as much as it can be quite inaccurate, its a banging great movie and a good watch

So he comments on the swords and armor, but not on the fact that emperors aren't normally given to jumping down into the arena and fighting the prisoners themselves?

@@Shan_Dalamani commodus is famous for taking part in, most probably, rigged, mock-up battles with various gladiators/slaves.

@@Shan_Dalamani commodus actually did that though

@@Shan_Dalamani except commodus did fight in the arena?

Totally agree

No, this makes it a lot worse. I want to hear him talk about history, not "what idiots think movie needs", wich either way is wrong.

i dont know which specific other videos you are talking about. But just because some of these historians/scientists/scholars are hyper critical in their videos doesnt mean that dont "understands the importance of creating a movie that is interesting to watch". If i am a physisics who get asked to comment on the physics in some movie clips, then that's what im going to do. If im asked to explain what parts of the clip that is accurate and what is not, then thats what im going to do, even if i understand that a movie is first and foremost entertainment.

@@KevinUchihaOG i was talking specifically about historians, not other scientists. Obviously the science has to be correct, or at least make sense, of we are talking about science fiction. I'm studying biology myself and also get very annoyed, when there are things in the movies that don't make sense. And about history, I more than understand the importance of historical accuracy. But some guests in these types of videos are literally talking about every single minor detail in the costume, setting etc, and although if with many of them i agree, it feels like, if it was up to them, the movie would've just been the most boring documentary in the world. While this guy is pretty much like: yh, it's not perfect, but the movie doesn't get worse because of this particular minor detail. (Or something like that, i watched the video quite a long time ago)

@@sofiagolubtsova2268 The problem is that Gladiator is not about some minor inaccuracies... They literally change facts for the movies: the death of two emperors... And depicted germans like idiotic barbarians from a Conan movie...

strangled to death in the baths by his gay lover as well

Not quite the way it led to his downfall in Gladiator though kek Killed by a poisoned former general that *he* made a slave, now that's gotta sting.

I believe Commodus had the swords of his opponents blunted, so they had barely any chance to kill him. When they realized what was going on, they tended to give up and let him kill them. Until one gladiator, I think he may have been made Commodus' bodyguard or something, found out that Commodus had been blunting the swords. So he took one of those blunt swords, went into Commodus' room, and stabbed Commodus with the blunted blade. Which would've been pretty hard to do. Like stabbing someone with a spoon... sort of.

It's not that the match were guaranteed for him, it's that Commodus actually was a great fighter, differently from his father. He was initially loved by the soldiers for this reason.

@@walnzell9328 No, Commodus was strangled to death by his wrestling trainer.

But as least it portrayed a diverse population suitable for a modern audience 😂

​@@garlicgorilla6540 That part was accurate enough.

THANK YOU! I was screaming at the screen when this "expert" started spouting this utter nonsense.

I too started yelling at my screen when he came out that, that piece of nonsense. He's a historian I s'pose not a weapons expert but still.....Research people!!!!! It's been debunked move on.

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous to assume the "only way" to extract a sword without a blood groove is to twist it. Friction might grip the blade a bit, but having stabbed many sides of ham (more or less analogous to human flesh) with butcher knives, I can say that the blade pulls out with just a slight tug. With the energy and excitement of a proper battle, I don't think a Legionary or Gladiator would notice any resistance in the slightest.

Damn right. You even hear this nonsense about cutting weapons.

I was about to say that,,good answer 👍spot on!

HAHA, never seen the movie but that is hilarious.

I think you missed the point if what happened. It turned them to stone for the credits to roll where it showed real versions of the ash population.... in that blast they would have been bits of flesh and bone, judging from the velocity and what's traveling in the blast I.e rocks, crit ect... which would tear the charing flesh right off. Ofcouse they would have died instantly... but you have blatantly missed what they where doing in that scene

@@The-Spanish-Inquisition490 this movie was too deep in some parts for most people to get

There were parts of it I thought were good, but overall it was disappointing considering the information they had to make it accurate. And the acting was atrocious !

The part of Pompeii that drove me nuts was the whole fucking movie…

Yeah, I cringed a little when he said that.

