This is great. The narrative is always extremely clear, there's a nice touch of humor to each episode, and the animation is outstanding! You guys do such a phenomenal job at utilizing your graphics. Every episode is always a little better than I remember. Looking forward to the next one. Thank you for this.
@MagistraVitae2 жыл бұрын
You are too kind! We do our best to improve with each episode, and you noticing that means a lot. I hope we don't disappoint in the future ;)
@420champion4 Жыл бұрын
This was a very informative series. My 9 year old son loved it too. Please make more.
@ytjjdydtyuttuyeejj7e Жыл бұрын
Really hope you continue to make more videos. This is one of the best historical channels out there and I love you animations!
@420champion4 Жыл бұрын
This is fun to watch. After you finish with the Romans, you should do a series on antient Greece.
@coquimapping86808 ай бұрын
Damn, that series would come in the next decade as Roman history is long as hell and we’re still on the Third Samnite War!
@aqui1ifer2 жыл бұрын
6:24 YES!!! Finally someone else that recognizes that the Gladius wasn't Spanish alone! In fact, many of those "Spanish Swords" still bear a close resemblance to Xiphoi used by the Greeks & Macedonians, even some Imperial Gladii maintain that general shape well into the 1st Century AD.
@RPAL42 жыл бұрын
cant wait for your channel to randomly blow up
@MagistraVitae2 жыл бұрын
We are on the same page! 😂
@iexist39192 жыл бұрын
Definitely a surprise but I’m still happy to watch!
@azubliss2 жыл бұрын
This is so creative! Teaching history with the look of a video game
@MagistraVitae2 жыл бұрын
Glad you think so!
@danmichaelabad1338 Жыл бұрын
next video?? thanks for the videos
@syjiang5 ай бұрын
Very small nitpick at 4:06, it was Alexander's father, Phillip II, that reformed the Macedonian military system. Alexander was the ultimate master practitioner in its use.
@felipellrocha Жыл бұрын
Please tell me you'll continue creating videos! 😭
@MagistraVitae Жыл бұрын
That's the plan!
@felipellrocha Жыл бұрын
@@MagistraVitae YES!!! Love your work! 🙂
@Sergio444872 жыл бұрын
magnificent work, i love it!
@PuffyCataphract Жыл бұрын
Waiting in hope!
@canarddefer35743 ай бұрын
Wonderful, thank you. I wasn't quite sure I understood how the maniples operated - I do now!
@iexist39192 жыл бұрын
Is there a new video on the way? Just wondering since it’s been quiet for a bit.
@MagistraVitae2 жыл бұрын
We hope to continue making videos soon, but sadly we are busy at the moment :(
@iexist3919 Жыл бұрын
@@MagistraVitae I understand. I hope you will be able to return soon!
@CapriciousStoic26 ай бұрын
One advantage of maniples it the fact that the gaps would offer a wider front per line that expected ( meaning x2 ) as the gaps did not have soldiers in them, but the front was wide, meaning they would use dead space to present a wider front. The gaps could not be penetrated as the enemy entering a gap would be hit with javelins from 5 x sides _ _ I / \ = death sentence. The gaps could also be used to have the second line fire javelins and contribute to the fight as a support maniple. The gaps could also be used to retreat and advance and charge and retreat again and again - meaning using the mass and elan of the second line and strong javelins throws to come in to the battle and have a breeder for the first line. You can also think of the maniple system as many groups of men with flags charging and retreating multiple times. Also as the system had 3 lines - meaning it offered a reserve line and possibility to react to changes in battlefield and was also a defensive formation as the flanks wore wide/with depth and any cavalry attacking would be hit with javelins ,also any cavalry attacking the back would be facing the spearmen line a.k.a de Triari. Also it offed a good way of grinding the enemy as you want good killing power , mostly with javelins , then with Gladius and a way of forcing the enemy to submit ( by killing slowly with 1/4 of the men fighting at any time ) , and it was also an anti-barbarian charge formation as the barbarian charge would be futile with a defense in depth formation. And it was also an anchor point for the Velites and Roman Cavalry to move fast around the gaps and lines on in the lines to react to flanks attacks or overload a enemy flank.
@Redactedredacted58376 ай бұрын
Republic lore > Empire lore
@maja2955 Жыл бұрын
10/10 content 😁😁
@YD392227 ай бұрын
4:49 The Roman numeral for 4 isn't IIII but IV.
@MagistraVitae7 ай бұрын
Subtractive notation-where IV, instead of IIII represents four-didn't become the standard until well after the fall of the Western Roman Empire
@YD392227 ай бұрын
@@MagistraVitae I was wrong my lord I remember my Latin teacher siting this a while ago;
@anthonytillman63638 ай бұрын
6:16-6:29 I wish you would have explained the Tactital differences between these two swords. I have heard that the Hispanic sword was shorter and more suitable to stabbing, but would have liked to know more. Great video(s) though, I am definitely subscribing to this channel!
@MagistraVitae8 ай бұрын
The older Roman sword based on the Greek xiphos was already suitable for stabbing, as it had good thrusting ability. On the other hand, Hispanic swords that evolved into the gladius were good at both thrusting and slashing.
@brutromgaming25027 ай бұрын
Roman Empire fell in 1453 to the Ottomans
@Mfields45176 ай бұрын
If thats true, its only 40 years before the discovery of America
@HeneralVisCatholic6 ай бұрын
And where are the Ottomans now?
