagree way too fast only to have the same point 5 secs later. See 15:14 mark.

[@jedsithor]

Mrs. Metatron: It's your turn to do the dishes. Metatron: I disagree...

[@leifleoden5464]

23:00 Isn't Troy the middle of the Bronze age, like more than 1000 years before Alexander the Great?

[@7Aegon7]

yeah during the Bronze Age pure mounted cavalry wasn’t used, chariots were king.

[@babilon6097]

Horses were too small to ride. Selective breeding made them riddler ridable later, but I'm the times of Troy they could only pull things.

[@pacmonster066]

​​​@@babilon6097This is absolutely untrue. It's true that mounted cavarly wasn't common, but horse size is *not* the reason for that. There is period iconography of horses the same size as horses used in combat hundreds of years later. What you're referring to is a single study based on a horse skeleton found dating back to the period in a completely different geographic area. Meaning it could have just been that specific horse was smaller than normal or that particular breed of horse was smaller. Not *all* horses were smaller. Also, for the record, a pony is a "rideable" horse. Being smaller isn't what makes a horse unsuitable for mounted warfare. If a horse can pull hundreds of pounds of chariot + people in said chariot, it can support a person on it. Horses were not used for cavarly during the time of Troy because horses were very expensive to raise and train and were seen as a status symbol. It's why only a few people would have been mounted, like the general/king/emporer

[@sudazima]

metatron seeing a 45 degree angle hill "eh i can ride that"

[@rlswiss7518]

Metatron, he clearly states cavalry was not a thing in this period, meaning during the period the Trojan war allegedly happened. Yes, the macedonians had cavalry, but this was almost 1'000 years later. The Trojan war and Alexander the Great are as far apart from another - in the sense of a timespan - as a medieval knight and an actual modern tank

[@ubiergo1978]

to be precise, he said "mounted cavalry" wasn't a thing, which is true... but "Cavalry" was, in the form of our beloved Chariots. =P (chariots, Chariot and more Chariots in the old "armed race of Chariots" xD)

[@mercb3ast]

Cavalry during Alexanders time is also misunderstood. People think that Cavalry in the time acted as a hammer and delivered kinetic charges into well ordered infantry. No. It didn't. I mean, I imagine it happened, rarely, because it was a terrible ideal. The manner in which Alexanders cavalry fought, was less lancing people on the fly(unless they were lancing people who were running, or otherwise disordered), and more, ride up to spear distance of the enemy, and then use their large two handed Kontos' to fight in melee combat from the height of a horse. Then there is the fact that Alexanders cavalry was accompanied by infantry, pretty much at all times, everywhere it went. Which fits in with the idea that they rode up to about 10-20 feet away from the enemy and then stabbed at them. The accompanying infantry was there to fill in the space and protect the horsemen. Then we also know that Alexander and the Companions fought as Dragoons. As in, they used their cavalry to ride to a position, dismounted, and then fought on foot, accompanied by their foot infantry. Kinetic, lance down, plow into infantry blocks is more of a medieval thing, and then even then, this would have been an extremely rare, and extremely risk occurrence. Then when you consider that many of the incidents that are brought up to defend the idea that cavalry lowered lances and plowed into ordered infantry, are usually a result of something happening that broke the infantry up, and ALLOWED the cavalry to charge into them. Perhaps the best example of this is the Battle of Kircholm. The popular conception of this battle is that Polish Winged Hussars lowered lances, charged teeth first into Swedish pike squares, and shattered them. The problem with this popular conception is that this isn't what happened. What happened was, first, the Swedish pike squares basically had no pikes. Second, the Swedish "pike" broke their formation to allow their own retreating cavalry to retreat through their infantry. The Polish cavalry exploited this opportunity to dive into the Swedish infantry as they were opened up, to allow the Swedish cavalry to pass through. This is a highly impressive feat IMHO, but it absolutely is not Polish Hussars lowering lances and riding over pike squares.

[@TheRealRealMClovin]

I think it is just misunderstanding. Because saying it is in ”this period” will mean ancient era, which spanned from 3000BC-500AD. While the ditch guy could maybe have used different words.