Yes. My same reaction. But then again no expert can be an expert of everything.

You know things can serve multiple purposes

Widely accepted doesn't mean it's correct. The fuller were not only for lightening the load, it also serves as reinforcing the blade so it's more durable, and making it easier to retrieve the blade from a wound is a plus, even strong fighters would need a lot of force to retrieve a blade after a deep thrust

@@battle_toast You just saying all that doesn't make it correct either. It makes the blade lighter without weakening too much but it makes the blade weaker for sure to remove material. As for fuller making it easier for blades to remove from a body, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.

I been to Pompeii myself and Vesuvius is freakin massive! No way I would live next to that thing back in the day. Lol

@@brandonmcstay6401 me either. It has a real presence about it, almost evil like.

@@brandonmcstay6401 well, the soil from the volcano would've made it a very fertile land. I think if I was a lowly farmer back then, I would've tried my luck and settled there. And probably end up dead as well lol

@@JKribbit with how superstitious the romans were, they probably had interesting views on the volcano.

@@misanthropicservitorofmars2116 The word volcano comes from the God Vulcan, or rather the island of Vulcano, which itself is named after Vulcan. They believed the island was was formed from the debris coming out of a volcano. They believed that volcanos were the chimneys to Vulcans workshops, and that earthquakes were Vulcan making tools & weapons for wars fought by the God's. Also, Vulcan was married to Venus and the eruptions at Mt. Etna were thought to be Vulcan taking out his frustrations towards Venus, on his anvils.

Galley slaves were used in the 16th century but not in ancient times

Galley slaves in the 16th century were motivated enough by the fact that not rowing would likely mean their ship was going to be sunk (with them on it) by enemy cannon fire. In the Roman era though, yeah; good luck controlling those slaves in the middle of battle.

My thoughts exactly. Regardless of how well you can tie them down, having a crew of potential angry mutineers outnumbering your regular crew by quite a lot sounds like asking for disaster.

@@gchecosse And that is exactly where the author of the novel Ben Hur, Gen. Lew Wallace, got the idea.

@@gchecosse Actually not entirely true. Athens promised slaves and poor inhabitants/farmers money if they choose to be in the Athenian Navy. They did get loyalty due to being paid but there were slaves in the athenian warships

Thanks for taking the time to write this out and explain this too us :). I'm not planning on a career in vulcanology or anything related, but it was still interesting to learn a little something. As a scientist, I am always looking to better and more accurately understand the world, so where some might write your comment off as, say, pedantry, I however see the value. Honestly, from what you described? It sounds like that would be really cool to witness on the big screen. Although, that said, I have no idea how much harder or easier it would be for the VFX artists to be working more with cloud/gas/particle/etc effects than just "big fiery rocks come down, pew pew" and still have a realistic looking end product *shrug*. Because, in my humble opinion, what you're describing sounds at LEAST as visually captivating.

this comment was much needed. kudos!

I don't care about any Pompeii movie if it doesn't show people running around with their pillows bound onto their heads

Any film which shows people jumping over andesitic lava flows should have its producers chucked into a volcano.

He really isn’t though. So much of what he says in this is wildly inaccurate.

I think that movie was based on a book, so they were probably going on some source material that was likely well researched at least.

the book is really enjoyable historical teen fiction, maybe give it a shot

In the book……which is one of my absolute favourites….. Marcus is a follower of Mithras and has to conceal the Mithras brand on his forehead as he goes North . It’s also how he identifies the native hunter who has survived the massacre by turning native.

@@carolb.4837 in the film he is a follower a Mithras and he hides the mark (I think at the top of his nose) created by wearing his helmet for prolonged periods. Can’t remember a mention of Isis

Is Mithras the Romanization of Isis, perhaps?

Yeah, I was really surprised by this observation myself.

Thank you! The myth of the “Blood Groove” is far too prevalent.

I just paused the vid to see if anyone addressed this

That's not the only thing he said that raised my eyebrow.

@@Ashitaka255 I know we’re all not qualified but that being said this gent has a few things to read up on

Man, Rome was awesome, wish he had spoken about episode 1 opening scenes in the Gauls👍

Read the title. Rome isn’t a movie.