@brutromgaming25026 ай бұрын
@@HeneralVisCatholic Turkey is ottomans
@scr3aming3agle836 ай бұрын
To an extent yes but technically no
@brutromgaming25026 ай бұрын
@@scr3aming3agle83 there was no east and west it was roman empire and it fell in 15 century
@rosannabello64187 ай бұрын
Underrated Chanel
@juliocesarmonterocruz20892 жыл бұрын
LETS GOOO
@NoName-xc6cg6 ай бұрын
Dude, you left out 1000 years of Roman History
@MagistraVitae6 ай бұрын
Can't really cram 1000 years of history in a 12 minute video. That's kinda the reason we are doing a whole series.
@NoName-xc6cg6 ай бұрын
@@MagistraVitae no, I mean when you were comparing how long each Empire lasted. In general your tempo is great, detailed enough so I learn new things but not too detailed so that the overall idea is not lost.
@MagistraVitae6 ай бұрын
@NoName-xc6cg ohhh sorry 😅, you are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire. Considering we plan this series to go until the fall of Western Empire, we chose to use that date as an endpoint.
@NoName-xc6cg6 ай бұрын
@@MagistraVitae I'm eager to see more :)
@s.v.8487 ай бұрын
Brate znao sam odma da si iz Hrvatske, jedino nisam siguran jesi li iz Dubrovnika ili ne?
@theacme35 ай бұрын
4:51 4 legions numbered with roman numerals. Ouch that hurt my feelings
@LSadia01017 ай бұрын
Amazing video as always. Anyways i got a question: how many people are working on this channel?
@MagistraVitae7 ай бұрын
Thanks! It's two of us
@Cataphract12367 ай бұрын
You need more views!
@giovambattistaadornato50247 ай бұрын
the so called Byzantine Empire, was still the Roman empire
@DarkKing0095 ай бұрын
A sacrifice for the algorithm
@charlemagne66446 ай бұрын
no purple feathers
@FxTR227 ай бұрын
4:50 thats not how you write 4 in latin 😂 its IV you done it correctly tho in other parts. Or is that on purpose 😅 Love the video tho
@MagistraVitae7 ай бұрын
Uhm akchuly 🤓 Subtractive notation-where IV, instead of IIII, represents four-didn't become the standard until well after the fall of the Western Roman Empire
@FxTR227 ай бұрын
@@MagistraVitae the more y know... 😗 Googled it, can confirm. Very nieche topic, nice to know. Now i have something to annoy my guests with🤣
@MCernoble7 ай бұрын
The fall of the Roman Empire was NOT 476. It’s just not. Byzantine was Rome and that’s it. Was the Eastern Roman Empire different from what came before? Yes. But every single part of roman history is uniquely distinguishable. The republic was completely different from the empire, and there are many different phases of the empire. The religion literally changed multiple times before the “fall of the Roman Empire”. Should be counted as 1453 and I hope we reshape our collective understanding of this crucial part of history soon. Otherwise, good video and thank you!
@LorolinAstori17 күн бұрын
You lost me when you started talking about Alexander the Great. Then I knew you didn’t know what you were talking about. Thanks for that
@RosierJulio5 ай бұрын
Massss
@errickhepworth45152 жыл бұрын
𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓶 👇
@matthewalexander1943 Жыл бұрын
Rome was not founded in 753 BC. Why does this falsehood not die?
@iexist3919 Жыл бұрын
Well because we don’t have any existing documents from the time of the Roman kingdom. Even though most of the stories of early Rome are indeed false, it’s really the best we have. Although it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge thisz
@matthewalexander1943 Жыл бұрын
@@iexist3919 The city of Rome dates to 625 BC, plus or minus a few years. This is established archeologically. And if the "best we have" is false, why repeat it? Why not just say, "I don't know"?
@MagistraVitae Жыл бұрын
@matthewalexander1943 We started this series with a video on the founding of Rome. In that video, we did use the 753 BCE date as the starting point, but we did acknowledge that this date is completely mythical and fabricated by the Romans. We also mentioned that there are archaeological findings dating back to the 8th century BCE, proving that some sort of settlements did exist in that area. There are also findings that are even older than that and we can't be sure when the first settlements developed on the banks of the Tiber. It is unknowable when these communities started to refer to their town as Rome, and themselves as Romans. It’s highly unlikely that a single event was responsible for that change. Rather, a gradual shift from neighboring tribes to a connected community resulted in the creation of a unified identity. This means that using the date 625 BCE is equally incorrect as using any other precise date for the start of Rome. Considering we mostly use primary Roman sources in making of these videos (Livy, Polybius, Dio Cassius, Cicero,...) we chose to use the year 753 BCE, as that was the year the Romans were using. While the exact year might be wrong, the points made in this video still stand. Whether Rome started in the 10th, 8th or 6th century, it lasted for a very long time.
@matthewalexander1943 Жыл бұрын
@@MagistraVitae "we chose to use the year 753 BCE, as that was the year the Romans were using." Which Romans and at what time? 753 BC became the commonly accepted date eventually, but there were many dates offered by many different scholars, all of them wrong. Settlement in the area dates back to 1000 BC, but these were small villages dotting the various hilltops. There was nothing that we would recognize as a city until 625 BC, so using that date is the correct one, with the understanding that it is plus or minus 25 years. That is the appropriate way to start a history of Rome. In 753 BC there was nothing but small villages on hilltops overlooking swamp land and frequently flooding valleys. Roman history needs to be better. Every yahoo with a youtube account thinks he can give history lessons. When you start out telling us that 753 BC was the start date for Rome - irrespective of whether you give a qualifier or not - anyone who actually knows Roman history will dismiss you.
@iexist3919 Жыл бұрын
@@matthewalexander1943other estimates put it at 800 BC as well. We don’t have a solid date for it’s founding, so we simply go by tradition. Of course, it is always good to bring up that the 753 date is a myth.