Why Didn't Anyone Copy the Roman Army? - The Imitation Legions DOCUMENTARY
Unlock an arsenal of free battle supplies in Conqueror's Blade! bit.ly/3bVIBCT
Sponsored by MY.GAMES
The Roman army is remembered today as one of the most effective fighting forces in history. This raises the question: if the Roman army was so powerful, why didn’t anyone copy the Roman army? To answer this question, we will first dissect the specimen on the Roman legions. This will allow us to understand what are the key features worth copying. We will then be able to discuss what would be required to achieve these same features and to what extent others succeeded in creating their very own imitation legions.
In this history documentary we cover the Roman Soldier, the Roman Unit, and the Roman Army. Below are the relevant time stamps:
Roman Soldier Dissection 2:18
Roman Unit Dissection 5:00
Roman Army Dissection 7:18
Roman Soldier Imitation 9:39
Roman Unit Imitation 12:53
Roman Army Imitation 15:30
Bibliography and Recommended Reading
"The Roman Army" by Chris McNab
"The Complete Roman Army" by Adrian Goldsworthy
"The Roman Army at War" by Adrian Goldsworthy
"Roman Warfare" by Adrian Goldsworthy
"The Logistics of the Roman Army at War" by Jonathan Roth
#Roman
#History
Check out our latest episode on the history of Roman Fast Food: kzhead.info/sun/qZmKqpRonId8aIk/bejne.html
Bottom-line: Professional Standing Armies maintained by the State, are extremely expensive. That's why Europe didn't revisit the idea until the 17th century
@@andresmunoz9078 I hold a master's degree in applied medical
Someone tell that to Caesar's Legion in Fallout New Vegas
Dont promote pay to win games FFS
Does your sponsor thingy have PvE? If so I’m getting that game.
They didn't want to get demonitized for infringing on Roman copyright, of course.
Mayonnaise 😂😂😂😂
It's not often I feel the need to comment to commend someone's brilliancy
Those ancient copyright strikers were killer. Just look what happened when Rome broke the Vandals' copyrights.
"Carthage must be demonetized!" -Scipio Moderatus, ca 2020
Oh please the Romans copied plagiarized and stole every trick formation and equipment they could. Best of all they got away with it!
*The Galatian king, Deiotarus, raised his own imitation legion in the First Century BC. It was such a faithful copy of the original Roman template that when Galatia was annexed by Rome in 25 BC, the Emperor Augustus Caesar opted to integrate Deiotarus's imitation legion into the Roman army as **_Legio XXII Deiotariana._*
Didn't that legion also fight under Caesar at Zela?
@@y.r._ Yep.
@delavalled Roma Aeterna
@K 😂
@@y.r._ Ave, true to Caesar
The thing is, if you attack an enemy using their own tactics, the enemy general would know the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of those tactics far better than you do.
Yooo real shit
That's what I was thinking. The people who best knew how to beat the Romans were surely the Romans themselves? Seemed like a loser's bet to try and mimic the Roman way. Major reform at great time and cost for little to no gain perhaps. In pitched battles the most successful early on seemed to be the Punic and Macedonian war machines. They won battles, so clearly their armies/warriors were good enough. Hannibal bloodied Rome's nose, as did Pyrrhus. Their downfall was that they didn't have the depth of force to defeat Rome. If Hannibal or Pyrrhus had a few more armies on hand history could have gone very differently.
@@RJALEXANDER777 Hannibal did defeat the romans but it was before they organized the legions the way he showed it.
@@bernitiel So did Pyrrhus. I don't think the Roman legion was drastically superior to the Maniple in fighting ability. The legionary was better armed and armoured than a Hastati (not necessarily Principes or Triarii), but the legion was more an evolution of doctrine and logistics, making it more capable of defending an empire than the older military system. The maniples were perfectly capable of defending Rome and Italy, and took a significant percentage of the empire before Marian's reforms.
Well then you will also learn how to beat your enemies as well
It wasn't just the fighting strength of the Roman Army that contributed to their success. They also had an engineer corps that could build bridges or construct sieges. Then there were the medical facilities - far superior to those of any likely enemy. In fact the organisation of the Roman Army was remarkably similar to that of a modern army. This is not something that can be generated overnight - it takes years and years of commitment, practice and an ability to borrow from others.
Rome came about through their market economy. It is where their wealth and innovation came from. It was their secret sauce and what underpinned all of that was their seperation of power so even when the emperors came into being they still had seperation of power that meant power could not centralize too much.
You forgot to mention perhaps the biggest factor: engineering. The Roman Army was practically an engineering and construction company that once in a while engaged in battle.
Indeed, I think people new to Roman history are always surprised by the amount of structures the Romans created while on campaign. I know I was.
"Once in a while"
so they are basically fantasy dwalves
@@Hatypus I think it is a valid comment. How many battles would they face in 25 years of service compared to how many days they would be building? Not to mention garrisoning them. Ceasars double walls is a great example. Not many days of battle, a lot of days building walls and waiting for the enemy to act. (Unless you were in the skirmishing/foraging units.)
once in a while? Caesar would beg to differ kek
Short answer: "They did" Long answer. "They did, but failed"
not always
Eduardo Borges Seriously long answer:"They did *and* destroyed Rome in the end." In its last century both the people living in the Roman Empire and its rivals understood the Romans well and had good insight both in Roman politics and what made the army tick.
No body copied what the romans did. To do that they would have needed to adapt the roman way of life.
@@equestriangirly2296 i disagree. Rome fell for reasons much bigger than the military. The barbarians that got to rome were not legions nor were they attempting to copy roman success. Thats why after rome fell we got the dark age, an age where technology just seemed to stale. Rome fell for political and economical reasons. By the time the barbarians came the legions were a shadow of its former self and mostly auxiliaries or mercenaries.
@@eduardoborges506 I think the dark age never really happened. The Roman Empire became too big and politically unstable and most of the barbarians at that time were as developed as them (ex the wisigoths who became practically romans, speaking Latin etc). The roman army was just too big and made of too many different people.
The bond between the officers and soldiers as described in Comentarii de Bello Gallico is probably one of the major factors why it was so effective back in the day.
@@oldgettingolderNo, but what we’d consider NCO’s today-and those are the backbone of any capable military.
@Mr Storni That’s not true. They had generals. Those are officers. Also, the centurion would be equivalent to today’s first lieutenant.
one last advantage that Rome had that I'm not sure anyone else even attempted was road technology. Not all roads are equal and Rome put the most time and effort into maintaining the best roads. Roman roads had two advantages: first, they lasted longer due to both better materials and superior engineering. Second, the quality of roads allowed Rome to expand the network further for almost the same amount of upkeep. This in turn allowed the Roman army to move troops faster and farther than anyone else and do the same with supplies.
Persia had the royal roads long before
It's not only the road building but Rome knowing that this was a huge tactical advantage .
