Crazy Roman Military Tactics That Actually Worked

[@citadel9611]

The reason why the Romans were so successful was simple: Discipline, Conditioning, and tactics. Decimation was rarely needed.

[@MultiDigitalCoder-he7wp]

Sad that what they were also mainly about was about coninually screwing over everyone else.

[@bekirbekirbekirbekir]

Yah yah this was because of "Discipline, Conditioning" but they couldn't invade germany that even don't have any regular army . Huns just swept out entire germany without Roman's super advanced discipline, conditioning, tactics (and weapons )

[@alessandroiorio6248]

​@@bekirbekirbekirbekir They invaded Germania whenever they wanted and almost always won (Caesar, Drusus, Germanicus, Maximinus Thrax...) and created a province up to the Elbe river from 7 BC to 9 AD. The later débacle at Teutoburg was further confirmation that the land wasn't worth investing in a second time; they never tried to settle it again because of the region's social, economic, and urban underdevelopment. But whenever they needed to invade those regions for slaves or retaliations they did and were successful. Besides, why are you criticizing the Huns ? They had advanced discipline, tactics and weapons and "conquered" those regions just as the Romans had done, by winning battles; but they never settled it nor supplanted the populations living there. These myths you wrote about need to stop, they are kind of cringe.

[@bekirbekirbekirbekir]

@@alessandroiorio6248 Exagerating roman army need to be stop.Thousand year history full of massacring primitive tribes. Just couple of fight against some regular armies and most of them failed. Despite possessing vast resources derived primarily from an enslaved populace, their repeated defeats in individual battles ultimately culminated in victory in the overall conflict. Romans was not invading anywhere to settle down as like France, Britain, Egypt, Anatolia etc. The simply want to invade Germany but failed. Oh ok they just dont want to invade.

[@citadel9611]

@@bekirbekirbekirbekir The German victory was led by a leader named Arminius, who fought in the Roman military and learned their tactics. It was a great shock to the Roman empire, but it was hardly a situation of disorganized Germans who fought. As far as the Huns are concerned, their victories came about when the Roman empire had more foreigners fight in their legions than actual Romans, and the discipline was not the same.

[@soldat2501]

Decimation was rarely used. Decimation was a punishment that the Romans inflicted on soldiers who had collectively abandoned their posts, acted like cowards in battle, or fomented some kind of rebellion in the ranks. This video makes it sound like a defeat in battle meant decimation.

[@henrikg1388]

True. I believe that the use of decimation by Crassus in the Spartacus-rebellion, was the last documented use of it anyway, but I may be wrong.

[@BeckVMH]

I respect your comment; however, I didn’t get that impression and understood it to be only used as you’ve described. 2:49 The narration referenced, “Decimation, while rare….”

[@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture]

@@BeckVMHa case of hearing what one only wants to hear.

[@colinhunt4057]

@@henrikg1388 Your comment is correct. Crassus was the last one who used decimation. And largely it failed. Roman legionairies were citizens, and Crassus was just another aristocratic snot who bought his political offices including the consulship. Spartacus's revolt was crushed in the end by Gnaeus Pompeius.

[@soldat2501]

@@BeckVMH I'll grant that's what he wrapped up with but he started 1:25 with , "Imagine being a Roman soldier in the heat of battle, knowing that failure could mean the death of not just you, but one in every 10 of your comrades. Especially after a devastating defeat." The Romans suffered a number of defeats, some more serious than others. They didn't all resort to decimation. Perhaps he should have led with how rare it was, as that was actually the case.

[@vincentlemire8703]

You don't mention that Corvus really only worked once. It was a secret weapon that lost its potency once no longer a secret. It would not have been too hard to avoid if you realize what the roman were up to, leaving them with a less maneuverable vessel overloaded with infantry. Still, for that one battle, it was a brillant tactic and key to winning the first Punic war as you said.

[@Azmania3000]

Yep then they hit the swell and all mysteriously disappeared for some unknown reason 😂.

[@soggybottom3463]

Excellent. Honest, succinct analysis. I played a lot of rugby football in the UK as a boy and young fellow. One of the best, best pieces of coaching advice is: "Do the simple things well".

[@stephenbesley3177]

At sea, the Roman solution was train troops on land using mockups and to make ships using previously manufactured parts that were numbereD or marked in a way that could be easily constructed. A flatpack navy if you will. Rome's real secret was engineering and legions full of artisans.

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

There seems to be a bit of confusion between “tactics”, operational organization, weapons technology, military/diplomatic strategy, and statecraft.