[@Maybeabandaid9]

Side note, Phillip the 2nd and his Alexander the Greats Macedonian Cavalry is like, over a 1,000 years after the Trojan Wars supposed time frame.

[@LockeDemosthenes2]

I hate Phillip II and Alexander the Great so damn much 😡

[@jake5773]

How dare you disagree with our Ditch Guy! He's a world treasure. Lol. He also wrights scripts for one of the big history channels, Invictus or History Marche.

[@SerAvaros]

Writes*

[@jake5773]

@@SerAvaros thank you, fixed it

[@SerAvaros]

@@jake5773 *nods in grammar nazi*

[@GregScholfield]

Now Metatron is going to tell us he's against digging ditches as well!

[@mufinsp0]

The ditch man knows his stuff

[@insanemakaioshin]

23:15 - Macedonian Calvery wasn't a thing until the Hellenistic era, not the Mycenean era.

[@wolfsruhm]

it is even pre helenistic era, it's bronce era, around 1000 before Phillip and Alexander. THe form of cavalary used at that time (and it was in it's infancy) were chariots, mostly as archery platfo9rms or messangers, about around 1000BC there are mentionings of the first Horseback riders in battles, but also those were mainly archers, proper melee cavalery only formed arund 7-500 BC.

[@SnorriTheLlama]

Against plate armoured opponents in general, I am with Mr Ditch here on the role of arrows (partially). Massed arrows against plate armoured knights is unlikely to find many gaps themselves although could do, but many of the arrow shafts will be shattering and exploding. The shear amount of splinters flying everywhere will be terrifying with people trying to further protect their eyes. So it would work to suppress them. Although here they also have large gaps in armour where they are uncovered.

[@BattlerEvil]

Incorrect for one key reason-unless all plate-armored opponents belong to the MOST upper class of their society in this specific formation of men, the thickness and quality of plate armor varied significantly. Multiple test videos demonstrate this, showing that arrows can, in some cases, penetrate plate armor, especially when it isn't modern high-carbon steel of exceptionally high quality. Also long arching volleys are not entirely historically accurate. A lot of the shooting could be quite on a horizontal plane, which once again increases power and penetration of bodkin tipped arrows. Sometimes archers were also really well armored (to a degree) and would come close enough, such as 50-100 yards and straight up shoot men in formation DIRECTLY.. Now that is dangerous. Yes, incredibly durable plate armor existed, and even lower-quality versions were still effective. However, it's incorrect to assume that an archer with a 120-160 lb draw weight couldn’t penetrate weak spots. Soldiers in formation aren’t dodging or zig-zagging-they're more idle type of targets that are advancing like a unit. While bodkin tips tend to glance off curved surfaces, a direct hit on average or lower-quality armor has a real chance of penetrating up to 1-3 inches-not deep, but still significant enough for internal bleeding and to cause organ damage. Many modern tests use high-quality steel, whereas historical armor quality varied depending on the era, the intended wearer, and even the country of origin. This is why Tod's Workshop and Dash Rendar are awesome for these tests ngl. Even Dequitem mentions how his armors are at the upper echelon of quality, so well made that you cannot even dent them much with a polehammer strike.. NOW THAT IS AN EXPENSIVE ARMOR SET, but most men at arms didn't have the most expensive, the finest quality armor set. Would you like me to cite some source of archers killing knights with arrows? (also, the 'volley' thing is not entirely real, Archers often shot at will when their commanders allowed them to loose arrows. They didn't wait together and then shoot a volley like some musketeer line xD, they often just kept peppering targets)

[@7Aegon7]

Ditch guy is always 10/10

[@GothPaoki]

Not necessarily but in warfare matters yes it's his expertise in that subject

[@whyjnot420]

"In this period", he is referring to the time of the Siege of Troy. The Bronze Age. 8-900 years before Macedon was anything.