@@ernstholm8070 yes but some Roman roads still lasted to this day……
@@markvonschober6872 i mean theres also some persian road that still exist today
The roads were so good, they still exist.
Because it's not fun when everyone's got the same play-style in a strategy game
What about Maru's 2/3 rax proxy reaper or marines in 90% of games
Every failed military: i don't like playing the META
Shogun 2 kinda owned though
Classic MMM lol. Fucking WOL was great
@@nwahnerevar9398 yeah, I tried many different approaches, different army types, sneaky approach, you name it. But everyone with op ranged weapons (people just keep using fots units ugh) doing exact same thing and hoping that their army will win.
Invicta: Why did no one copy the Roman army? Fallout New Vegas: *HEAVY BREATHING*
Illyrian hehe yes son
Never joined the legion. I was always NCR
Steven williams NCR for life
Illyrian dont fuck with the bear bitch boi wearing dinner plates for armor.
@@EmperorNexus the House ALWAYS wins!
The engineering and building skills were so extremely important. They build bridges in a day, build defensive marching camps every day or a huge fortress wall in a few days. Just insane building skills.
All that creativity came from their market economy which allowed them to trade and innovate.
Tactics wins battles, Logistics wins wars.
That is totally true just look at the American Civil War the South was kicking ass with tactics until they could no longer take supplies from the battlefield.
rhodesia and vietnam would want to have a word with you....
@@ishitrealbad3039 exceptio probat regulam (the exception proves the rule) Guerilla Warfare doesn't fall under the same umbrella as a conventional war and any smaller force can make a larger invading army go home by simply making the war to costly to win the Afghans did this to the russians in the 80s only americans will stay in a country for 20 years trying to win an unwinable war
@Ken Penalosa Modern and soon to come technology may have a word with that, but it's true that when firearms and remote land are involved with only human sight, the attacker is in a terrible position, the same has been seen in Spain and Finland
Bro, Is that Joe Dirt?
TL;DR: Rome didn't out-micro their enemies. They out-macro'd them.
They necro them out
Don't forget to mention Cato😉
They were massively importing food from Egypt. That was antiquity equivalent of a Marshall plan. For centuries.
In the end only matters whose energy units deplete faster. Similar with strategy games.
That's basically how World War 1 was fought too. People were just material to be thrown at eachother.
Literally Rome's greatest resource was the culture, "The gates of Janus have been opened, now there is nothing but war". Roman soldiers were fighting for the nationalistic nation of the Republic/Empire while most of the people they fought were not fighting for some abstract idea and rather for money/fame or forced too. Look at Carthage who used almost exclusively mercenary units and the one time they fought with dedicated soldiers were the soldiers loyal to Hannabal and that went amazingly well. Grit wins the day!
The Carthaginians got the last laugh, in a way.
Sejanus
Salty
@@JamesJJSMilton In what way?
The wooden swords and weapons used in training, were up to 5 times heavier then the real ones used in battle. This allowed them to be light and hit very accurately in a real battle, especially also with javelin throwing, as they throwed and training with 3-5 times heavier ones
I can see this being a good idea for swords and shields. However, wouldn’t you want any throwable objects to be the same weight to accumulate muscle memory and repetitive practice?
@@911ragdoll Probably but on the other hand their pilum were mostly used before charges met as a way of making enemy shields useless (the pilum were designed to become stuck in enemy shields). They had dedicated skirmishers/light missile troops/velites for actual ranged combat.
Isn't wood lighter than iron? Those training swords must have had more than 5 times the volume of the real ones then.
Threw not 'throwed'.
Apparently the wooden training weapons were hollowed and filled with lead to increase their weight.
Considering the frequency of civil wars in the Roman world they didn't need someonelse to copy their army. They already had plenty of opportunities to fight between legionaries.
Also, the Social War was fought against other Italians who used similar (if not identical) armies.
@Daniel McGrath Right, all cultures borrow and synthesize.
This is why in modern days, commanders are transferred every 3 -4 years
@Daniel McGrath And Greeks copied triremes from the Phoenicians.
@@oveidasinclair982 ...well that and not having commanders be directly responsible for their soldiers' pay. Generals and politicians in Rome were able to stage coups d'etat because their troops became fiercely loyal to their leaders, rather than to Rome itself. They would often go "Huh. This guy is pretty good at winning wars and gives a shit-ton of cash...he should lead the whole Republic!" and then go about making that general leader of the Republic which turned into an Empire which then they tried to turn it back into a Republic and so on and so forth. Julius Caesar and later the events surrounding the Second Triumvirate are prime examples of this.
One important factor in Rome's success that's often overlooked is its geography. Italy is a large, fertile area which is isolated from invasion by the Alps and the sea. It's a lot easier to compete militarily when your homeland is hard to attack.
True and by the time of the late republic they had conquered all of their neighbors in the Italian peninsula so basically the entire peninsula was Roman and safe from attack until the goths use the Roman roads to sack Rome 800 years later
True...but Italian men are tiny and weak. So I find it difficult to understand that they had any success on the battle field. Most Germanic or Galic females should have been able to fight 10 tiny mini Italian soldiers. 🧑🏾🎓🤷♀️
@@Kevin-bl6lg LOL bruh.... to seriously answer your question, the more arable climate and sea access would've provided good opportunity for initial better scale, and I'll add to OP that incorporating many defeated peoples into their ranks was a major factor.
@@Kevin-bl6lg Are you serious with that comment?
@@Kevin-bl6lg while size and strength matters more in hand-to-hand combat, it makes little difference to the sword going through the throat of somebody as long as the person using said sword isnt a midget and knows what hes doing. Also germano-celts wouldve been shorter then their modern counterparts due to general malnutrition
Time stamp for personal use. Soldiers Dissection - 02:18 Imitation - 09:39 Unit Dissection - 05:00 Imitation - 12:53 Army Dissection - 07:18 Imitation - 15:30
personal use? are you afraid i'm going to distribute time stamps?
I'm not sure how you did it yet you did. You took a thousand years and broke it down cogently into clearly defined subentities. You then distilled the major developments into digestible and thoroughly researched subsections of data and history. You have a gift! Bravo young sir! A+
Invicta: Did people copy the legion? Me, an academic: NUMIDIAN LEGIONARIES
Silver shield Legionaries
Man, this brings a lot of memories
And the original space marine legions
Well, all the Problem with these numidian and seleucid units is that their description as imitation legionaries come from the Romans. They had a tendency to call anybody with roughly similar equipment an imitation of their own units, disregarding battlefield role, social background, degree of professionalism and even if they existed before military contact with rome. Furthermore, Polybios, who is the base for the whole 'silver shield legion'-myth, never claims that they are imitations, just that they are armed similary to Roman units.