@@TheRausing1 very true, so it wasn't eligible...but it _was_ awesome 👍😎

@@munstrumridcully it can be the most awesome thing in the world, it’s still not a movie

I’m sure you have all seen it but if not, History Buffs channel has two videos on the HBO/BBC Rome.

I'm here after watching Metatron's debunking of this video.

If you've ever stabbed a rather large piece of meat (or butchered something using a cleaver -- which doesn't have a so-called 'blood groove') you already know this and didn't need 35 history degrees to realize it :D Butcher / farmer guy in Romania who killed several large pigs vs. qualified historian. :D

@@MrBooblo086 Living archeology " " is a valuable resource for expanding our knowledge of everything from ancient weapon systems to the practicality of ancient civic technology. The 'blood channel' thing is fucking absurd, this guy should know better.

Thanks for the recommendations. I enjoyed other fiction set in Ancient Rome, and wanted more, but hadn’t yet heard of Sutcliff or “The Eagle of the Ninth”. I wrote thm down and will check Audible, my favorite way to “read” these days. I hope they have them, their selection is pretty limited.🙂

There's not much of it in that series, in many important aspects. But wth, at least some of the characters looked pretty so that makes it all okay, I guess. Even without Scribonia.

@@Shan_Dalamani The HBO series is the most accurate portrayal of Roman society and customs you're going to find in any piece of media.

@@AimForMyHead81 Then that's a pretty damning assessment of modern media. Who the hell does a historical drama and plans for multiple seasons but omits the characters necessary to make it historically accurate?

@@AimForMyHead81 inclined to agree - it seems very accurate to me. Would have loved to hear his views on the battle scenes in "Fall of the RE".The battle scenes in that - v both the Germanic tribes,and the even better battle v the Persians.

@@Shan_Dalamani You need to elaborate on that. What historical figures were emitted? A character driven drama can't feel like a soap opera, you need to make amends when it comes to narrative and pacing. You also realise that the series was prematurely cancelled by the network because of the budget right? The series literally ends with Augustus becoming emperor and they couldn't go beyond that, hence the emmison of Scribonia, who was his SECOND wife. It had a budget of 200 million dollars. It was filmed on location in Italy with the biggest city sets ever built for any TV or film production. It featured an all star cast of A-grade actors and was meticulously crafted in every aspect from it's cinematography (shot on 35mm film cameras) and direction, to it's costume design and orchestral score. The fact they were even able to wrap it up as well as they did is a pretty incredible display of adaptive writing.

I agree with you! I’m wondering the same thing does he have any more videos

Holy cringe lmao

@@chasepalumbo2929 why? Because he enjoyed the way someone narrates and wants to see more of their work? Wow.

@@chasepalumbo2929 you are cringe for saying that and ibet you watch tiktok daily rather than videos like this.

@@chasepalumbo2929 I agree with you. It sounds like Buster boy is trying too hard to sound intellectual or interesting.

He did but he blunted the ends and gave them shitty armour

The running testudo was ridiculous however

@@123SEA1 It's always a testudo lmao

@@123SEA1 The running testudo isn't ridiculous in the slightest. Also, the orbis formations were quite common for Roman legions/cohorts when they got surrounded. They're mentioned in Caesar's writings, and other historical works sometimes touch on the circular formations.

@@weirdofromhalo The testudo was ridiculous in this movie because they weren't taking missile attacks. They had no reason to use it there.

@@richardstephens5570 it wasn't just for missle attacks. They knew they were gonna be surrounded. To stop that and from people jumping into the circle to break the inner circle walls that keep the outer walls up, the top shields prevent that. Plus you have zero clue if a missle attack would occur. This served two purposes, stop rocks and other items from hitting them. Stop people from jumping in. Never seen a riot have you where people be throwing anything they can find over shields...

Yes. Everyone knows but this chump

He didn't say that it was what it was for, just that it had that effect.

