“Bark Bark” - Shi Tzu

Sun Zu said all his sayings on Twitter!

Sun Tzu would have been great on SNL. What a jokester.

Sun Tzu says " I demand a retraction!"

Oh Sun Tzu himself very strongly insisted that the officers, especially in the same type of deal as today's boot camp drill Sergants: if they don't train the men sufficiently; what they did is tantamount to *treason* against all of their duties, and their country's flag at the same time... same deal as a Roman officer or soldier who shirks his duty and/or falls asleep on picket duty: that kind of stunt brought about the death-penalty!

It's really not that hard once you can read and write and have assistants, secretaries etc.

⁠@@_--Reaper--_well the modern military as we know it is very organized. Command staff was revolutionized by Napoleons Marshal, Marshal Berthier. So it would be very interesting to see what a Roman commanders command staff would look like. And just how effective they were. Or if most of it fell to the commander. A good logistics officer during Roman times would be priceless I would imagine. And finding someone with such capabilities would be a difficult task. Would be interesting to see them do a video on a Roman commanders command staff

@@_--Reaper--_ Oh but sending a message to Rome or other major city might take days, weeks or months, and by the time reply should arrive the army has already moved on. But to where?

​@@MarktheRuderight? You couldn't just call them and say hey I want to do this and that. The army was heavily responsible for itself and had to rely on the competence in it I guess

"Throws abacus at clerk."

Kings and generals has a 247 video long playlist about the military history of rome.

Immaculate Vibe

I wonder if that could pay for itself in terms of the potential audience that series could have

Thank you for your kind comments. Many more to come!

Can u believe the abortion that was ridley Scott's movie? Have u read anything on napoleon

Most likely not pure silence. Hard to stay silent when you are made to kill the men you see in front of you.

yeah calling them "self taught amateurs" is pretty disingenuous, they were often from families with a tradition of officers so were raised preparing them for war, joining the military and served for years as an officer before ever even being considered for being a general. Just like today they'd have many years of service before being promoted. I havent checked many numbers but i want to say most generals were over 30 on the young side and often over 40 so they'd have 15+ years of experience as an officer.

The problem of overambitions of military leaders became even more severe when said leaders took their loyal legions and marched towards Rome to become new Emperor, which lead to numerous civil wars. Another disadvantage was overstretch, although the Romans dealt with that surprisingly well too. But in the end, the weakened Empire couldnt amass the ressources to secure its borders anymore.

@@abraham2172 Indeed, overstretching was a thing too. Some of those went excellent, like Caesar literally throwing himself into deep Gaul with the excuse of the Helvetic migration. Some of those went terribly wrong, like Crassus' vanity expedition into Parthia. And some achieved mixed results, like Regulus' expedition into Africa.

​@@arthas640I think "amateur" here meant not being educated/trained in a FORMAL way.....like in West Point or Sandhurst.

Yep, thats an important point you mentioned. Fabius is famous for not fighting Hannibal, people wrongly believe his strategy was to never fight Hannibal in open battle. This isnt true, Fabius was willing to face Hannibal, but on Roman terms. Fabius knew how good Hannibal was, and he knew every Roman commander before him had allowed Hannibal to fight a battle he had chosen. Fabius knew to beat Hannibal he needed these advantages. And one time in the war, Fabius had Hannibal trapped (the tables turned), Hannibal knew his army was gonna be annihilated and he employed very clever tactics to escape with most of his army. But this is never spoken about, even though it was a very important part of the story.

😂😂😂

😄 those carbs gave them energy

There were no tomatoes in Rome 😐

@@DallingerMI cooka da pizza

@@DallingerMtrue. But before tomatoes were brought to Rome, they did have a “pizza” like dish. It was the dough, with olive paste and garum

i dont

@@WladylawGomulka I do

good question

Roman aristocrats did attend schools abroad but there was no "military academy" as we understand it today with subjects, a curricula, teachers...

It was probably an academy for nobles rather like a military school. I guess sth like the school of pages for Macedonian hetairoi exclusive for nobles.

The only factor is sources. We are lucky to have so many sources for the Roman period, but Carthage is a lost cause. The Byzantines could maybe be done in the future though!

@@HistoriaMilitum thanks for the reply. 😁👍I’ve seen some other KZfaqrs Cover Carthage a bit. Like that youtuber called Invitca . Hope you can see some of his Carthage videos. There is at least some history info we have about them nowadays,

They are usually from Rome Total War games.

No lesson is necessary!

Yes, sorry for the error! It was Claudius Nero.

Rome 2 Total War

It was common for marching camps to be disassembled after every night, though sometimes, if the area or route was strategically important, they would be left standing with a strong garrison.