Dont Forget Armenian Legionaries! Backed With Carthaprat Archer
Bottom-line: Professional Standing Armies maintained by the State, are extremely expensive. That's why Europe didn't revisit the idea until the 17th century
Hungarians did it before 17th century - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary
@@ja3044 Interesting, however, there are varying degrees of what constitutes a Professional State Military. While the Black Army was "permanent" and paid regularly, it seems to lack other elements needed to be "Fully Professional". Like - pensions, standardized Strategic Doctrine (Operational), standardized command and control, standardized Logistics. In other words, the Romans had a level of bureaucracy that was slightly more refined and sophisticated. You are correct to point out, that the Black Army was professional, albeit "Mercenaries", and an early attempt at a non-feudal army. But, Europe would not reach the standard of Roman Military organization until the 18th century
@Bgsleo Very true, pre-Augustan Roman Army was like Hellenestic armies - semi Professional
charlemagne 808. If i m not misstaken, first professional army in west EU after the fall of the roman empire.
@@Syladen Charlemagne's army might have been semi-professional, but in the end, it was still the mixed bag that usually made up Feudal Armies. The level of Roman military organizational sophistication would not be seen again until the 18th century.
Great video. Well done dissecting and organizing the deep well of information in a way that is easy to follow and concise
Invicta: Legions had adequate supplies and food. Caesar: Totally bro.
For 2 reasons, the loss of infrastructure required to support a massive professional army and the loss of the technology known as bureaucracy, or the paperwork that keeps track of them. Keep in mind the Roman Legion was also tasked with building the roads and infrastructure that they used to move around the empire. People don’t realize that later armies were largely conscripted from regular people who went back to their daily life after the fight was over. Also technology and tactics changed a whole lot.
The late roman army did conscript people but they did not return to civlian lives after a conflict. Becuae the late roman army had trouble with recruitment. When they were conscripted its for 25 years. There were so many people avoiding service that the roman emperors had to make a law that required sons of soldiers to take up their fathers profession and their sons after them to maintain its army. Its not surprising that the late roman army had low morale and high desertion rates.
It was crazy how legions basically doubled as an engineering corps They were like a Swiss army knife. Edited for typo
@@johnballs1352 China did the same when building the Great Wall. Soldiers built their segment and settled a garrison there.
@@mikecimerian6913 Fascinating. I guess the concept of multiple role soldiers in antiquity wasn't exclusive to Rome, but I must say I'm not a huge fan of China atm. I'll have to research this after I've cooled off over my disdain for their government, I'm simply too peeved to be interested in their history atm. Edited for typo
Don't forget change in tactics. Like Medieval and Rennaisance Pikemen were different from their more classical Phalanx counter parts. While the later was aunit that could overpower nearly every adversary in a frontal attack, it was inflexible and very vulnerable to flanking. Such a unit required other units to cover it's flank and to provide missile fire. The former on the other hand was a much more flexible formation. Smaller in size, they functioned more like the Roman manipular system of units spread apart. Troops were trained to counter cavalry by forming hollow squares rapidly ensuring that only with swift surprise could a pike formation be outflanked. Pikes also had missile troops as part of the unit itself, providing an organic missile defense to them especially against cavalry while in a hollow square. The Greek Phalanx would have performed poorly in the Late Medieval and Rennaisance period. Such an inflexible system would have been constantly outflanked by the more numerious heavy cavalry forces. It's large size would become a detriment with cannons on the field that would be highly effective against a dense formation.
Mithridates : makes imitation of roman army Roman Army : hey thats copyrighted Mithridates : noo it falls under fair use
demonetized by YT and looses war.
Poor Mithridates! He masterfully and meticulously copied the Roman army, but to no avail. He forgot to build his own legions of copyright lawyers, lost every lawsuit, and died in poverty. Probably not a true story, but if he had tried it today, we all know that's exactly how it would've turned out.
Mithridates had turncoat centurions but failed to get good results? What the heck? My guess is there are a few possibilities. One, his imitation centurions were not given flexibility like the Roman ones, and therefore couldn't exploit the formation's tactical flexibility. Two, the drilling was simply too short and his imitation legions were more like Rome's citizen levy of the earlier days than fulltime professionals. Three, maybe the turncoats were incompetent boobs and figured getting paid good money by Pontus beat returning home as failures.
@@alex_zetsu They weren't technically turncoats. The legionaries Invicta refers to are legionaries send by his ally Sertorius who was busy with his own anti-sulla revolt in Iberia. Sertorius was essentially a remnant of Marius his army, hence a Roman. After Sertorius was defeated the legionaries betrayed Mithridates. As for his defeat, a lot of it seems to have to do with him just being betrayed by various subordinates (including his own heir).
I mean even if they technically were not turncoats, that still leaves the mystery as to why they couldn't pass along the Roman unit tactics.
Not watched the whole video yet, but it would seem like, then, that the Centurions were possibly the most crucial part of the organisation of the army. Probably along with the Maniple system of units. Having such grizzled, long-time veterans in charge of such flexible units would definitely add a lot of brain power and efficiency to the fighting. It's fascinating to see a breakdown of this.
I am VERY glad to have found your channel and would like to thank you for creating it. You have earned another subscriber.
The Roman Army was a reflection of Rome. To understand the Roman Army - you need to understand Rome. Other nations Army's were the same - they were a reflection of their own nation. Other nations couldn't recreate the Roman Army - because they weren't Rome. One of the things you touched on but didn't go into was not merely the discipline but - the bullheadedness ... It's not like the Romans never lost after all ... The thing is - when the Romans lost - they ALWAYS came right back. Hannibal beat them again and again - but they just kept coming back until they beat him at Zama. Crassus and Varus lost entire Armies - but - the Romans made a point of coming back and avenging them. The First Punic War shows Rome at her best. They didn't really have a navy but they were fighting Carthage which had the best navy in the Mediterranean. The thing is - the Carthaginians made their ships on something like an assembly line - with the instructions on where to put each part carved into the part. So - the Romans captured a Carthaginian ship that had gotten itself beached - took it apart - and learned how to make ships by copying the ship the Carthaginians had so helpfully built with the instructions on how to do it labeling each part. They built a lot of these things, added a Corvus and then caught the Carthaginians when they were loaded down with supplies for Sicily - and sank them. Carthage NEVER understood what they were dealing with when they fought the Romans. They were merchants and traders and thought in terms of money - which was why they mostly used mercenaries. The thing was ... they didn't treat the Numidians well - they changed sides and that Numidian cavalry that had helped win so many battles against the Romans - helped Scipio win at Zama. The Romans didn't always win ... they didn't even usually win ... but ... nothing says bullheadedness like: *_"Carthago delenda est!!!!"_* . .
