Uhhhhh…… hello there 😂

Good voice, interesting content but your videos are way too short for your topics. I'll sub for now but they are too short for me.

Excellent video as usual!

*That's not what "tenant farmer" means. A tenant farmer farms a plot of land and pays the owner rent [therefore, "tenant"] from the produce of the land, and is free to use or sell the remainder. What you've described is an **_employee,_** not a **_tenant farmer._** The modern, US equivalent of **_tenant farmer_** is **_share cropper._*

Now immagine a game that contains all theese little thinks.

The triari was the last group to engage in fight and they are the best soldiers, so this means it's a more chaotic system than anything, I think both styles are used the organized and the chaos one.

Today I learned about the importance of more-all in battle.

Since Opera is basically Chinese owned why would a person download a quite possible spyware product?

Let me control their money I care not who makes their laws I will control that country.

I see French Riot Police, I upvote !

🗿👍

I'm somewhat of a general myself. 20+ years of Total War experience.

The total war attila music has been one of the best in TW game

Seems there was a lot of honour and certain ways of doing things. They didn't like archers as they thought it was cowardly and they're extremely infantry based. Sort of like an early version of Chivalry. This is opposed to Archer Cavalry where there is no honour in man to man fighting and they are exploiting the advantages they have.

The only empire that was run by fish sauce

Not always Romans build camp before the battle. Examples Battle of Strasbourg

And gives nobody nothing no money and wonder why everyone violent and if you cleaver drug dealing a job and tax but every man self and everything means everything to everyone and get robbed the police leave in mess and piss off even more

With weapon's and money our country gives everything away and feel sorry for everything and wonder why we loose

It appears you are mixing up the terminology of rank vs MOS. Rank relates only to hierarchy, whereas MOS relates to the job you do. People at the same pay and command level are at the same rank regardless of their job. For example: a Navy Hospital Corpsman 3rd class (HM3) doesn't have a different rank to a Navy Builder 3rd class (BU3). They both hold the rank of Petty Officer 3rd Class.

Edward Gibbon said ‘ men lived in the 5 good emperors time of ancient Roman are the most happy men in the human history’

Give me a pilum and a shield and I'll march like you ain't never seen.

13:36: Emperor Nero's long flanking march at the Metaurus River. It's "General Nero" (Gaius Claudius Nero) and not Emperor Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus).

Fantastic video again. Congrats.

Hi, at 13:38 you mention "Emperor Nero's long flanking march at the Metaurus River". The Roman commander was Gaius Claudius Nero, not emperor Nero, and the battle happened in 207 BC against Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal. Other than that nice video !

It is hard to fathom the immense responsibility that fell on a general who doubled as a supply logistics manager-all without the use of a computer.

It's hard to beat Historia Militum for these deep dive videos! Thanks.😎⚔🔥

15:47 Well.. I'd imagine his friend would give him the gear back to use in the battle if that did happen. Lol.

Movies generally depict front line fighting as suicide ffor both sides

At 13:34, it wasn't the emperor Nero but his ancestor the general Caius Claudius Nero

where is part 3 of the dacian war 😭

Julius studied Alexander’s battles from records.

Thanks for this. Reading Hanson in the aughts when he published was awful. He felt wrong and never came to any real conclusions beyond regurgitation. Not a man who would dare try ideas in the field.

I bet their bodies were lopsided

Sun Tzu, author of "The Art of War" should have taken notes from the Romans before he wrote his own book on warfare.

Roman generals almost always had a long military career at their backs before they got to turn consul, pro-consul, legatus or any high ranking position depending on the time. That's the "cursus honorum". And for most of its History, a Roman politician had to be a skilled commander in order to ascend to the peak of his career. And even the heads of the greatest patrician families needed achievements in order to be taken seriously. That system made sure Rome always had a constant supply of very skilled commanders. But, on the bad side, a lot of those commanders were so eager to get those achievements in the year or two they got to manage an army that they often rushed things up or acted with more pride than wits. It's funny how Rome almost met total disaster because of this on 2 sepparate occasions. One was during the Second Punic War, when Hannibal kept baiting consul after consul and surrounding or constantly ambushing Roman armies. And the other was during the Cimbrian Wars, where Romans were initially crushed to the point of trauma. In the former, Fabius Maximus had to come and make the commanders to chill out and just stalk Hannibal, but never give in to pitch battle. And in the later, Gaius Marius had to come in and play with everyone's patience until the teutons and ambrions slipped and he capitalized.