[@xt7519]

I'm not sure why you disagree with him and then make his point. He said bows are not guns, and they were used to suppress (of course, the real counterargument would be 'guns are used to suppress as well'). That doesn't mean they aren't used to kill people...that's not a mutually exclusive claim. You even made the point...yes, the bow shot might not kill someone, but it would make them flinch, and someone else might be hurt by the ricochet. It was weird...like you were looking for something to disagree with this guy over. ETA: Look at that hill the Rohirrim were going down again. Seriously...that is WAY to steep for a cavalry charge. A single horse going down it? Yeah, I've done that, though still dangerous. But not at a charge, and not with hundreds or thousands of other riders. That's not subjective...that's an objective fact. Still cool to watch though. :)

[@etiennesharp]

The Flying Ditchman (Dr. Konijnendijk) was talking specifically about cavalry in the Archaic Greek period, not the Hellenic.

[@SchmokinJoe]

This guy (Roel) is the "dig more ditches" guy.

[@PersonS6]

I like ditch guy

[@Intranetusa]

How could the Roman disagree with the ditch digger guy? Roman legions dug ditches everyday!

[@Bonney95]

i think the horses through a forest part makes sense, with all the roots and shit that's on the ground, it's way riskier for a bunch of horses to run through a forest like that gladiator scene

[@TekWolfie]

I agree. Maybe in cleared forests (maintained like in modern time) you could risk it. In Roman times random forests would not be cleared so you'd have lots of shrubbery and dead branches along with roots all over. Galloping on a horse through that would probably be the last usage of that particular horse. Same with the LOTR charge. That hill is STEEP. You may be able to slowly go down on a horse... but full charge? Nah.

[@Riceball01]

That's a good point. While they obviously did it in the movie, they most likely also went ahead and cleared out a path for the riders so that the could go through safely. And they also certainly rode through that same path more than a few times before filming that scene and probably a few times during filming as well. So the riders would have geon in knowing that the path was clear of anything that their horses might stumble or trip on and they knew exactly where they were going since they would have been on that path any number times prior to filming.

[@BattlerEvil]

As an equestrian I can tell you that that forest is fine. I think we're doing a bit too much on 'debunking' on this part. Horses are dexterious animals, they know where they're going and unless they're goofing around, a trained warhorse or even a courser type of horse wouldn't just trip and break a leg over a relatively clear forest tree-line. Charging downhill is a bit more dangerous but not impossible. This is also a time where men and horses were a lot closer than current modern time, they knew how to ride them better, they knew more about the animals too. In one of the battle of 16th century an extremely similar charge actually happened historically, and the men were in formation while riding too, separating now and then when a tree was in the way only to canter back in the cavalry formation.

[@vibeyandvibeless]

Dr. Ditch: "Yeah, Testudo kinda sucks" Metatron: "...and I took that personally"

[@NecroxProduction]

10:35 no this hill always looked waaaay too steep to me even when I watched it as a kid. Still very epic scene.

[@Elydir]

And looks to be covered in something like gravel, which probably wouldn't help the horses not slip much.

[@BattlerEvil]

Unless the horses are cantering, it should be kind of fine. I'd be more worried about the riders falling off if they're not careful. If they're galloping downhill, they can generate enough speed to be relatively fine due to momentum of the speed they're going and the traction they gain from it. Wild horses in Russia will gallop downhill that are just as worse, and these animals understand as long as they go full speed they'll come down okay. This is not like a mountain goat, but more because an animal with hooves like that having good traction. So again, I'd worry more about the riders falling off on accident, or some small unsuspected rock in the way causing a horse to trip rather than it being too steep. Then again, the riders of rohan in its fantasy setting are possibly the finest equestrians, so although the hill if a bit steep for a cavalry formation, with the way it was shot at them galloping it really didn't make me feel 'off' about it. However if they were cantering at a slow pace downhill? Oh no they'd roll, they'd fall and slide down sideways on their bellies and casualties would be enormous.

[@Sphinx0514]

I have played Civilizations and I know that with enough bonuses spearmen can defeat tanks!

[@Saffi____]

I want a collab between these two.