@@jawbone78 It doesn't have that effect.

i have worked stocking freight for over 30 years, i cut the top of boxes open all the time and turn them up side down and let the freight fall out of them. the freight falls out slowly because of suction, but if i also cut the flap at the bottom of the box the freight just instantly slides right out. so i easily comprehend the obvious concept of how the channel would make a blade easier to pull out of a body. but even having never done it i highly doubt the physiques of pulling a blade with channels along the sides out of a solid piece of meat filled with liquid would work the same way. i dont really see the channels making much difference. it is an entirely different kind of suction that would be created.

Bit bummed when he said that, supposed to be an expert, but I suppose you can't be an expert at every aspect! Certainly knows more about Roman culture than I.

@@anthonydevito1298 His reaction to the guys running out of the fort was pretty weird as well. I watched that film with my classics professor who absolutely despises that film and that particularly scene had him laughing like a loon.

No Spartacus? :(

Gladiator is my joint favourite film as well.

What’s your favourite

@@jackeaston9256 The Crow

@@jackeaston9256 The Count of Monte Cristo

That's pretty interesting; I've read that particular danger in many sources - it's not one I'd have expected to be a myth. Are axes and picks any more difficult to extract, or do swords have an advantage there?

It caught me too when he said that. Then I remembered being taught that 20+years ago and I wondered if this is a case of a teacher not being up to date with actually historical combat, or simply perpetuating an old outdated viewpoint long since proven false.

What is the point of your comment.

@@patrickmcmahon6303 whose comment? Mine? If so I thought this was a forum for exchange of points of view? Weapons like swords don't get stuck in wounds very often at all, I thought that might be useful for people to know.

"I know from personal experience". Wow amazing. So how many human did you butchered ?

Centurion?

HBO's Rome is a masterpiece, I love that series so so so much

HBO Rome and barbarians are accurate in time period, and armor in my opinion. Though, HBO Rome admitted that some of the scenes seem closer in timeline than they should and that was due to funding and limited time on air, etc.

Unlike many of these comments 🤣

I read a comment from another historian that some of those rowers were Roman Marines also.

Or Cleopatra with Rex Harrison, Taylor & Burton...and Spartacus with Kirk Douglas. Yes, the HBO Rome series was good. A friend of mine who was a writer, stated the Rome series was so expensive, they just could not afford to keep up the production. But very accurate.

Absolutely.Can't think of a more accurate depiction of ancient Rome.Just superb.@@hesavedawretchlikeme6902

It’s called killing a bunch of horses and wild stunt men just going for it

Indeed. They built a Hippodrome and had a real chariot race. One of the many reasons Ben Hur held the record for numbers of Oscars won until the overrated, sappy "Titanic" came along in the 90's.

They did the whole thing properly, deaths included. Sad to say. But that is the reason its so well portrayed, because thats the sort of thing that would have happened small inconsistencies asside.

​@theamericanextremist this is a common misconception but that was actually the 1925 silent film. No person died in the 1959 epic, though one stuntman did have a minor injury on set. This common misconception is likely due to people forgetting about the 1920s film (the original), and so accidentally consider Charlton Heston's Ben Hur as the original when reading about all of the deaths

One of my favorite books

@@calebshoemaker Yes, a great story. Have you read a similar book, Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz? I bet you would like it! Both were made into blockbuster films in the 1950's. And while I think the 1959 Ben Hur is one of the greatest films ever made, in my opinion the novel Quo Vadis edges out the novel of Ben Hur.

Lew Wallace was a Union general in the civil war. His father was a West Point graduate, which may have provided his son more knowledge of the Roman military than we can imagine. The cadets study history and military tactics in detail. However, I have not actually read the book Ben Hur, so am not at liberty to say whether the book or the movie is in error by his fault. Again though he wrote it as a novel, and the real message is to convey "a tale of the Christ." Lew Wallace was an attorney, also served as a governor of the New Mexico Territory once. He died in 1905.

​@@hesavedawretchlikeme6902 Lew Wallace was the son of a West Point graduate, but he never attended West Point himself. He went to a private academy in Centerville, Indiana, but his focus was on writing, not history.