[@randomobserver8168]

Decimation is a disciplinary procedure not a battle tactic. Categorization is important.

[@rolandnelson6722]

Bravo! Categorisation is important. In our age major advantage goes to those that can categorise properly and not move the goalposts, but can anticipate others inabilities. In our age it is clear the innumeratti (innumerate people) control the world - through their vast numbers. But they can’t profit nor control their place in it. But those that can do the above have a tremendous advantage. The first flaw of the innumerate is that they can’t categorise.

[@mikitz]

True. It's as if though the gauntlet was used as a military tactic.

[@user-pr2ms4ol8x]

It could be classed as a battle tactic. Whilst not directly used in battle as a tactic, the threat of decimation made the roman infantry less susceptible to routing or ineptitude making them far more efficient on the battlefield.

[@vincentlemire8703]

Lol, so we don't agree on what tactic is, I guess. Their divide and conquer approach to diplomacy counts not as a tactic. A diplomatic strategy maybe? But absolutely an understated key to the longevity of the empire that you are right to point out.

[@arcomegis9999]

It's quite mind-blowing that the tribes of Italian Peninsula are highly adaptive in terms of survivability. The Romans in turn also possess that. They also learn from their defeats, often copying to a varying degree the tactics and strategies of their enemies. It sounds like a stretch but I think Romans stopped being underdogs when they defeated the Samnites and in turn complete their conquest of the peninsula. It's like Cao Cao becoming a superpower after defeating Yuan Shao at Guandu. The legionary and maniple system in their military is in fact "inspired" by the Samnites. The practice of employing mercenaries and subsequently auxilary troops comes from the defeat of the Successor Kingdoms and Greek powers. Especially, Pyrrhus and Hannibal in which the Romans learn to better employ such tactics and logistical capabilities.

[@TheLegendaryLore]

I think you're absolutely right that the Samnite Wars were pivotal. The Samnites were tough opponents, which forced the Romans to learn how to adapt and innovate. I don't know enough about Chinese history to comment on the comparison with Cao Cao, but now I'll have to read up on it!

[@roilhead]

What is funny is that the US can't beat farmers with all their money / firepower & have lost all but 1 war since WW2.

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

You know what destroyed Rome? - Billionaires.

[@jbrice2]

That's funny

[@DrZip]

Great video as always! Do you know how the Roman Empire was cut in half? -With a pair of ceasars (scissors).

[@TheLegendaryLore]

😂😂😂 Who's the favorite philosopher among kids? Play-Doh

[@colinhunt4057]

Dr. Zip, it was done because the imperial army had become too large with too many military emergencies on its assorted frontiers. Diocletian divided the Empire because it could not be effectively administered only from Rome. Thus there were a number of new capitals established as indicated here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian All of this came about after the crisis of the 3rd century. The Empire had become too large to be defended, and Diocletian abandoned the province of Dacia (Rumania), and some very difficult to defend areas such as Assyria. Also, by having four rulers in the form of the Tetrarchy, the Empire was to some degree protected from loss of a sole Emperor by assassination.

[@zedeyejoe]

First you had training, so you knew that your troops would do has you had told them. Then a combat system that favoured close combat. No wild slashing but instead a mobile shieldwall where soldiers worked together, not as individuals. With a battleline relief system that stopped the soldiers from becoming over tired. Then build field fortifications to give your forces an advantage. And finally the knowledge that Romans never gave up. Lose 80,000 men, well build a bigger army and try again.

[@colinhunt4057]

Add two other items to your list: the Romans were the first nation to ever institute a standard system of training. Mostly this was done in the training bases around Capua. Also new was the retention of very long service professional soldiers as centurions or non-commissioned officers.

[@philippekogler]

Strength and Honor!

[@Chebab-Chebab]

Fish and chips.

[@shannonulmer113]

Looks a lot like modern day America & the European countries WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

[@d.g.rohrig4063]

Here’s a tactic for ye, “During a battle at sea in 264 BCE, a Carthaginian ship was captured by Roman forces. The Romans examined the ship carefully and used it as a model for their own new vessels. By stealing the Carthaginian ship the Romans were able to improve their own technology and increase their naval power.” I’ve seen a video about this but alas, I couldn’t find it.

[@dukeon]

I’ve seen the same one 🤔 Good video too.

[@evo1ov3]

Seen it too.Think it's from the Historia Civilis channel. But I have to check.

[@d.g.rohrig4063]

@@evo1ov3 Nice! If you find it please share it here with us?

[@arturovaldes546]

It BC , are you afraid of Christ.