[@PalmelaHanderson]

Mr. "DITCHES" Himself! I do agree with him, though. The most effective pre-modern defense was a wall and a ditch (bonus points if the ditch is filled with water). Movies don't show it simply because it would be boring to watch an actual siege.

[@Darwaell]

Not a historian myself so I don't know what the sources would tell but galloping downhill especially if it gets somewhat steep is a very, very bad idea... and if there's such an amount of horses, one of them tripping could trigger a massive snowball of horses. When it comes to galloping through brush and wooden areas it'd depend a lot but in the Gladiator scene it seemed like the horses were kind of spread apart so you'd probably have a good view of what's directly in front of you and most importantly, the horse would have a good view of what's in front of him, you can jump logs easy on them... they just have to be able to see them.

[@WilliamKennedy-cg3ff]

He made some mistakes but the actual charge down the hill was cgi. Being a horseman I can verify that charging down a step hill is a bad idea. If you must descend a hill that steep you do it slowly so on this point I believe he is correct.

[@WindmillStalker]

You don't even need to be a horseman to realize this. We humans are perfectly capable of taking a tumble when running down a steep hill. Anyone who has ever done so can attest to the weird sense of balance you have to maintain.

[@jabo109]

At this point is just making videos disagreeing just for the sake of it right? Stale content at its best... Let's search for any videos talking about history and just disagree with them.

[@joeyeisenzimmer5374]

I really like that guy. He does sort of generalize it a bit but that's more cause he's talking to a general audience.

[@hamasathecold7842]

But…. It’s the ditch guy….. I like the ditch guy

[@cratorius]

Macedonian cavalery? You mean almost a thousand years later? What has that to do with the battle of Troy?

[@radical6905]

I think in a general sense he's right that cavalry by and large did not want to run through woodlands etc where possible. Where you have cavalry advantage you are wise to seek open plains etc as a battlefield like he went on to say

[@ConradAinger]

It was quite possible for 9th century Vikings to take a 13th century castle. As Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis showed in the 1950s film The Vikings 😂

[@celston51]

It's also possible for King Arthur to assault a 14th century castle but the local constabulary prevented him from capturing it.

[@radical6905]

Nooooo I dont want to have to choose between you and Ditch Guy

[@GothPaoki]

My problem with the ditch guy is that he uses Athenian sources that are negative to Spartans because they don't like their society all the while he ignores the only Athenian historian who actually lived among the Spartans and has written about them meticulously from first hand.

[@russergee49]

What’s the name of the historian you’re referencing, the one who lived among Spartans? I’d like to check it out

[@GothPaoki]

@russergee49 xenophon , he also wrote Cyrus anabasis the story that inspired the 80s movie warriors

[@russergee49]

@@GothPaoki Perfect, thank you

[@Benevolent_Fafnir]

For Troy he means the Bronze Age or around 1,200 BC. That said they absolutely did ride horses and used chariots quite liberally in warfare.

[@marcinwieloch2283]

Yes but as "taxi" just pick warior up to the battelfiel. And horses were rarher small.

[@Benevolent_Fafnir]

@ that’s too pedantic… Nowhere did I say they were used like cavalry, but to say that people didn’t ride horses or that horses were to valuable to use in warfare is just blatantly false.

[@Thompsoncs]

I think you're being a bit too disagreeable here, since you misunderstand him at many points or at least choose the worst interpretation.

[@ChunderAsunder]

5:08 the old man didn't go for a sniper shot per se; he just couldn't keep holding the arrow back because it's a fricking bow and he's an old man. He loosed the arrow by accident and happened to kill one of the orcs. This is how the battle starts because then the orcs charge because they're now under attack and the occupants of Helms Deep have to think quick because of this one old guy having to hold an arrow at full draw for ages for literally no reason

[@whyjnot420]

Something a lot of people don't have these days is experience around horses. Even a moderately sized horse can be very intimidating when up close. A purpose bred warhorse in armor... I can easily understand how a bunch of them running at you would cause you to waver.