You are right about the Romans being bullheaded, although maybe they should have considered a different approach with the Persians, since 600 years is a long ass time to fight for what eventually just amounted to a stalemate 😉
@@Khenfu_Cake Are you saying that they should have been wise and reasonable? How often does that happen? I'm not an expert on that but it's my understanding that things went back and forth between Rome and the Persians. They weren't always at war - but - they both had claims in the same areas, alliances and common borders they disputed. Essentially they were the two most powerful empires in that part of the world and it was pretty much inevitable that they were going to go at each other now and again. It's also my understanding that they were going at each other when the Muslims under Muhammad got started. If it wasn't for their weakening each other - they might have nipped Islam in the bud ... but that's just speculation. .
I was being partially sarcastic lol. I know it was a long series of conflicts between changing powers, which obviously would be expected, just like you said. I was merely trying to joke about how the Romans never really fully managed to conquer or subdue the Persians despite a few attempts to do so, like with Crassus' failed campaign😊
Imagine writing this much in a comment on KZhead.
@@rasmusgustavsson3426 That's nothing compared to the work the people who made the video did. I'm just not part of the Twitter Generation. .
Rome biggest advantage: refusing to throw in the towel
Except that one time they tried to invade Scotland, shat it and built a wall.
TheNathHopkins they sure tried
I always laugh at the concept of Hadrian’s Wall honestly. We all know if Rome a launched a good hard military push into northern England/Scotland they more likely than not would’ve succeeded had they devoted the manpower and resources to it. BUT instead they said “alright look you little shits, this is as far as we’re willing to go. You stay on your side well stay on ours.” Biggest middle finger to the Picts possible lmao.
Alex epic comment
@@Aboot8910 lmao...
Very informative documentary. Thank you for all the work.
It’s easy to lose sight of everything that must go on behind the scenes when so much military discussion centers around battles, and the specific tactics and strategy behind those encounters. This video does a decent job of portraying those essentials NOT often seen that were key to Rome’s conquests. As Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I would spend six hours sharpening my ax.”
Me: What's your super power again? Rome: I'm rich Me:
That was more Karthagos Superpower, together with traditional big skils in seamanship and naval mastership. In Marokko also where African Elephants in the Atlas-Mountains. The speciality of the Romans were the Roman citizen and the Roman law and their developed Rationality and logic and rational thinking they learned from then Greek and the Roman abilitys in craftmanship and masonry and building like the Aquaedukts and Roads and cement and their skillfull military and Legions and so on. The Celts und Germanic tribes still had he special skill to fall in Trance for a fight and get very strong and brave then and become Berserkers and so to say "werewolves". It was not without reason that the Celts became at first the great civillization and great culture, because they were not exactly as big warlike as the Germanic tribes..
@@holgerjahndel3623 Nah.
Batman
Lose to the poor barbarian.
Patriotic army is much stronger than rich army, carthaginian were much more rich than romans and payed mercenaries, they got destroyed in front of roman patriotic soldiers. Carthaginian army fought for money and didn’t care for carthage, romans fought only for the glory of Rome.
Roads, roads, and roads. At every level. Curious how much "Army Corps of Engineers" was attempted by Rome's adversaries though.
if you're cavalry heavy, you won't need them. Rome struggled against Parthia and later their successor the Sassanids for this reason.
I mean a lot of people who lived close to Rome ended up absorbing a lot of their culture and technology and that included the roads. If you hopped across the Danube to Dacia during the 2nd century you might not even noticed you had crossed the border if no one told you. Despite what some Roman historians might say the other side of the empire's border was not a barbaric wasteland and was actually a lot like Rome. This is because it simply made sense, Rome was an economic powerhouse as well as a military one so orienting your economy towards producing goods they wanted was a good idea and to do that you had to adopt their customs and traditions. And if you're trading with Rome you have a natural incentive to extend their roads into your own territory.
@@brokensky2378outside of 1 battle Rome did not struggle with Parthia. Rome constantly beat them and repeatedly sack their capital. The Sassanids mostly fought against a divided Roman Empire. While they were much more powerful the the Parthians, majority of their success against Rome happened either in the 3rd century when the crisis was going on and when the Empire was split between East and West
@@brokensky2378 Rome struggled against Parthia? My dude, the only thing that kept Persian empires alive was geography. Otherwise, they wouldn't stop at sacking Ctesiphon and occupying all of Mesopotamia
actually there is proof in brittain and france that there was already a vast wooden road structure (i’m talking highways here!). stones last much longer for sure, so now we think romans were the only one doing it.... see how this works?
I think when being confronted by imitators you would not only have more experience than the imitators but you would also have an acute awareness of any weak points.
Loved the presentation. Thank you 😊
This is what happens when you buy your "legions" at the denarius store.
Sestertius store*
@@memyselfandi432 nah it's like Five Below, they have stuff just slightly better than the sestersistore
Genius.
Fake brand legionaries from Sinae
so that's where that stingy Crassus got his
People often forgot what was the most important factor in roman victories: the motivation of soldiers. Roman expansion, especially through early days of roman republic was simply yet effective solution to numerous problems of roman society - especially lack of land for lower class, and overall poverty of these people, which was solved by distributing conquered land. Next factor, which is effect of previous was overall militaryzation of roman society - no one could take off with their political carieer without being in army, and almost everyone was soldier. Of course, tactics were also very important but these were just effects of sociological reasons of roman conquest. It's the thing that was lacking in armies of next centuries - motivation of conquest. Armies were mainly made of peasants or merceneries who had very little interest in winning these wars, which caused lack of morale in these armies. Nevertheless great video and i really appreciate work you put here!
This is true. Roman never had much of a Art of War manual that gave them victories after victories. It was discipline, back-breaking labour work, and the professional Centurions that made the difference. Tribal society never accepted the risen through the rank concept (exception was Mongolia), hence all the Lt and Captain upwards were mostly nobility. Medical care, education, were another unsung hero of the Legion, that I signed up for personal development and best medical care. Even the Roman system deteriorated later on to mercenary.
Exactly, and I also think that's probably one of the reasons why the Roman Empire lasted for so many centuries.
this is extremely important, in my opinion, since the Roman military is not as invincible as many may think. They fell a lot of time - again the "barbarian", the Carthaginian, the Persian, the Greek. But the Roman can always call upon a new army to fight - something other empires simply can't match. You have to defeat the Roman 4-5 times for them to back down; but if they can defeat you just once, then everything is lost. Hannibal could win several victories - it doesn't matter. Hannibal could lose a single Zama, and it's all over.
I think you meant the late stage of the republic - and early years of the empire -, since earlier the poor were barred from military service and distributing conquered lands was also introduced later (if I recall correctly that was already in effect before Marius but not by much).
The very early romans were also hardened by the place they were coming from: A malaria infested swampland around the Tiber, as my professor put it. So they would simply be less bothered by lack of immediate success than their counterparts.