[@johnj4860]

Akin to Ukraine capturing new Russian tank and studying it's technology

[@padraigpearse]

Decimation was incredibly rare, I am very surprised you even mentioned it.

[@The13thRonin]

KZbinrs only ever have a cursory knowledge of Ancient History.

[@frankmorris4790]

Because it happened? History?

[@mediumrare9051]

Rarely employed due to its effectiveness as a threat, well worth a mention.

[@waynebritten]

You clowns he actually said it was rare.maybe you all better start to listen better

[@brettmuir5679]

Maybe because the word is grossly misused nowadays. Today it is used interchangeably with devastating. We need to learn/ remember it means 0.1

[@tungzauzage977]

Well presented and edited with nice use of comic humor. Very professional and informative, appreciated.

[@TheLegendaryLore]

Thank you, brother!

[@sprintershepherd4359]

@@TheLegendaryLore drop the comedy i reckon . it was distracting and not that funny imo . you had some great still pics in this video . were they from a movie ? if so which movies ?

[@TheLegendaryLore]

@@sprintershepherd4359 I though it would be fun to add some memes for a change :) Most of the non-attributed images are Midjourney.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

​@@sprintershepherd4359 I liked it.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

​@@TheLegendaryLore It is fun. You show a brighter side with these illustrations.

[@gma729]

GREAT VID. SUPERB CONTENT, LIKED 👍 AND SUBSCRIBED !!

[@richardallday7387]

Nicely done - especially the 'divide and conquer' explanation.

[@raywhitehead730]

Caesar wrote a book about some of his military campaigns. The chapter about a campaign always started about the same: food supplies were purchased. The Romans became very good at securing food and transportation of supplies.

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

"Insane tactics"? You've never heard the axiom "If it works, it ain't stupid."

[@TheLegendaryLore]

I guess you could call it risky or seemingly insane.

[@user-ic1lo9wh5f]

Insane and stupid ain't synonyms so what's your point?

[@robbieatvic]

You lost me when you brought up decimation in under 2 minutes, for gods sake it was extremely rare and any real ancient historian knows this.

[@matthewrogerson9119]

You obviously didn't watch this all... did you????**

[@user-ic1lo9wh5f]

Where is he saying its a common practice though?

[@surfdocer103]

2:50 decimation, while RARE…

[@Impericalevidence]

Ooh ooh how about public deflowering? Spit roasting if you catch my drift... I bet that one's not mentioned.

[@bryanstellfox8521]

Decimation was a psychological enforcer more than a commonly used punishment. I guarantee just the IDEA of decimation motivated these troops to fight and die rather than be routed and perhaps be forced to club their best friend to death.

[@Skorlang]

Decimation was not a tactic, it was a disciplinary action. The Corvus was nat a tactic, it was a tool. Divide and conquer was a strategy, not a tactic

[@PoetofHateSpeech]

Most people don't understand the difference between strategy and tactics.

[@workerant7874]

I believe he describes divide and conquer as a strategy. Several times.

[@Skorlang]

@@workerant7874 title says "tactics"

[@ancikul5969]

The success of the Roman army lay in the fact that they were always ready to learn and also copy others.

[@riccardomulazzani7436]

Better explanation... The Romans observed the armors, weapons and tactics of their enemies... In this way they were always able to best evaluate the most correct countermeasures to destroy their enemies, but they had the intelligence to gain experience from each enemy they faced and if an enemy helmet, an enemy weapon or an enemy war tactic was valid they included it among their resources (but NOT simply copying it as you say) but ALWAYS improving it considerably and adapting it to the Roman army with intense training!!!!... By just copying they would certainly NOT have become one of the largest empires in history...

[@Epic15history]

good video!!

[@matthewzito6130]

I can't believe they didn't mention the fire pigs.

[@uncletiggermclaren7592]

Came expecting them, disappointed.

[@JnstBrimstone]

Good video, thanks.

[@truecerium4924]

It sounds like decimation was commonly used. But in fact during Roman history from kingdom to late antiquity only few occurrences have been documented. It was too ineffective to lose trained soldiers and there were other means of punishment (interestingly threating them with not including them in a battle)

[@brettmuir5679]

It is clearly stated in the video that the practice was rare. Did you listen or just browse?

[@truecerium4924]

@@brettmuir5679 Calm down :) With my comment I am just supporting the point you made and added the exclusion from battle. Not every comment is an offence ´k

[@brettmuir5679]

@@truecerium4924 not offended but annoyed by lazy viewers who misrepresent. Your comment was clear and blaring misrepresentation, just saying

[@waynevaughan9325]

Great vid

[@user-sz5og5lt6h]

Good job

[@floriangeyer3454]

Decimation was not common, applied in cases of mutiny, cowardice or desertion of a whole unit. And decimation was NOT always execution! Flogging was a common punishment in the legions.