Yeah, the Greek army of these days: that was *VERY* similiar to the Austrio-Hungarian army of WW1: all manner of different nationalities: no wonder they had by far the *weakest* units anywhere on the globe: nobody else didn't actually *recover* troops as they retreated but lost them- yet that was the Austrians to a T. Inept doesn't *begin* to describe aristocracies in time of war, as their case proves abundantly.

Usually the Romans had better quality artillery than their foes too: so that'd factor into him taking a defensive stance early on in the fight: as it would allow him to use his firepower edge to a more lethal effect and nullify enemy troops early on. Plus they built good defensive enhancements to the terrain.

The idea of faking weakness has been done by an *actual* master of warfare: N. Bonaparte, who at Austerlitz utterly destroyed a combined Austro-Russian army by doing *just exactly that same tactic*, and would be done even moreso by his vastly superior-quality allies the USA in various conflicts: as by holding back: you are able to use artillery to more lethal effect as a precursor to the combat.

Plus a *huge* edge the Romans usually had was their troops were *professionals*, and universally their foes relied on men drafted; now they'd *attack* with local troops who were NOT professionals: but they didn't count those as casualties: they used them to remove enemy units in initial attacks and their own troops to hold and gain new auxiliia, those were the guys they relied upon to do most of the fighting. The reason: casualties: their legionaries would be used to recruit and train Auxillia, and it was the locals who they relied on mostly to do most of the fighting: their own troops would be used to mop up enemies post battle and to maintain and build bases for the buildup of local troops, so when they needed actual *Roman* troops, they weren't short.

Plus the Romans in combat would swap lines: so the men would rotate their ranks in the course of the fight: thus gaining exhaustion slower than their foes: especially if in multiple ranks. Now even if in a single rank: they usually had better armor and equipment; those also factor into better will to fight, but the *biggest* thing is unit cohesion: where the men actually are not at odds with their bosses; if the latter ever happens: the army will collapse real fast! One way you solve that: have your officers dine and rest where the men do: the result is a type of comraderie between the ranks that is VERY beneficial to the units when the time comes, as well as do not waste your men willy-nilly; if you do that the survivors will lose all loyalty to their bosses, and the units will disintigrate real fast.

Yeah, and plus: in Roman military tactics: you want to *capture* enemy troops: as they would make good quality *gladiators*, thus recouping some of the costs of the campaign: plus these enemy troops are competent fighters: so why not take advantage of that skill already in them? It only makes sense that they'd do exactly that: instead of slaughtering them: they'd put them in their arenas and use them to gain funds and remove incentive to riot.

Yeah, if *anything* their legionaries would've demanded a code of conduct; almost to the point of a military insurrection crossed with the troops full-on *rioting*, men join the armed forces to learn to defend their country; part of the deal: so if they're not taught: the whole deal is worse than useless come to think of it; and the troops who rebel at NOT being sufficiently trained are NOT going to die from the military courts: it will be the officers who refused them training, as those're the traitors.

The numbers in ancient battle's was truly jawdropping.. and didn't return to these sizes after the fall of Rome until the age of discovery and the Napoleonic wars..

I had never thought about wind and shields but damn you're right

This channel is great

"An army travels on its stomach, believe it or not." Napoleon Bonaparte? Makes sense, considering the success he had in the field.

Ooooooh, in regards to being self-taught, there were instances where they had a tutor, right? Like, how Alexander was tutored by Aristotle, and whatnot?

And all of them gays

I love hearing the little anecdotes/side stories of particular Roman battles/general experiences. Makes you feel a bit closer to things and understanding.

How did you do these great animations?