Short summary: There are lots of aspects, some of which are and others aren’t mentioned in the video, that could be *and actually were* copied, each one of which affected the army‘s overall power, but none of which was really decisive. The one single most decisive difference between the Roman Empire and everyone else - which wasn’t copied simply because it couldn‘t be, which again fully answers the initial question - was an overwhelming advantage in the availability of manpower and resources and thus ultimately comes down to a single word: Size.
Yes, or another way of saying the same thing might be "money".. If you have a huge empire resting on the labour of slaves you can have a standing army, equip it and afford to lose battles because you send more troops.
Well done. This analysis is the best I have seen. i realize it is elementary, but well done. I look forward to deeper analysis into why Western/Eastern Roman Armies eventually were defeated. Was more a economic than military matter? Or was so many moving parts as you point to that it's difficult to find the smoking gun.
"Why didn't anyone copy Greek culture?": Romans: ...
Attila the Hun lived in a wooden palace, but had the finest of Greek marble bathrooms installed.
According to some romans legends they were greeks themselves
It's worth noting that Greek culture was heavily influenced by earlier Egyptian culture. In a later, comedic twist, when Alexander expelled the Persians from Egypt, Egyptian culture was open to being heavily influenced by Greek culture which itself had previously been heavily influenced by Egyptian culture. Would have been a fun time to be alive...
@Nicholas Jevon greeks werent unified in a single nation on that time in some romans legends says that the first romans were survivor of Troy so it explain their hate for "greeks"
@Amber Hoke I don't know if you're trying to say: (A) Every culture is a copy of the culture that it grew from, which is an obvious truism. Or (B) ALL cultures interchanged and inter-borrowed from each other, which is obviously false, owing to geographical restraints. Perhaps you mean some third thing? Help me out here, please.
Question: Why Didn't Anyone Copy the Roman Army? Short answer: They did. To an extent.
Δ the Nazis did
actually, it's the other way around the Romans copied off other people. However the turtle formation yeah why didn't people copy that.
I'm sure that went swimmingly. I mean, what's the worst that could happen? Half the legions betraying you and dragging half the Imperium and Mechanicus with them?
@@thedarkphantomtdp117 the romans copied parts of enemy armies, if you exclude the phalanx as that was almost universal in the hellenized world. they copied the scutum, the gladius, etc as the video says. however they forged something new using these parts, and thats why they are not the copycat, but mithridates vi, who tries to copy the roman system as a whole.
Mori Adine nah man that’d require the interference of some sort of Dark Gods or demon or something I’m sure that’d never happen
Awesome as always
The other Armies didn't have Skillshare like the Romans, duh
One big advantage, after all, of the roman legions was their great shoes, with them they could walk so long for month!
shoes, yes
Less bull more might......war is NOT a game !!!
And the wine
Mayonnaise that was funny but warfare is not soldiers study and have answers too this.
Okay but did the Germanic tribes defeated the roman yes the German was called Germanic
this is just what i needed in all this craziness, Roman Structure
On point.
Phil Conti 😂😂😂😂 corona virus craziness yes
@@CurryRiceN_Chips shhhhh we were trying not to use the word, just a little bit peace from constantly hearing about it.
Common what r u afraid of?We all gotta die, take a number.
Bruh that transition to the sponsor was so smooth I had to watch
Thank you so much, I have learned a lot from this video today.
My “Short” answer: overwhelming majority of opponents did not get a second chance to emulate the Roman army. They were defeated and became part of the empire (that cause a problem later on of course, as they trained their future enemies) or where decimated. Genghis Kan did the same much later.
Вхламинго I thought that’s what I basically said...read my comment again...in parentheses.
I agree. It's not so easy to simple copy the Romans without also having their education, wealth, resources, size, technology, culture, mindset, etc. Sure, the other nations might catch up after a few hundred years, but for now the Romans would not allow their colonies to gain that advantage so soon anyway. It's like asking why didn't the rest of Europe just copy the Nazis and defeat them. Or why didn't the Earth Kingdom just copy the Fire Nation and defeat them. (It's a cartoon, I know, but same principle.)
@Вхламинго The Romans never "collapsed from within" in the sense that their citizens upturned them. The Western Romans were deposed by mercenaries they relied on more and more, and the massive hordes of Germanics flooding the Empire to escape the Huns. The reason they relied on the Mercenaries was the festering Roman rot within.
@@nicholaslawrence6926 Wow, you got that from a cartoon? Rome was not so advanced just because they were better. Most of what the roman empire gets credit for was simply assimilated into their doctrine from a state they subjugated. And if you look at a map, you can see they did a lot of assimilating. In reality, Rome started as a third rate town that captured/joined forces with a band of Italian city states, and with armies of slaves and soldiers of unmatched discipline (and fear of punishment) conquered their neighbors. The Punic wars specifically really just led to a snow ball effect.
Dan Carlin once said that what marked the first tier classical powers apart wasn't how great their victories were, but how well they could take a body blow/how many body blows they could take and still survive. Rome could afford to lose so much and still have the chance to learn. Same with Han China which literally transformed their entire military from chariot/infantry based to cavalry based just so they could beat the Xiongnu. I always wondered if Persia had faced anybody but Alexander who was determined to conquer it all, if they would have also suffered a few huge defeats but stayed around for a whole lot longer and adapted their military to the degree that it became unrecognisable. If Alexander was just another power like Athens who wanted to inflict a few defeats then grab some land, what would Persia have ended up as.
They actually did, but the later emergence of Mongol and Hunnic cavalry forced necessary evolution to more suitable tactics. Things like spread formations, large formations of archers, and pikemen emerged from that along with favouring an army's own cavalry. This became normal until the emergence of gunpowder, which changed the paradigm yet again.
Glad I saw this: now I don't have to say it.
How exactly would spread formations evolve as a response to cavalry when cavalry in every period destroyed looser formations?
@@chief480 : It was the way the Huns and the Mongols would fight the tighter formations. The used far more advanced tactics. They wouldn't just directly charge into the formation outright. They would harry and circle them and pick them off at the edges, or use mounted archers who would fire into them. Doing this was how both Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun were each able to maraud their way right across Europe and the Middle East. They would charge only after they broke the formation apart. The one reasonably tight formation that could work here would be that of pikemen, mostly due to the reach of the pike.
Marty do you think there’s anyone that’s tried to put an entire pike up their bum?
@@putbye1 : Their own? Maybe once in history. suicidal tendencies and Islamic slavery generated all sorts... Vlad Tepes put pikes up other people's bums. He's famous for it. You should look him up.
A great one ! I will add that Ascepiodotos reforms adopted by the Seleucids and Ptolemies brought "romanized infantry" to classic phalanx. I see them as an evolution of the thorakitai for more mobility, dropping the spear for javelins, or the machairaphoroi with some armor. What is not certain is their shield. Did they retained their thureos ? According to bas reliefs, looks like so. And galatian mercs of course. The late Katoikoi were heavily hellenized.