@@andrewmize823 yes, I have edited my comment on this, thanks for pointing it out. I have close relatives that were also West Point graduates and retired from the Army. Very intense study of strategies, tactics.

I think the battle scene in Rome is probably as best as one can depict a late republic battle against Celts but we don´t know for sure how they did it. The idea to change out the front combatant makes a lot of sense but has some pratical issues like avoiding getting hit whilst retreating back and maintaining formation.

​@@DangeHD Of course. And in reality, the Romans did suffer losses, sometimes severe. Bear in mind that the opposing barbarians faced these problems: - exhaustion after 2.5 minutes - everybody getting in each other's way trying to 'score points' by killing a Roman - everybody taking even more risks and getting killed because of the warriors' competitive nature. And the series did give us its version of a Roman army Vs. another Roman army which turned out as expected: utter chaos!

I've actually read about a double testudo as well, where they stood upon the shields of other legionaries to form a second level and attack city walls I believe.

The thing about just taking a fit twenty something volunteer is that you're not taking someone that's been trained as roman soldier, conditioned, and experienced. You can't just take rando Chad off the street and expect performance. The Testudo was indeed intended for use as a defense against projectiles and as such was typically deployed for slow movement and with a hunched position if moving to keep the legs from being targeted. However, the way it was shown to be used in The Eagle, is not implausible, impossible or even stupid. You're making what you hope to be a short and 'sharp' crash through the enemy lines to get your buddies without arrows flying at you. You're using a normally cumbersome formation and using it in a faster and looser manner because you're not protecting yourself from arrows. Compressed in time scale or not, the portrayal given does not outrun a professional soldier's endurance before they broke to the open formation. And yes, you're right, when it was possible in large engagements they did rotate front line as best as they could to keep fresh fighters on the leading edge. But for The Eagle, you're talking about a quarter century there maybe, thirty guys at best without directly counting. What they were doing wasn't meant to be a long engagement. Plus, not how what was noted in the video. -Elite- training for that legion historically speaking. So I don't see the combat show as Hollywood fantasy.

@@Meravokas However impressive or plausible movies and tv shows depict Roman legionaries in combat, it still is 'Hollywood fantasy.' For instance, legionaries carried one or two pilae into combat and threw these into the attacking enemies just before they would get into hand to hand combat range. Those javelins thrown would devastate the enemy ranks, making most battles rather one sided slaughter fests.

Yeah he definitely did not look into battle tactics as a metric to measure because even Gladiator’s first scene had issues in this regard. Using catapults, fire arrows, and having formations in all our brawls. Definitely not historically accurate, but they definitely made it look more cinematic.

@@Kbo513 Do you honestly think battles were neat and pitched? That thousands of men stabbing each other and killing each other isn't occasionally gonna get disorganized?

@@Baelfyre Fire arrows were ineffective and was there for a cinematic experience and what made Roman formations formidable in history were that soldiers rotated among each man and stayed in formation as much as they can in order to not tired men out. That’s why Rome was formidable for so long - discipline and formation. The battle depicted was immediately a charge and all out brawl.

@@Baelfyre this historian even mentioned that in this engagement, the soldiers would have thrown two pillums before engaging with their gladius. There were instances were the Romans were ambushed like the Teutenbourg forest were Romans were just running to stay alive - in that case, yes pure chaos. In this Gladiator scene, they faced their enemy head on and their flanks were secured.

Thanks Professor You Tube

@@damwonstyx1169 He's actually correct. This 'historian' on the video said a number of very inaccurate things.

@@damwonstyx1169 He's completely right. The purpose of a fuller on a sword is to make a larger blade with the same amount of material while keeping a strong shape. It's not a "blood groove" or whatever other people might ascribe to it. It has nothing to do with the wounds it inflicts. Legionaries would use the Testudo formation while under fire, like in a siege assault or against mounted archers for instance. They could move the formation, but it would be slow and it was vulnerable to infantry and especially cavalry assault since the legionaries are very tightly packed and there's no room to use their weapons. You used the testudo when the threat of enemy projectiles can't be dealt with by simply closing with the enemy. More often than not, it was more advantageous to just steadily advance to limit the amount of time they were exposed to enemy fire.