[@Khalifrio]

I'm not sure you know what the word Tactics means. Some of what you call "Tactics" were nothing of the sort. Decimation was a discipline measure that had nothing to do with tactics. Divide and Conquer was a Strategy. Strategy is not the same thing as tactics.

[@Centurion101B3C]

Hm, Important to show the instances of ingenuity within Rome's panoply of measures and means, but lacking a clear distinction between tactics and strategy. Adding that and providing clear examples would make this in and of itself well made production into an excellent one.

[@TheLegendaryLore]

That is a fair point. Thanks for the constructive feedback, brother.

[@wiscosteve]

Well I didn’t know about decimation until now thx

[@slimyish]

Decimation was EXTREMELY uncommon

[@vonzigle]

Thanks!

[@TheLegendaryLore]

Thank you so much, brother!

[@evo1ov3]

8:37 Oh wow! That is an amazing meme!

[@WorthlessWinner]

Wasn't decimation very rarely used? It usually seems to be done for political purposes (appius claudius first bringing it in to punish the plebs for wanting rights, most future cases seeming to follow a similar vein). I dunno if it impacted the troops much if it's so rare and usually not done for cowardice as much as for your commander being a patrician psycho

[@TheLegendaryLore]

Decimation was rare, but not rare enough to be unheard of. I'm certain the soldiers all knew the stories and understood it was a possibility. But even more so than decimation, the fear of getting executed for things like cowardice, desertion, or disobedience was always there. The threat of getting killed by fellow soldiers, or being executed on the spot by a commander was a real risk.

[@masteryap3169]

Have agree with you. Decimation was very "questionable " disciplinary measure to use on your own troops. It could very easily backfire. Of note, no modern military use decimation or even a firing squad for cowardice. Better to foster "unit cohesion" then the barrel of a gun.

[@doctordetroit4339]

Romans built a supply chain that was unmatched. And gained them victory, as they comparatively had unlimited resources to the point of battle, even if outnumbered. Even if they lost a battle....they kept coming and coming and coming......their logistics allowed that. Not much has changed since then. This is how the US operates today, worldwide. Rome did the equivalent in the known world back then.

[@colinhunt4057]

Your comment about logistics is bang on. This was particularly true for their use of water transport, the Mediterranean, the Rhine, Rhone and Danube rivers. A Roman army was never more than about 100 miles from large scale water transport (ships or barges). Rome really was the Empire of the Middle Sea. It was made possible by superb logistics, unmatched by anyone until about the 18th century AD.

[@infoscholar5221]

This is a lesson many times forgotten, and it applies to all walks of life. Discipline, ration...Alas, alas...

[@drwalmgc]

Hannibal trained them well.

[@richardscanlan3419]

Not just confined to Hannibal, the Romans learnt a lot fighting v Pyrrhus and the Greeks,and even earlier v the Samnites. That was Rome's true strength,they were not afraid to learn from their enemies and adopt their tactics.Adaptability was their greatest strength.

[@drwalmgc]

@@richardscanlan3419 True.

[@richardscanlan3419]

@@drwalmgc I'm an unabashed Romanophile.Have a reasonable knowledge of Roman history,though I'm not in Mary Beard's class;))

[@mercb3ast]

@@richardscanlan3419 Their true strength was their geographic position, and the fact they outnumbered everyone they fought once they had unified most of italy. Long skinny peninsula meant the entire region could be rapidly mobilized navally. Rome reached a population of 1 million, oh, about 800 years before a city in China reached 1 million, and 1,800 years before London, the center of the largest empire the world had ever known up until that point. For Rome, quantity had quality of its own. They could afford to get massacred by Hannibal for a decade. Cause they could just field legion after legion. All they had to do was beat a major Carthaginian army once. Pyrrhus is another good example. Get smashed by Epirus over and over, but inflict just enough damage each time that the tiny state bleed itself out.

[@richardscanlan3419]

@@mercb3ast good post,and the point about their "geographic position" is valid. I would add one other factor - Roman doggedness,they simply refused to be beaten,no matter how dire the situation.In this regard they were kind of unique in the ancient world.They simply wore their opponents out. Very similar to the Russians in the war with the Nazis.Win - no matter what the cost.