I like a quote saying "Rome was, above all else, pragmatic - when something didn't work they threw it away, unceremoniously". It's not surprising that such a society, aided by a fair amount of militarism, can reach such greatness. The disconnect between social hierarchies and the military (save for operational and strategic command) also helped, creating an army with only the absolutely best men on the job. Such levels of professionalism and meritocracy hasn't been attained for centuries, with command as low as platoon being - very often - given to people with no experience - while in Rome it was possible for a professional soldier to command a cohort and even a temporarily a legion. Another thing worth mentioning - all Roman soldiers were professionals. They didn't fight for some lord or some king - they fought for themselves and their motherland (which they usually loved very much). The equipment, the training and the camaraderie (the major role of the contubernium) aside - these were incredibly motivated troops. Such a success is also seen in Macedon after Phillip's reforms. I think what made the Roman army truly great was that it was created by a militaristic state. They were able to divert huge amounts of wealth, technology and time - taken through good geographical position and conquest - to their army, and it payed off. I don't really see most Greek states or Egypt spending so many resources just to have a strong force. The Roman state, on the other hand, was made for this very reason.
Greece did not have the resources of Italy. Italy was also much more united than Greece - Rome was the capital, and everyone was OK with that, whereas in Greece you had city-states like Athens, Corinth, Arkadia and kingdoms like Sparta and Macedon which were all unique, separate entities, with their own laws and customs, but the same religion, language and culture. The first time all of the Greeks united their resources, they beat the Persians back, first at the Battle of Thermopylae, then at the Battle of Marathon and finally the naval battle of Salamis. The second time Greece fully united (minus the Spartans, Πας Ελλήνων πλύν Λακεδεμονίων - don't google translate that, it's Ancient Greek) was when Alexander, from the kingdom of Macedon in northern Greece, decided to go conquer the whole freakin known world and reach India. You know what they say. Rome took over Greece, but the Greeks conquered the Romans. They quite literally fell in love with everything Greek, and incorporated Hellenism everywhere in their culture. From architecture, to literature, to myths, to science...and on the other hand, the Ancient Greeks were kinda cool with that. Italians are very similar to Greeks - both being southern Mediterannean people. Same food, same vibes, same willingness to chill in the sun, have a glass of wine and discuss politics/philosophy/mathematics you name it. It also helped that when the Romans conquered a new area, they did send a Governor, but they mostly let the area govern itself, in the sense that culture was respected, temples weren't destroyed, citizens weren't abused etc.
Turns out that the greatest, longest lived Empires in history were...sufficient warriors, and outstanding quartermasters.
good organization trumps excellent skill
Uhm, the roman empire didn't exist that long. It changed a lot from a kindom to a republic into empire to the late antiquity. The classic romean empire we often talk about lasted ~500 years. For comparison, the egypt dynastic periods lasted ~3000 years The biggest was the mongolian The romans changed the world sustainable. But full military based empires can't last long.
@Daniele Fabbro I'm not so sure about philosophy imo that's more a creek thing like the word itself. But thats what i meant with romeans changed the world sustainable. It was definitely a or the significant impact in history. But it wouldn't been without the military. It was the backbone, but also a reason for the fall, of the empire. It's hard to imagine a world without. The egypts aren't known for a hughe powerfull army or much conquering.
China?
@Daniele Fabbro Take care when making that comparison. The United States' current dominance is just a blip on a historical timescale. Rome was unrivalled for centuries.
Just released a new episode on the Police in Ancient Rome worth checking out: kzhead.info/sun/pNusdN6OjpSmm68/bejne.html
Can you plz make a video on Roman Scholars Or which sources they gain there knowledge . Thanks.
Or if you already made one plz inform me 😊.
The Roman army is copied all over the world. If you want to find who is copying the Roman army just look at the riot police in all of the countries world wide.
@Thomas Davids True but the riot police that copied the closest to the roman army is the riot police from South Korea. kzhead.info/sun/psZ_g7qgaJ-jnK8/bejne.html
I don't know if you would be open to this but I thought I would ask anyway. I have an idea for a video. What impact would a functional steam railway system in the Roman empire have logistically for communication administration and militarily. The Roman's had things been just a little different taken their road building skills and the novelty steam engine to start an industrial revolution centuries earlier. And what effect could that have had on modern history. Just an idea for a really cool video essay and speculation on history love the content and be well.
Liked and subscribed. That was pretty good!
this was a very good video. It is value comes not only from - kind of - answering a lead question, but also in, actually, showing in the pill, the strenght of Roman army and explaining why did it win so much of the world. Anyway, I believe there is one more thing, very difficult and tricky to consider. I think that Romans were just very much focused on the conquer and they had a politcal and social state sophisticated enough to manage conquered territories. It is kind of similar situation like with British Empire - as long as they perceived themselves as "the chosen ones", they just did whatever they had to do, to keep winning. And the British Empire, just like Roman Empire, was very good in managing conquered territories, which, as a result instead of consuming forces required to controll vast areas, added more and more power for ongoing conquests. I totally agree with You, but in the same time, I would just add a "state" as one of the indirect reasons why roman army was that strong. Which is also true in other way round - roman losses, and eventuall defeat, came as a result of the state being not modern enough, not flexible enough and not aggressive enough. You have mentioned that someone has actually copied a roman army, but without success. It was very difficult to implement a typically modular army system, but in the same time Romans could change layout of their army many, many times, and sometimes these changes were rather significant (Gaius Marius, for example). Anyway, sorry for my chit-chat. You are doing spectacular job, I love Your channel. And I will watch every single movie You have posted ;-)
What made the Roman army so special? Let me borrow a line from Saladin in "Kingdom of Heaven": Nothing...and everything.
1453 book is better than the movie, and the movie was awesome!
''i am not those men.. i am Salahadin...Salahadin''
Salahadin had some really great lines in that movie.
I see you posting at nearly 2 am. We appreciate the hard work and I love the videos! Keep up the hard work! :D
great video! keep up the good work!
Fantastic stuff, thanks!
>Dissecting the Roman soldier yeah, that's Teutoburg Forest in a nutshell
Roman: I fear no army... But that thing *trees speaking proto-germanic* Roman: It scares me
too soon...
had it not be for a German traitor (Arminius) teutonburg forest would hardly be a footnote , they were led like sheep to the slaughter for a shit land that had no resources aside from wood that is one of the main reasons Rome never pursued to move beyond eastern france and above the Limes ,germany has nothing of use ...
@@kamikaziking Facts bro
@Nikolas Tyr Brennus., conquered Germans offered tributaries aka (hostage children) to Rome as fielty as to not to rebel Arminius was trained ,schooled , fed and housed like a Roman citizen so he was a traitor , germany is to this day a poor ass land in resources and has only vast capacities of coal and imports most of its resources dont drink the nazi coolaid and learn some documented history not the Germania BS narrative or youll want lebensraum again...