@@HistoriaMilitum Interesting, thank you for the answer.

It was only the wealthy who owned villas and estates and insulae. Everyone else rented from them; you asked the porter at the door of the building if there were rooms available. But the forum was the place to pick up news on who was selling what, if you were in the senatorial or equestrian classes, but even then you'd likely get your major domo to send a slave to make the announcements for the day or to make enquiries. The other place to go would be the baths, if you wanted to ask your peers in person if they knew of anyone selling.

Yes. He uses DEI mod

Working on it right now! Expect a release in May.

No-one, because it would be a ridiculously regressive step for any modern democratic nation to take. Naturally Trump doesn't understand this; his ego only lets him see as far as the forced adulation dictators receive. Have you considered moving to Russia? You'll just about have time to settle in and make friends before Putin dies and the factional conflicts break out.

​@@RichWoods23 "TRUMP.. TRUMP..!!" - leftist spergs in america

Yeah, but they were also separated by a 1000 years.

@@patrick-hill-3000 Mongols vs Huns would be interesting , as they are very similar in many ways .

What makes you think nobody were capable of making drawings on a piece of paper before the Renaissance?

@@Tjalve70 a KZfaq video :P But seriously, they didn’t have satellite balloons and accurate surveying techniques, most of the early maps were very rudimentary and more philosophical than useful for a traveler, instead they relied more on a system of directions, to go from place x to place y you need to pass river a then town b then take a left on the road to mountain c. I don’t know how useful military campaign maps were or if they even existed.

​@@ares106I am sure that even a rudimentary set of directions is better than nothing at all. Surely they had maps, even if they weren't very accurate

@@ares106 So first you ask whether maps existed, and then you admit that maps existed. So what is even your point? Do you have a point, apart from contradicting yourself?

@@Tjalve70 you are right, my first comment is incorrect. I should have written something like did “real maps”, or “maps that were useful enough to be employed in military campaign” exit. It’s pretty clear that some form of maps existed in ancient history.

Not really. The Akkadian empire used a standing military. The Assyrians used one during their last century. I'm not sure what you'd consider a small scale, but the Diadochi typically had standing militaries supplemented by mercenary and vassal forces which was fairly similar to Rome's usage of allied troops. The Zhou used a standing army for the first few generations which gradually dwindled. The Jin were the first state during the Eastern Zhou to maintain a professional military, something of a governmental necessity due to effectively instituting a stratocracy (or, depending on how you look at it, the inverse which doesn't really have a word but effectively means the same thing), though that was often supplemented with levies that could constitute up to half their total military (less, assuming the officer class was brought from the professional force). The Qin were famous for not only having a professional military but even an all volunteer military which has been incredibly rare through history and was kind of interesting considering their otherwise totalitarian rule (though they used massive amounts of corvee so it was more like you could volunteer to be a soldier instead of an unpaid laborer). Bimbisara of India used a standing military. All of those predated Rome's usage of a full standing military by centuries, as until Augustus came around it was very common to raise and disband legions as needed. Even the Marian reforms which turned them into professionals but not a standing army (and there is a difference) post dates all of their usage of standing militaries, only being concurrent with the Diadochi which at that time had dwindled to a small professional core supplemented by massed citizen soldiers.

Let me introduce you to the Persian Empire, Egyptian Kingdoms, Assyrians and Macedonian Empire(Successor States)?

@@Ironblood4564 The Persians, especially, the Egyptians and Assyrians were mcu more of a mish-mash of troops. A mixture of cultures. Much more "mercenary" in nature. While Rome used "foreign" troops as auxiliaries, they never constituted the main army. And, at its height, Rome fielded 33 legions of such troops; approximately 165,00 professional troops; standard training, standard equipment, standard command, etc.. The nations you mentioned never came close to that. They, upon occasion, fielded large armies, to be sure, but always mish-mash armies. And all of these troops were dismissed from service upon the end of a specific war. At best . . . civilian militia.

@@KahavaveCAPIPI `Allow me to refer you to my reply to "Ironblood."

​@@anthonyhargis6855 Roman armies were about 50% non roman. Early on this was typically the Socii, later it was Allies, and then the Auxiliaries. Thus, they were often what you refer to as mish-mash armies. It was also very common to recruit extra locals when out on the field as mercenaries. And you really shouldn't talk about citizen militia when until things were solidified in the Imperial period Legions were raised and dismissed as needed. There were a handful of standing legions, but that's not much different from how other states maintained a standing core buffed up by levies. Also, see the rest of what I said about the various Chinese states.