[@jonc6463]

Informative thank you 🙏

[@josephnoneofyourbeeswax8517]

The Roman military defeated numerically superior forces the same way the Greeks did and every army ever has. Order and discipline defeats individual military prowess EVERY TIME EVER.

[@colinhunt4057]

Order and discipline and training. This includes good supply, making certain your soldiers were properly fed and supplied on campaign with good boots, good garmets for campaigning and all the other thousands of items a functioning army needs in the field. This included a professional medical staff, mobile artillery for the legions where practical, and a properly organized transport service wiithin the legions for transporting everything.

[@vincentlemire8703]

I would not call 'decimation' a tactic by any useful definition of the word. It was discipline. And how well it worked is debatable and depend on the context. Though not an expert I know it was primarily used in the early to mid republican era, back when you were dealing with part-time legionaries who expected to go back to farming (or whatever) after a single season of campaigning. A lot of these guys really needed to be more afraid of their officer than the enemy to be motivated to risk their lives because they were not all gung ho volunteers. By the time of the late republic/early empire, as the army was quickly becoming professionalised, it might have still been 'on the books' but it was rarely used and only used at the general's own peril. I know Crassus revived it in his armies but his contemporaries Ceasar and Pompey never did. I'm sure we all know who has the best track record of these three, lol. Just because Crassus decimated a cohort and then went on to win against a slave army, it does not follow it was the right decision or that it played a key role. Ceasar and Pompey accomplished far more impressive feats without decimation. All in all Crassus is not to be regarded as a talented commander. It took all his spare change to put down a slave revolt and when faced by a real Army in Parthia he got crushed... A few generations later when Galba (of the 'year of the 4 emperors' fame) used it on a recalcitrant legion in 69AD it created shock and dismay more than anything else and contributed to him being extremely impopular with the army and one of shortest tenured emperor. I mean, if he was going to refuse to pay the expected bribes (aka donation) to the praetorian guard, he really hould have taken better care with maitaining the loyalty of regular legionnaires! LTDR As the army becomes more professional, decimation was phased out because it was becoming pretty much always a blunder. And I'm not convinced it was a smart choice even back in the days of the farmer soldier unless dealing with a fullblown mutiny (which did happen). A good commander should always be able to find a better solution than killing off 10% of his own men IMO!

[@colinhunt4057]

It happened only in legions raised very quickly with poorly trained soldiers. It happened only when those legions were very poorly led by incompetent or amateur commanders. Your comment about Galba is quite right. Please note that Galba came to a very quick and sticky end, deserted by everyone. I agree with your comment about Crassus. Unlike Caesar or Pompey, Crassus had no military command experience whatsoever. He was simply a plutocrat with no redeeming military qualities whatsoever. He went on to suffer Rome's worst military disaster in two centuries at the Battle of Carrhae in Syria in 53 BC. Crassus led his army into an impossible situation, cut off from any water supply. Appropriately, Crassus did not survive his defeat but was killed on the field. The only comment I disagree with is about soldiers' mutinies. These were unheard of during the Republic and rare during and after Augustus. Roman legions never mutinied. They might be persuaded to revolt against the Emperor by their General who wanted to be Emperor. But the legions rarely revolted. There were a few spectacular murders of Roman emperors by Praetorian guards but no real revolts of an entire legion against their officers.

[@micgeinc6694]

I realize that the title was MILITARY TACTICS but it would be nice to mention that some lands surrendered just by the romans telling them about the security that the roman army will provide for them, and the trade with the rest of Rome. Some lands surrendered just by diplomatic threat from Rome. Big part of the answer why roman military worked was because it was a part of well working diplomatic, taxation, legal, financial, political, governmental and private manufacturing system. I heard a historian say that roman soldiers were very good per soldier but also very expensive per soldier. That any army could accomplish what romans had accomplished if they could find the money. The romans were very good at finding money. Tax evasion almost did not exist in Rome.

[@christiansorensen7567]

I wish the AI would get the Roman crest correct, instead of giving every soldier a parade crest on their helmet.

[@brantdanger]

1) Decimation was not a tactic. It was a form of punishment designed to instill discipline. 2) Building the circumvallation and contravallation at Alesia is more of a strategy than a tactic, because once the construction was completed, there was very little flexibility in how the Romans could fight. 3) Dividing and conquering was not a tactic - it was a strategy. You don't even understand what you're presenting in this video, but nice try, and nice AI images.

[@ManufactureBelief]

One of the best Roman combat scenes I've seen is the opening act of the TV series Rome (2005-2007). Which showed the disciplined way the Roman infantry fought and how superior they were to their opponents. When the centurion blew his whistle.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6ethYF9fZl8mJI&ab_channel=Private Highly recommend this series to anyone fascinated by Rome..