Me: Mom, can we get a Roman legionary army? Mom: We already have legionary army at home Legion at home: Mithridates' Legion
Excellent use of the meme here
Even in antiquity, the professional army's foundation was the career NCOs.
great video!
What other elements of the Roman army would you consider copying for your Imitation Legions? Time stamps for my own: Roman Roman Soldier Dissection 2:18 Roman Unit Dissection 5:00 Roman Army Dissection 7:18 Roman Soldier Imitation 9:39 Roman Unit Imitation 12:53 Roman Army Imitation 15:30
Yess ,but does people today copy then etc riot police
Alexander took a phalanx to Saka lands and won. I think it's the general's skills that counts.
@@oddish2253 true but how did he do it i mean was was expecting it to be like the battle of the 3 kings where moors sorrounded and killed the portugese
Hi! I love your content, but I was wondering if you have source documents for your content? Because I would be very interested in getting a more in depth picture
Sassanians:the fortresses
Honestly it works similarly to a modern military as far as organization. Evolution in war and such have kept the spirit alive. Platoons, Companies, Battalions, Brigades, all can be traced back to Centuries, Cohorts, and Legions
@Alonso Arguedas right as well
Logan M Well yes we have to keep in mind that the Medieval ages were degradation of the Ancient societies. After the barbarian kingdoms were established they destroyed a lot of Roman inventions and it took them centuries to get on the same level as Rome once was.
@@coolthief8375 I would say that it's only in the time of the renaissance with the resurgence of the pike formation and the professional army that the barbarian kingdom finally went back on the same level as Rome.
Perridan Yes indeed. And again hundreds of years of progress was lost because of them. If Rome didn’t fall we could have achieved much more. They were about to create steam powered machines. It’s a shame.
@@coolthief8375 The medieval ages were a flowering of society in other ways. The Renaissance would never have been possible without the deep and complex cultures that had been nurtured, the existence of universities and centers of learning, and trade leagues like Venice and the Hansa.
Awesome content. Congratulations
Very interesting as it was the rise of Imitation Legions by Rome itself that led in ways to the end of their Empire As the Army was depleted in war it and diluted with its ranks filled by those already defeated yet. Great content all the same and thanks for sharing
I think part of what makes a great army is early momentum. Rome had the perfect videogame start in a way. They had a starting area to take over and build up, Italy, and then the stage 1 boss, Carthage, and then on and on it goes, they conquer Iberia, Greece, Gaul. They keep getting better with each victory because their army survives the battle, gains experience and refines tactics. If another army just dressed in the same armour and marched in the same block formations, they'd probably do even worse than if they didn't copy Romans at all. I think Rome got lucky in a lot of ways, in their location and the timing of events that allowed them to springboard into bigger and bigger spheres of power.
to be fair they had a tough time in the 'early game' being conquered by Etruscans, being sacked by gauls, etc. but once they got the ball rolling, it just gained momentum.
Specifically they fought in areas where their system made sense. Italy is hilly which breaks up phalanxes and also negates cavalry but makes small independent infantry very effective. They were able to find the same terrain in Spain, Greece, Anatolia and the Levant but once they reached open areas like are found in Mesopotamia they got in trouble. Wide open plains or very cramped fields were their weakness. Now of course the reason they developed this fighting style was because of the areas they fought in so it's a bit of a feedback loop.
Exactly all the pieces just fit together, through every struggle they learned and grew and persevered with a decent bit of luck, that's what defined them over say Carthage another grand civilization that just didn't have the luck Rome had though it did have some as any successful civilization does
It’s not luck. You’re either better or not
Something like one fourth of te adult male population died fighting Carthage. Can you imagine? Proportionally that's more than the USSR lost in World War 2. Rome still refused to stop fighting.
I remember you talking about making a video about this WAY BACK, back when you still posted gameplay. Happy it is now here.
What type of videos he used to post, just curious
@@satyamprakash7030 rome 2 online battles
@@satyamprakash7030 Halo b4 that
Great break down of the structure making the army that was the measure of what an army was for hundreds of years. It would be impossible for other nations to duplicate what made the Roman army the way it was. Rome had the best trainers in history. Amongst them were the various City States of the Italian peninsula, the Gauls, Hannibal Tuetons and others tested and refined the Roman war machine. Without them, and Rome surviving them, history would be very different.
Very good video It’s impossible to include everything in 17minutes however logical and well structured. I am a table top Wargamer from Australia, first time I have seen one of your videos however will seek them out. Thanks All the best from down under Lewis Sydney Australia 🇦🇺
An alternate title for the video could be “If the Roman Army was so good, why was there no Roman Army 2: Electric Boogaloo!”
I don't understand a single word.
Tielner - Normie, it’s time for you know about the showdown
@@uranusaquarius7394 :D The words are definitively English :D But I am not a native speaker so ... :D :D :D Oh ... it's like ... wherever you go there you are! :D
_why was there no Roman Army 2: Electric Boogaloo!_ It is called the Byzantine Empire.
Pesky Bird...
You could either spend huge amounts of treasure, resources, time, effort to end up with a poor imitation of the Romans or try to work on your own strengths, tactics and concentrate on exploiting Roman weaknesses. Like you said, the big problem was often Rome was a nation then a huge state in a time when most were still city states or tribes. Most just could not compete.
Great info 👍
I love how the answer for why things weren't copied basically boils down to either: 1. They did Or 2. They couldn't
Found this channel a bit ago, I must say, what your doing is good work.
Wow, nice explanation and images, I find images to be as important as all the history and technical breakdown you gave us, good video.
This video is: "If the Roman legions were so good, why there's no Roman legions 2?"
I know its a joke,but it kinda happen. Just from the top of my mind i think about the Spanish Tercios and later profesional armies.
yet...
Every modern army worth their salt is similar in structure to the Roman legions. Well trained,heavy emphasis on flexibility and logistics
Wotta great vid. Well done. Uiltimately the limiting factors for imitators were not technical but institutional and economic.
Why didn’t anyone copy the Romans? Who else at the time had the infrastructure both economic and administrative to rival them... very very few, especially after Carthage fell.
@Max Tang The byzantine empire was the roman empire, literally, it can't really copy itself.
@Bgsleo true, but relatively speaking they were small. Each governed in a different way, and constantly at war with each other. The armies they fielded against each other were smaller than a roman legion. (Contrast this with Rome vs Carthage). The consequences of this lack of governmental sophistication was that even when a great leader like Alexander arose this empire collapsed as soon as he died. I have to concluded that while they may have been rich, they were certainly not well administered as a whole.