[@Naalders]

I grew up near a field that had 2 retired farm horses. It was like having two prime Arnold Schwarzeneggers injected with liquid Ronnie Coleman strolling around. it was intimidating, especially as a small kid.

[@buggaboo2707]

@20:40 ... "They did film it".... Yeah and they probably had people clearing the ground of every branch and rock ahead of time, for days

[@MS-io6kl]

Regarding antique pre battle speeches: I believe it was done the same way as it was done for example during the Napoleonic Wars: that it was prepared on the eve before battle, handed out to the officers and read by them to their troops. I mean usually in the ancient Roman army of the late Republic and early Principate (by the way, that's a modern distinction. As far as I can tell, in the Roman mind the Republic continued at least till Diocletian) the legate or the army commander gathered all his officers on before the battle to talk tactics and strategy. As a prerequisite to become a centurion was the ability to read and write, I think it's highly likely that at these meetings slaves would hand out wax tablets with the battle speech for all the centuries to read out to their men before the battle.

[@williamwallace4080]

Edit: braveheart is my fav movie (maybe you can tell) because 6 yo me didn't really care for historical accuracy The Dutch Ditch guy English heavy cavalry got tricked numerous times by big spears during the first war of Scottish independence (I think battle of loughdon hill and bannockburn)

[@leonrussell9607]

*Bannockburn

[@williamwallace4080]

Of course, I'll edit it. My only excuse is that I was walking home after kickboxing so I was tired 😂 Bannockburn is the more famous of the two also​@leonrussell9607

[@williamwallace4080]

Yt deleted my previous reply, anyways thank you! I've edited it ​@leonrussell9607

[@JorisB10]

In this case… I’m Switzerland

[@MasterFatness]

Be careful what you say about Roel, my dear Metatron. He might just... dig a ditch.... just for you.

[@martinkafka9510]

On a pedantic note, that slope in Two Towers is very steep. Too much for infantry charge, even worse for horses. I do remember having that thought first time I saw the film almost 25 years ago and dozens of rewatching didn't change that impression one bit (since it looks like 35 degree incline).

[@titoyeeto3869]

I love the ditch guy

[@guaranteedpotato]

I don't think spartans were professional soldiers. They were levied for war just like every other Greek state. They were leisure class citizens so they were a slightly more able bodied force when compared to the other Greek city states. The spartans did have a system of officers I believe which was a novel concept in the Greek world and had a good marching drill. I learned this from the historian featured in this video Roel Konijnendijk through lectures he's done here on KZbin. He has a lot of informative material on here. I could however be completely wrong though.

[@agesilausii7759]

medieval knights were "leisure class" as well, but spent all day training.

[@orchidhealth2097]

@@agesilausii7759 Medieval kinghts were professional soldiers. With the title came a land to provide for them and their family and they were expected to join the army whenever war was afoot. The training was part of being professional soldiers, very much like todays armies.

[@wolfsruhm]

The Spartans, were professional soldiers, because only noble spartan men were even aloud to call themselves Spartans, and they were the core of the spartan army, estimates between 1000 to even 10000 strong, highly trained and disciplined fighters, with quite high level equipment, provided by their wives or mothers who were the economic leaders of spartan society. Thias core then was supported by the citizen levy, but it was that very disciplined and professionel core that made the Spartans the domninant Landpower in Greece in the 6th to 4th century BC They underwent a gruesome regime of physical training from kids age (sorces say it startted around 6 years old) and that was kept up for most of their lives. at least during the times of the persian invasions. In later times after they more or less won the polyponisian wars against the Alliance of Helena (aka Athens and their allies), they started to 'soft' gradually, and when they met an even more pforffesionel army, Alexander, and later the Romans, they crumbled quite fast, though not as fast as the other greeks.

[@kilvesx7924]

I think cavalry in that period was very much an exception rather than the rule. Macedonians and Persians were probably the first to use it in history, which is understandable because stirrups weren't invented yet.