[@aircrew705]

During the First Punic War in 264 BC, the Romans captured a Carthaginian ship and used it as a model to create their own fleet. The Romans were able to adapt to their enemy's tactics and improve their own technology by reverse engineering the ship. This helped them make up for their lack of shipbuilding expertise and increase their naval power In his "Stratagems of War," Polyaenus recounts the use of incendiary pigs during a siege by the Roman general Crassus. According to his account, the defenders of a town under siege attempted to scare off the Roman war elephants with squealing pigs, but Crassus ordered the pigs to be set on fire. The squealing and burning pigs were then driven towards the enemy elephants, causing them to panic and trample their own troops in their haste to escape the fiery pigs.

[@Sergio_deus]

You never see about this tactics on Hollywood movies...Really wonder why. Also have to say, the memes were a huge surprise, but certainly a welcome one heheh

[@stevemar4779]

Roman art of war.

[@g.p.d.2220]

What could have been an informative and interesting video is unwatchable due to unnecessary, asinine and puerile meme graphics.

[@rdleahey]

The battle of Alesia sends chills up my spine. That’s how I learned of a Roman weapon used against cavalry. It was some kind of metal ball with three sharp spikes sticking out.No matter how you threw them, one spike would be sticking straight up!

[@SupremeGreatGrandmaster]

Do you mean calthrops?

[@hgr.7857]

It would need 4 spikes to function that way; 3/4 spikes act as legs, the last 1/4 sticks up. As the other commenter said, it "would" be (is) a caltrop.

[@cedricgist7614]

Thanks for this examination of Roman strategy and tactics that helped build an empire. I don't know as much about Rome's history as I should - so I was a bit surprised to hear talk of Roman forces being outnumbered. In other words, establishing an empire wasn't a slam dunk. I had to comment because I haven't much cared for, "the Romans," over the years. Yet I do give them credit for the positive legacy they left - law, engineering, organization - yes, even their military. It's the history of conquest and oppression that I hate.

[@val4utube]

I think you misses an important one. The substitution, at the command of the centurion, of each man fighting ih the front in a line of battle, to be swapped by the one directly behind him.

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

If the Greeks hadn’t been at one anothers’ throats all the time, constantly butchering themselves with gay abandon, the Early Roman Republic wouldn’t have stood a chance...the Romans learned EVERYTHING from the Greeks (including warcraft). In short, sine Graecos, nihil.

[@svon1]

and he did not even mention caltrop's or Manu-Ballista's (which are like hand held ballista's in case you fighting cataphracts) ... the alliance thing was a bit simpler though .... just ally with the weakest local ... being the punchbag for several generations and getting offered an opportunity for payback usually does not require much convincing... the constant copying of their enemy ...the swords were spanish, the mail celtic and the helmets gaulic .... and of course since the empire was founded ...half of all troops were auxiliaries recruited from all sorts of people across the empire, making the conquered people feel part of the empire, while also Romanizing them, while also mixing unique tactics

[@user-pz3bk3th1z]

The Carthaginians will WRONGLY assume their Naval superiority ... 👊💥💀☠️

[@frankieshankly5368]

Their percistance was the real strength of the Roman empire. No matter how catastrofic defeats they endured, which they did sometimes over the centuries. They allways came back, for a millenium at least..

[@markmulligan571]

The corvus is fine for boarding action. However, in heavy winds and sea, having that added weight hanging fully deployable from your mast would have caused, let's say stability (capsize) issues. No combat admiral would have let his captains stow them somewhere lower and safer yet more difficult to deploy. Was it one or two, 2000,000 man fleets the Romans lost to Med winter storms? So the corvus probably killed as many Romans as Carthaginians. Like most new weapons, once everyone's survivors adopt them.

[@gaiusmarcus8]

Corvus literally turn the tide

[@TheLegendaryLore]

LOL, true 😁

[@user-kn9ys2zz3m]

Decimation is punishment, not tactics. 😂”divide and conquer” is strategy, not tactics.

[@user-ju3mz4xp8z]

Tactics? I thought this was about the Romans using the iron spike modules to injure opponents feet and the hooves of enemy cavalry horses, Or the use of new weapons that could fire multiple arrows or the use of their war dogs to terrify opponents.

[@notsocrates9529]

Caltrops?