I think he said at the start that he was happy with a certain amount of accuracy. But yes- you can’t strike at your enemy at all and you are not deflecting projectile strikes.

But the film shows them forming testudo when shot at, then coming out of it when charged. Correction: I thought you were talking about Gladiator. Sorry!

And flame arrows, there was no reason to use flame arrows unless you were trying to set something on fire. It just looks good on camera.

Thanks, i was looking for a comment on the stirrups.

You also don't have homogeneous forests like that during the Roman invasion of Germania. During that time period, forests had all kinds of random plants and fungi growing in them, almost like the Amazon rain forest in terms of diversity. Homogeneous forests came centuries later when lumber harvests had depleted the forests of Europe. The barbarians aren't dressed correctly. The Romans are using trebuchets. Everyone is slashing with their gladius instead of stabbing. The Romans don't fight in formation. The barbarians don't fight in formation. There's so much wrong in that opening scene. Still absolutely fucking love watching it, though. 😂

The horses were also modern sized as were the actors. Just looked it up, based on archeology/statues, "horses" were between 13hh and 15hh, average size of soldier 5ft7. They rode ponies, probably a lot easier to ride without stirrups and also not that fast. As kids we rode bareback a lot, not so much as you get older, balance, center of gravity, I dunno. Of course they should have made it accurate, but have a feeling it would end up looking like (to the modern audience) the "oh how they danced" dwarves in Spinal Tap.

@excession3076 There is an excellent book by Ann Hyland called 'Training the Roman Cavalry' where she has reconstructed the gear based on archeological evidence and worked with it on her own verse based on Trajan's writing. Nowadays, at least one set of Cavalry reconstionists in the UK uses Roman saddles, though I suspect their bits are modern and much less severe. The Numidian auxillia didn't use any tack if we are to believe ancient historians.

Bugger. I'm still half asleep. That should be Hadrian, not Trajan.

But never optic sights in a WWII game

he said one debunked thing and now yall are saying he got nothing on all weapons and all armor? bro...

@@FeelingLucky246 bruh… It's not that alone, he's said many things that are either wrong, misleading, or glossed over. I understad that these are movie scenes, some of these I loved watching the movies, but in regards to his information and his analysis, he's very questionable and seemingly dubious in his knowledge. I see what you mean, but there is truth to what others have been saying, for example: (I'm not trying to argue, but making some clarifications is all, no hard feelings) For example, the Romans used various pieces of armor, not just the Lorica Segmentata, but also Hamata, Squamata, Musculata, etc. The uniformity, although used in Gladiator as a clarification that they are Romans, is unrealistic, given the expensive quality and cost of producing the armor. - He calls a Roman Gladius, a Spatha, which would only come about in the mid-ish 3rd Century AD - He doesn't make note of leather bracelets, which have no record in archaeology, historical sources, first and second, and have no basis at all in history - The Fuller Groove Myth is also complete bs, given that fuller grooves are meant to make a sword lighter, not "create a vacuum and cause blood to stay within, which sounds brain-numbing. The concept of suction for this is also misleading and weightless. As someone mentioned, people get stabbed by things all the time, with no difficulty. The Gladius would face troubles and improvements if such a myth existed, having to stab all those times and then try and release, again, all those times. - They never used testudo like that in the Eagle. Testudo was used for protection against missiles, that of arrows, javelins, etc. The whole ramming part is ridiculous. The Orbis however is true to the record, as seen in Anatolia during the Great Roman Civil War (Caesarians vs Pompeians) - Commodus' gladiatorial sessions were skewed in his favor, having weapons blunted and victories guaranteed. He also died in his bath by his gladiatorial mentor, after a group of those on a hit list discovered said list and devised a plot to kill him. Doesn't make a note of the roman helmets used in Gladiator, which are off. - Leather Lorica Segmentata was never used, it was made of metal. Lorica in its latin roots may mean leather, but it was metal. I could go on and on.

And forgetting that Roman Nobles and an Emperor (or two?) participated in Gladiatorial games as well. Those PHD's must be a lot easier to get than i remember.