[@avericen8419]

"Greeks and Macedonians spears were extremely long" Cleopatra: That's what she said

[@ektran4205]

spear in the pants

[@terrynieuwoudt8586]

Compared to many other historian reactions, this one in particular felt very heavily edited and cut down. If we give the expert the benefit of the doubt, most of his clarifications and citing of sources may have ended up on the cutting room floor, especially if the editors don't have enough context to judge which statements are relevant or necessary for his points

[@goranmilosevic3115]

Macedonian cavalry came 1000 years later

[@andrejhranac2047]

Regarding the massed charge, I remember that greek hoplites had such massed charges which they trained extensively and used for devastating effect at Marathon, when they caught the persians off guard.

[@divicospower9112]

Metatron, check the battle of Arbedo between the "Swiss" and the Milanese. The guys form Uri jumped in the middle of the horses and stabbed the beasts in the belly. The Milanese thought that these men were crazy as they (the Milanese) were heavy cavalry (the same than the ones of the battle of Verneuil 2 years later). For Troy, he is talking about the cavalry in the 12th century BC. There was no warrior on horse back (chariots yes but not horse back).

[@Unpainted_Huffhines]

The mongols came up with a creative counter to the ditch/wall fortification, which was filling the ditch with the corpses of defeated enemies.

[@WilliamKennedy-cg3ff]

Another great video but yes the hill appeared to be that steep. I always thought it was one of the weakest points of the battle. Someone was unfamiliar with horsemanship.

[@Glegionar]

Regarding the horses charging downhill: if I remember correctly, you don't want to push too hard a horse downhill because the danger of the horse having the legs broken is pretty high!

[@Nick-Lab]

I do not disagree with his last point. The Trojan war would have taken place in the bronze ages (1500 years before the Macedonians). There were chariots but they had not yet bread war horses at that point. A horse strong enough to carry a full grown man and equipment was bread to do so, especially if used on battlefield.

[@Jbay2608]

I assume he means that there would not have been cavalry at the time that Troy was supposed to exist, which what, 800 or 1000 years before Alexander the Great?

[@mr.christopher5613]

Why did the logical fallacy cross the road? To avoid facing the facts and keep everyone guessing! 😂

[@bogdancr4292]

What does he mean by "in this period"? My dear Metatron, as an old fan of your channel, I would not have expected a question like this to come from you. He refers to the late bronze age period. when the Trojan conflict most likely happened. And yes, at that particular point in time, mounted cavalry was not a thing, this became a thing later on, probably during the 9th-8th centuries, in the Caspian steppes or in modern-day Iran, so almost 4 centuries after the Trojan War.

[@scotbotvideos]

At 11:05 ackshually I can give you an example of the usage of the sun from The Battle of Ancrum Moor in 1545 in Scotland when a smaller Scottish force defeated a larger English army during what came to be known as the War of the Rough Wooing.

[@robmartin9782]

I could watch videos like this for hours tbh. Metatron vs The Ditch Guy, two knowledgable, sympathetic, smart and pedantic history experts "clashing" is just awesome to witness. More of this please. :)

[@SkilledOutdoorsman]

TBH I would love a video about mozzarella

[@JohnHayes-k5p]

Your channel is so entertaining. Keep up the top grade videos. Respect from loyal follower from Guyana 🇬🇾.

[@metatronyt]

Thanks!

[@mercb3ast]

Ok, we need to talk about bows. 120 pounds, is 120 pounds. A horn recurved bow that is 3 feet across that is drawn at 120 pounds, is the same as a 6-7 foot tall longbow that draws at 120 pounds. It takes the same effort to pull and hold that weight. Now, the LENGTH of the draw can impart more energy into the projectile as it is released. This is why crossbows have much higher draw tensions than bows do, to achieve the same sort of kinetic energy. We're talking physics now, but, arrows and bolts have mass. It takes time to accelerate the arrow and bolt up to the maximum speed. The longer the draw of the bow or xbow that is delivering its kinetic energy to the arrow or bolt, the more energy is put into that bolt or arrow. So, a steppe bow that is strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw of say 24 inches compared to a longbow strung at 120 pounds, that has a draw length of 32 inches, well the longbow will fire an arrow with more energy because it has more time and distance to put that 120 pounds of draw into the projectile. The draw is EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGH.