[@colinhunt4057]

@@notsocrates9529 Caltrops had been used by the Greeks before the Romans. No, what tactics refers to is the combat order of a Roman legion organized down to its sub-units. Tactics includes the design of a Roman army as one of heavy infantry relying on short stabbing swords, large shields for extensive protection, and heavy javelins to break up enemy formations. A Roman army was a combined arms force consisting of a core of heavy infantry (outined above), large numbers of missile troops (archers or slingers), and a body of cavalry. A Roman army was the world's first (after Alexander the Great) combined arms army. Missile troops and cavalry were usually foreign mercenaries. The heavy infantry legionaries were Roman citizens on long-term service for 20 years.

[@Raz.C]

You make it sound like Caesar decided to build both walls at Alesia, at the same time. Instead, he had already built the wall of circumvallation around Alesia when he heard about the enormous relief forces en-route. Rather than abandoning the siege and allowing Vercingetorix to escape, Caesar decided to maintain his siege on the city and the best way to do so, would by building an entirely new wall (series of fortifications), to protect the besiegers from the relief forces.

[@darkhorse989]

The corvus was only used in the first few battles, it was too top heavy and after a couple accidents it was abandoned in favor of boarding planks, or outright sinking enemy ships.

[@andreasgraf512]

In my opinion, in addition to discipline, the military organisation and administration, standardised team equipment and continuous training should be mentioned first and foremost.

[@thebobloblawshow8832]

Any of this sound familiar?

[@Emperor-Justinius]

Yes very

[@notsocrates9529]

No not at all. Why would people want to try tested and true methods?

[@keithad6485]

For these soldiers to remain in a decimated unit tells me these soldiers were, in practice, slaves. If they were volunteers, they would have looked for the first chance to desert and return home.

[@atrippister]

Decimation was extremely rare events. Most of this video is just bs

[@michelguevara151]

the other tactic not often mentioned was to declare support for republics.. then enforce their own.

[@user-xv1gn7yk3t]

Decimation was good in modern times, If done regularly,, some actually fell on their swords, because of heavy mortgage payments etc, It saved pension payments, insurance payout etc, We have a lot to learn from the Romans,, Expansion ( profitable) owes itself to such discipline. Ignore history at your peril.

[@marcinbadtke]

Divide et impera - always valid. This is why democracy is so successful - people are divided and ruled (conquered) via media.

[@REDTTURTLE]

The secret of roman legions was the use of youngsters wearing a wolf fur, they launched rocks , light lances and provocated the enemy. Then they run away to hide behind the hard atmoured infantry. Barbarians tried to chase those young men and then arrived to the hard line, that first attacked them with pilum lances, then were helped by roman cavalry that attacked with lances the side areas... then the legion took the form of a pocket, that closed and killed every enemy inside with the gladium swords.

[@scaryfakevirus]

Some of this is happening in Britain now by our current enemy - our own government.

[@Nervii_Champion]

The Bronze Age and Iron Age (5000BC - 600AD-ish) had the coolest history and stories and characters. Arguably, many armies and tactics of the Iron Age (the Romans and Greeks/Hellenic states like Epirus and Macedon and Successor Kingdoms of Alexander) could MOP the floor with Medieval armies before gunpowder was involved. I would even argue the equipment was more suited to the task of melee and ranged combat, but I will admit the trebuchet is a very effective artillery. I wonder what the stories of the deep past of humanity are though, but it would be impossible to know in a place as fragile and vulnerable as Earth. There could be remnants of ancient human technology on the Moon and Mars and beyond for all we know. Us "normal" people would never be able to find out, anyway. Not the way we behave.

[@Neapoleone-Buonaparte]

DIVIDE ET IMPERA -- is a gross oversimplification! First off, the Romans found plenty of division in place among practically all of their enemies. Playing off one faction against another IS NOT a Roman thing per se, it'sa necessity of common sense. It's simply stupid to claim otherwise. The real genius of Roman Diplomacy is not even mentioned in this video! This is basically Comic Strip facts put together under a British Accent in a KZbin presentation!

[@Impericalevidence]

You or I might be a nerd but not all are. For some this is informative. For those who want more and don't already know, they will seek and they will find.

[@colinhunt4057]

Your comment about divide and conquer is very accurate. The Persian Empire did that to their Athenian enemies during the Peloponnesian wars during the time of Pericles. The Persian kings were skilled at finding Greek traitors who could be paid to work against their own cities. During the second Peloponnesian War starting in 413 BC, the Persians provided the financing for Sparta's first real fleet as the essential step to defeating Athens by 404. As a result, Persia ruined the only Greek city-state capable of resisting them until the advent of the Macedonians about 50 years later.