Yeah. After all, you don't want dozens or even a couple hundred people with cause to hate you rowing your ships.

Yeah. Expensive military tech in the hands of people with cause to hate you and nothing to lose. It's hard to imagine Romans being okay with that.

@@friendcomputer2293 How much would that suck if the top brass decided to use slaves instead of paid contractors for your warship? I can see it now: "Oh our ship is being attacked? What if...what if we just, like, stop rowing? The other side will board the ship, kill all of our captors, and possibly set us free. They may even reward us with hookers and blackjack for helping defeat the Romans!" 😆

The thing that always takes me out of Roman movies is seeing people slashing with a gladius. Yeah, you can do that, but that's not how they were used. They were a stabbing weapon. Thin to fit between locked shields. Small/short to save energy and stamina. If the Romans had problems with a gladius getting stuck, they would have used a completely different weapon.

I've heard the same from other sources. Maximus the General was real, the story they give him in the movie is not.

@@corruptangel6793 I've always heard that he was a fictional amalgamation of several different historical figures. While there were several important Romans with the name "Maximus," I don't know of any with the name "Maximus Decimus Meridius."

Maximus was not a real Character. Maximus, the name, was the name of several generals throughout history. Russel Crowes character is completely made up and his name is not a real name, he has 2 cognomen lol. They just called him that because it sounded cool.

No, Maximus was a real general of Roman legions in their military

3:35 - true that a gladius didn’t have any fullers, but fullers were not for relieving blood or air from the wound. That’s a myth. Fullers were meant to reduce the weight of a sword without comprising its strength.

Plus, he forgot about the campaigns of Agricola and Septimius Severus as well.

the romans stopped at what is roughly the border between england and today's scotland. they didnt really go into scotland because they hated the locals(caledonians) , the weather, the atmosphere there and some other things..

As long as you don't mind the over 100 horses that died in the making...

At least your dad portioned it for you to digest at proper ages, I watched the whole thing at like 10y old, and the lepers gave me nightmares, haha. I think the chariot scene was declared the best action scene of the 20th century, and rightfully so. What a flick.

@@mrcroob8563 100 horses died during the making of the 1925 version of Ben Hur directed by Fred Niblo not during the the making 1959 version of Ben Hur directed by William Wyler and starring Charlton Heston.

The chariot race was stunning but terribly inaccurate historically. No way would Messala or Judah take the reins. Chariot driving was the job of a slave or peasant.

@@druidriley3163 No one expects Ben Hur to be historically accurate. The whole galley slave thing is also wrong, galleys were manned by highly trained naval soldiers. (Not even to mention the appearance of the Christ and the healing rain in the end). Ben Hur is (1.) a movie from the 50s, when no one gave a damn about historical accuratesse (ever watched Cleopatra with Liz Taylor or El Cid with Charlton Heston? Great movies, but accurate? Not in the slightest. But, more importantly, (2.) Ben Hur is no historical film. It is a novel adaptation of the book “Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ” by General Lew Wallace, published 1880 by Harper, New York. The novel tells basically the exact story of the film (making it a rather accurate adaptation), but dives deeper in the rebellion. Judah plans to create a rebellion, gets into the race and wins agains Messala and later abandons the plans of rebellion and turns to the teachings of the crucified Christ. That aspect is cut short in the film - both his active planning of a rebellion (he acts way more reluctantly in the film) and his subsequent quasi-christianisation (though Christianity didn’t exist). But I was talking about the movie as a work of fiction. And as such, it is one of the greatest movies ever made. Ah, btw, Judah himself, as a member of the Jewish-Hellenic upper class could have participated in the race. Chariot races were not slave things, they were indeed more prestigious. But Messala, in such a race? Never. And Judah doesn’t get in as Judah Ben Hur, but as the adopted son of a Roman Senator - making both members of the Roman nobility.

@@NigelsWargaming Thank you for your reply.

Forest and cavalry does not work and Romans fighting in close formation fighting in a forest does also not work good so you are right the Roman army always did look for open space to fight as much as possible.