[@mansfieldtime]

Running forward to meet the enemy. I think he meant run forward but stopping a few meters from the enemy to form back up. Don't want to be under missile fire for long. Still, keeping formation was probably preferred by most people... depending on terrain and culture of course. I bet fighting in the forest would be like small groups moving around instead of one big formation all together,

[@Dannyboyefc]

The film is called TROY, clues in the name

[@velizarmarchovski7262]

Right, right, right... that's actually excellent! I disagree! I can't imagine mounted horses with heavy knights on top to be able to: 1 RUN downhill on gravel... 2 In formation... 3 In the dark... (cause if the sun is behind the mountain, situation is not "just before the dawn"...)... 4 On a specific "non steep" 35° slope. I agree it is not steep for Alpine skiing, I disagree that someone from the riders will survive to feel the rising sun.

[@pavelvaverka3972]

He is classical historian a very fine advancing the research en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roel_Konijnendijk but specialization for Greece.

[@BillHimmel]

Bold move to contradict THE DITCH MAN himself!

[@starfox300]

10:20 this type of cavalry charge happened in the Battle of Vienna

[@pergapesi7503]

Macedonian cavalry is a thing during the time the siege of troy is set? I'm sorry, what on earth are you talking about? haha, this one was a real bad take. I mean I usually love your takes, but you were quite a bit off on a lot of things in this video it seems. Cant get em all correct I suppose.

[@fabiofernandes9122]

by period he meant trojan wars.

[@King.Leonidas]

Troy is in the bronze age metatron

[@MrSchnuffs]

So I could be misremembering here, but I do remember reading that there were some instances of "charges" when one force vastly outnumbered the other and wanted to overpower the smaller force quickly. IIRC, Julius Caesar wrote about it in the Gaelic Wars, but essentially the idea was that the Gauls outnumbered the Caesars legions and tried to overwhelm them with brute force to take away the advantage of cohesive military formations. Like I said, I could be misremembering here, but I don't think "it happened sometimes" is incorrect.

[@Goblin_deez.]

In regards to Helms Deep, the fighters are comprised largely of peasants and farmers as stated by Theoden, the Rohirrim archers most likely overestimated their abilities and copied what they saw in movies

[@Maedhros0Bajar]

23:10 Macedonian cavalry, sure. But doesn't Troy take place much, much earlier. Before the Bronze Age Collapse

[@Greatiger030]

The time period he referred to was the late Bronze Age, that there was no Calvary, chariots yes but not cavalry yet for the horses breed was not strong nor big enough for a man to ride. Also, during Alexander and the Macedonian cavalry that’s hundred of years later were Calvary was already introduced.

[@thomaspunt2646]

the big thing with battle scenes in movie is they have to be entertaining first. And sometimes, that means getting rid of historical accuracy. Two shield walls pushing each other until one side gives up? Kinda boring. Two sides charging at each other swinging swords and clubs while screaming at the top of their lungs? Kinda cool.

[@pacmonster066]

Professor Ditch Digger vs Metatron in a battle to be the most pedantic. A fight for the ages.

[@jomue8687]

I always thought that the hill in lotr is waaayyyy too steep! Any hours experts that can answer that with a little bit of expertise?

[@cycleboy8028]

The archers were not SNIPING. As in called shot to the 2 inch slot. But 100 archers firing, there’s RNG that one will hit a gap. And then each archer fires 20+ arrows… RNG means gaps will be hit on enough.

[@JonathanRossRogers]

10:25 Obviously, this man has never seen The Man from Snowy River.

[@whyjnot420]

I have a friend who likes hunting with a bow. Out of the bows he has he has one bow that iirc is 75lbs. One day (a while ago) I tried drawing it. That takes some effort. Ever since then I've imagined holding that bow when I see those scenes in movies. Along with the length of time another thing that has stood out to me is the form of archers. Especially in animation. So many times I've seen arm positions that would break people. edit: Just in case anyone reading this was wondering; I asked my friend beforehand. I do have a brain.