[@Neapoleone-Buonaparte]

@@colinhunt4057 well put, but you forget that the Greeks did the same thing to each other non-stop during their innumerable city-state wars, or when the Macedonians of Phillip played the Greek city-states against one another to weaken any coalition or league formed against them...or during the bloody Wars of the Diadochi, for goodness sake!

[@Neapoleone-Buonaparte]

@@colinhunt4057 also, Xenophon writes about the many wars of the Achaemenid Succession in which the Greeks fought as mercenaries playing off one Persian royal contender against another, usually his brother, probably to advance the interests of the Ionian and Levantine Greek subject city-states seeking advantages at the expense of the strong unity of the Achaemenid Empire.

[@timothyahernRoxyCat]

I sure wish folks would list their sources.

[@hugoboss917]

AI made video. Just look at the Roman helmets😅

[@markbrandon7359]

1st pic shows the soldiers with beards Romans were clean shaven barbarians wore beards

[@m.j.9318]

Pls hold the line sir 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@keithmoriyama5421]

Romans V Mongols-- who would win?

[@raywhitehead730]

The Romans lost quite a few battles. But they learned and adapted.

[@kvppvk]

Lots of experts on here - especially in decimation. 😂

[@mikeplatts2603]

What on earth have your Roman soldiers got on their heads, thats no Roman helmet I have ever seen and I have been studying Ancient Rome for the best part of 60 years ?

[@SantiagoVeraLoor]

Devide ans conquer. Something the European people have been doing ever since which is how Europe conquered the world

[@quinshotton6352]

Decimation should not be on this list. It was used only a handful of times in the entire empires history. Additionally it was used only for legions that showed cowardice or refused orders. Not to any odd legion that lost a battle.

[@rolandlabelle188]

They killed children knowing that it would dampen the enemies moral

[@rjwintl]

and after taking kids back to Rome to make them into Romans a few like Arminius (Herman the German ) took those learned battle tactics and devised ways to beat the Romans at their own game … case in point : Teutoburg Forest in 9AD where Arminius organized an ambush of Three entire Roman Legions dispatched nearly all of them , 18,000 Romans annihilated by approximately 5000 Germans ( my people ) !!!

[@alaypatel6050]

First minute is very in accurate. There were no armies that had better resources or superior weapons over rome after 2nd century bc. Its like saying today some country has better resources or weapons than usa.

[@Svinfylka]

Thanks for the video but the title is misleading. Most of the video refers to strategy versus tactics in the military sense. If this were on tactics it would be on specific actions taken during a battle. Strategies generally refer to steps taken or planned outside the actions within a battle. Strategies: Divide and Conquer, addition of corvuses to quinqueremes. Tactics: Caesar building outer wall against Vercingetorix, Scipio Africanus having legions open lanes for Carthaginian elephants to pass through without killing the Romans, when and how corvuses were used in a battle Also these are not insane. Being a bit over-dramatic.

[@zenturnip]

The artists of this video should have known the Roman soldiers and officers had no facial hair

[@JoaoSoares-rs6ec]

You start with the one thing roman commanders extremely rarely did, it was two legions not cohorts, the corvus wasn't actually use, because it nade the ships unstable.

[@roastbeef1967]

If it wasn't for the Cimbri....

[@ThePoliticalLambaster1]

Corporate America is doing the exact same thing

[@pannobhasa]

The Carthaginians, like the Greeks, fought their naval battles mainly by ramming

[@johnj4860]

On my signal unleash hell 🤔

[@rudivanrooijen7611]

Decimation wasn't a tactic. It was a disciplinary measure.........

[@nicholasnapier2684]

Seems like we would think the Mongolians had this sort of tactic Genghis Khan tried to master all the same things..

[@user-tw8nh3fh2y]

😎😎😎AWESOME VID 😎😎😎

[@JugglesGrenades]

Gee, I was taught it was because of their use of combat engineering. Stupid me.

[@jrhenry686]

Believe nothing

[@arturovaldes546]

Rome could be your greatest friend or your worst enemy. Your choice.

[@jahmah519]

I would love to know what Britain was like prior to the successful invasion, the 1 prior to that some 70 years previous, it was said that it was not storms that destroyed their ships the romans but the British were on another level & united in spirits, the romans didnt even make it of the beach & were so frightened by the people they encountered that it was all them years later that they attempted again but were successful because the Britts or albions & Caledonians i think they were called with Rome giving the name Brittania were already divided & at war with each other, so easier to conquer but not totaly as Caledonia went on to be called Scotland, but what were these previously? They must have been most formidable & that togetherness is uncanny in today's world.