Considering the though a bunch of undisciplined shirtless wild men was an “accurate” representation of Britannia’s culture id say he knows absolutely nothing. This portrayal comes from the literal smear campaign Rome led against them! Painting them as actual demon men! Simply because they lost to them a few times! These were not a bunch of shirtless men running Willy billy into battle. They were strategic fighters! Not “savages”

Except, since Gladiator came out 3 years before the first Pirates, you heard hints of the Gladiator soundtrack in the Pirates of the Caribbean flick! hahaha

It really was unwatchable. I didn't finish it either.

Throw in Quo Vadis as well. While it was full of Hollywoodizations, it had its moments of brilliance also. There is a scene where Legatus Marcus Vinicius is leading a victory parade in Rome, driving his chariot with a slave holding a Laurel above Vinicius' head. The slave repeats the phrase "Remember, thou art only a man" over and over. This was to remind the hero that he was still a man and not a god. The practice is alluded to in the final lines spoken by George C. Scott in the film Patton. "All glory is fleeting."

They didn't seem to be including miniseries. I Claudius is wonderful and a favorite of mine, but alas, I suspect, not that accurate. The production values are very low (though the acting is fantastic), so no budget to assure an authentic look to the costumes, etc. Plus it's based on the novel by Robert Graves which, by his own admission, contains pretty much the worst thing that was said about everybody. Livia poisoning the fig trees seems a bit of a stretch to say the least.

Throwing "light pila" at 100 metres, though? The Olympic world javelin record isn't even that far! They'd be lucky to get them out to 10 metres.

forreal I was surprised that he approved of the use of the testudo in a head-on infantry charge like that

Yes... The Romans would have formed a Wedge Formation to push into to break through a line.. The Testudo Formation wasn't used for/during melee since it requires to many members (soldiers) of the formation to be focused on defensive use of their shield and holding the formation.. IE about 80% of the soldiers in a Testudo Formation aren't in a position to effectively fight in melee..

​@@MajCyric Wedge is predominantly used by cavalry because it's main use is allowing everyone to be able to follow the guy at the front. A bunch of really hardcore re-enactors did some testing and basically found it to be nearly useless when used by infantry because you're basically saying please kill the front half of my formation and the guy in the front always dies very quickly. Would maybe work if he was armored up in plate mail, but that isn't a thing in this period and Roman equipment is much more fond of lines.

@@laurie1183 Umm, The Wedge Formation was used indeed used by the Roman Infantry.. A tactic they picked up from the Greeks... The Roman Command to form a wedge was “cuneum formate”... It used to break a set infantry shield wall line.. The Romans used it often during the Boudicca's Revolt in Britain..... The center of the Wedge has a deep rank to push and break a line with the flanks having a "thinner" depth of ranks (The last 1 or 2 ranks of the lines on the side would fall back to form the center line for the wedge)... And surprisingly the Wedge is still used today by law enforcement as a riot control tactic..

@@MajCyric Law enforcement across the world suck at riot control and pretty much every cop knows it. The tendency of police actions to work has little to do with tactics and much more to do with the disparity of morale, equipment, and personality. As a result police riot tactics have very little to do with what actually works and much more to do with what sounds nice. Police that have to handle genuinely interested rioters bring guns, gas, and horses. The principle problem with a wedge is that it relies on the men behind to push the men in the front forwards. This is fine for a ruck and works perfectly if you're playing rugby. It's also fine if the people you're fighting aren't very committed and are open to running away - i.e. rioters who are there mostly to steal things or to have fun. It's essentially a death sentence if the people you're fighting bring weapons because the guys at the front are fighting at at - depending on how sharp the wedge is - up to a five to one disadvantage. In a real fight you're dead if you're in a two to one disadvantage and very dead at three to one. As far as anyone who has actually tried this kind of thing can tell this is the predominant reason why infantry always in lines if they can do so. It's way more advantageous for them and it doesn't rely on your enemy being willing to run.

this guy is chatting bollocks. Others pointing out different errors in the comments too.

There was no reason to form a testudo in that situation, they were taking no missile attacks.

Yeah no way they'd have formed a testudo in this situation. It was a defensive formation against missiles, not useful at all in melee.