[@Naptosis]

19:31 I don't see why multiple 'officers' couldn't just repeat the speech in a sort of relay, so many more people could hear it.

[@biran]

look up the Highland charge, it was highly effective. it was paired with black powder and created a smoke layer and they ran through the fog.

[@REAPERthePRUSKIE]

Ditch guy: Dig more ditches! Metatron apearing in the middle of the soldiers: I disagree

[@PCgamer238]

Sniping armor gaps? As much as I'd love to believe that, it just doesn't sound plausible. Like I've seen targets at 200-300m range which is the closest you'd want to be before melee starts. You have to be an okay shot to hit bullseye. Let alone with a bow. And a moving target? I dunno. Personally I think those hits happen due to accuracy by volume. If 50 guys shoot at once, at least one arrow might hit the spot, sure. I don't quite buy the deliberate aiming for weakspots in active combat. But. Of course if it's something like a skirmish while both sides stare each other down before the big clash, then yes I retract myself a bit. Sure, you could snipe something then.

[@LockeDemosthenes2]

Yeah, I sort of don't think 300 was even pretending to be historically accurate. 😂

[@rosie안274]

Meta and the Dutch ditch guy???the crossover we deserve ♡

[@HenryThree]

The video title sums up this channel nicely

[@ben_b_blake]

5:45 At least they didn't call "Fire!" ^^

[@mercb3ast]

I do believe pushing was a thing, but it was a situational thing. The reason why it wasn't a thing, most of the time is, crowd press/crush. If you have two forces pressing each other pushing, and they are roughly equal in size. This is a good way to create a man on man Hillsborough (famous football(soccer) disaster where a crowd was too big for an area and a bunch of people were crushed and suffocated against fences. Everyone near the front of each formation will be suffocated and die. However, if one side has a significant advantage in mass, then pushing or pressing through the enemy was absolutely a thing. We can just look at the Battle of Leuctra, where this is precisely what happened. The Theban/Boeotian stacked their left wing perhaps as much as 50 deep, to meet the most veteran Spartiates on the Spartan right wing. The Spartans were arrayed in what would have been a more traditional ~16 or so ranks deep. The Thebans came at them 50 ranks deep, and instantly plowed through them and routed them. It would seem to me this is a case where the Thebans and Boeotians just used the superior mass and inertia of their much deeper formation to press through the Spartan phalanx, break it up, and then cut it down. The principle here would be similar to the concept of a Rugby ruck. Not in how they did it, but rather the physics of it. X number of guys pressing together hands on backs pushing forward is going to transmit an enormous amount of energy, and if the opposite side doesn't have enough mass and inertia to meet that with roughly equal force, well, let me tell you being on the wrong side of a ruck in rugby is a feeling of total helplessness. If both sides had similar depth/mass to their formation, pressing through would be suicidal for both sides. If one side was deeper than the other, that can be a serious issue if the side with more mass has the drill and coordination to pull something like that off.

[@QixTheDS]

My only problem with his final word on helms deep is that it’s explained why the siege happened the way it did. The fortress was ill-maintained and unmanned up until right before the Uruk-hai attack. He’s not wrong that movies get a lot of shit wrong with sieges but lotr isn’t most movies and it does explain why the defenders seem so unprepared.

[@Allmightyimortal]

It wasn't that many horses but I'm pretty sure they charged down that hill at the end of two towers.

[@viktorgabriel2554]

As someone who has gone down steep hills on a horse i can tell you this professor needs to learn a bit more about horses

[@Trevor_Bolin]

The ditch man! I like him.

[@stevewright9779]

Just imagine, a Metatron/Ditch Guy collab...... the universe would implode!

[@perrenchan6600]

Title: I do not agree! Video: Agrees with points and disagrees with points I saw the bait, I clicked, and I do not regret it 😂 Would love to see you and the Ditch guy have a chat

[@alexjahblunt3569]

I think you’re being a little much pedantic about this guy Metatron the ditch guy is amazing and really knows his stuff