Yes, the Byzantines were only known as the Byzantines by those outside of the empire/those in later history. In fact, I believe the Byzantines were given the name by those in the West (following the fall of the Western Roman Empire)as they attempted to don the mantle of being the continuation of the Romans. Regardless, preceding the fall of the classically labeled “Roman Empire” in the 5th century, Rome had to split duties to effectively deal with the rising threats the empire faced. These threats being: stronger foes on the frontiers coupled with ambitious generals who repeatedly mounted rebellions. To deal with this, Diocletian essentially began the split by appointing multiple emperors to be able to administer the territory more effectively. The resultant Western Roman Empire eventually fell in 476 AD while the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines did not fall until 1453 AD (to the Ottomans)
@Janko Kral You clearly can't understand English properly because that is exactly what I said
Sassanid persians?
Robert Graves in his “I, Claudius” books talks a little about this. Román soldiers were salaried, in that they got a regular paycheck, where their enemies the Germans fought mostly for loot or glory and wouldn’t be motivated for anything else and had a hard time with their leaders ordering them about.
HiDesert004 Even though they received salaries that’s why the Roman army had trouble later. The emperors that commanded the loyalty of the largest armies bought them off with larger salaries and sometimes loot.
Basically why the Klingons are really poor soldiers in Star Trek.
Awesome video :)
amazing presentation
Amazing video as always and we appreciate your hard work.
Two points I felt were missing: 1. During a long period, if a soldier actually survived that 25 years, veterans were demobilized with rewards of land. Later on, veterans would get lands in newly conquered territories. In other words, Roman opponents fought for freedom, glory, religion, or conscription, but a victorious Roman soldier would become a landowner with a powerful & direct incentive. 2. The somewhat unique nature of life in the actual city of Rome for hundreds of years, the reason why 'Urban' legions were feared. For much of its early history life for ordinary men on the streets of Rome was hyper-aggressive, violent, and competitive. The 'untrained levies' mentioned in the video have gone through a rather brutal upbringing equivalent to growing in a violent prison gang. Even going into the Legions, a 'green recruit' Roman of Plebeian class is what a modern man might regard as a FREAKING BLOODYTHIRSTY PSYCHO BASTARD who would happily beat, rape, rob, and murder you and only respects fellow hardcore psychos. Livy often makes this point when the Romans fought the Greeks; that the Greek conscripts found piles of hacked off limbs unnerving while your Urban Roman pleb thought it was hilarious & basically just another Saturday night in a ROman tenement block.
@Garrett McCullough *drums*
I doubt about your second point. It is hard to control grown up men, especially with rebellious upbringing. I would expect most of them being kids around 16 years old. Do you have source of any kind?
In your second point you're mixing up eras. The 'untrained levy's' were part of the old Socii system - Rome paid their Italian "allies" to go to war for them. Your status - in fact your very ability to wage war - was based on whether or not you could afford equipment - the notoriously hidebound Senate didn't think the state should spring for it. But they weren't urban. They weren't even Roman. Problem was, there were drawing from a limited pool, and the punic wars decimated the Italian small farmer. So in about 100BC, Gaius Marius proposed to use the Capite Censi (citizens of Rome with no property to their name - literally "the head count") as Roman soldiers, with the government supplying their equipment. This was met with universal scorn "they'll run from their first battle and leave their equipment behind" and "they'll trade in their swords for a night with some Gallic harlot" - that sort of thing. Marius would never have succeeded with his plan had half a million Germans not appeared in the neighborhood, making the Senate suddenly very flexible. They outperformed the earlier socii, but the reason was as the video said: they had centurians which gave even green legions a semi-veteran status (for a really cool example of centurions making a great heads-up quick tactical change of orders, check out Caesar's charge against Pompey at Pharsalus). I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of rome being a perpetual war of all against all. And a plebian was just someone who couldn't trace their ancestry back to the old aristocracy of the Kingdom of Rome - many plebians were quite wealthy, and as a general class they were more powerful than the patricians, who were always accused of being would-be kings. If you listed all 20 consuls in a random ten years in the last 50 years of the Republic, you might have two or three who were Patricians. They had all but died out. I agree with your first point, and I think in it were the seeds of the fall of the Republic, but my post is already too long.
Strange. I recall reading one of the roman historians saying that people from countryside made much better soldiers than soft city boys
Think you just described the united states more than you did rome lol
The mithredeties example was kinda doomed from the start, he tried to copy a formation thats based on grinding down the oponent with far fewer resources than the enemy he'd copied it from. When your enemy outnumbers you use speed to limit that advantage, don't just give them the space to corner you and grind you to dust
Well, the ground attack was absolutely fearsome in the early days of Greece and Rome, no question, but in later centuries the assault from the air came into prominence with some of the great military field generals like Thomas Germanicus Bradius.
I was under the impression that there were several imitation legions over their existence. Mithradates the Great of Pontus had an imitation legion made of former legionnaires. I vaguely recall there being both Greek and Persion imitations as well.
Rome require their allied nations to copy their legionary so they wont mess up in battle. All legionary imitation will fight on the Roman side.
Ben M - Mithradates had legionaries trained by man send by Quintus Sertorius. Unfortunately next war with Rome come before they finish their work. Pontis legionaries perform well but they werent enough.
@@yulusleonard985 seleucid empire had them too, not romes allies
Yulus Leonard Rome’s enemies often tried to emulate their tactics, including their army structure. It was rare for them to succeed, though Mithradates the Great probably came the closest to pulling it off.
@sum body At that time I doubt the Roman use Legionaire. During Hun/Goth/Franks time, Roman soldier consist mostly German mercenaries. Pontus already described in the Video, they use imitation of Legionary.
copycating legions never worked... until around 1600 Dutch and Swedes created brigade system of professional pike and musket infantry and legion was reborn in another form, existing well into today...
What about Tercios ? Dominating battlefield for century and a half ? They were profesional troops, mixing pikes, swords and firearms.
@@dra1212 in the same breath we can mention the Landsknecht, Swiss and East Roman Army
@@yochaiwyss3843 the landkechts et the swiss were mercenaries pikemen. The Tercios were profesional units with skilled commanders, strong fighting spirit and discipline, good training and using the newest tactics and weapons of the time. Soldiers in these units were experienced combat veterans.
That's copycating the pike phalanx of the Greeks.
@@ElBandito Macedonia had the pike phalanx. Greeks used spears, the 'doru' which isnt long enough to be considered a pike. These Hoplites would still be deployed at the flanks of the pike phalanx under Alexander as the 'shield bearers' however.
They weren't just an army, they were a financial, logistical, military machine. You summed it up very well. No one came close until the British Empire.
It’s often said that the Roman army was a construction company that sometimes did war
Thank's for all your video, it's very enriching ! During the manipular legion, a century was composed of 50 soldiers, 10 non soldiers like ingeneers and one centurion, so on the battlefeild, 51 guys were fighting, 10 stayed on the camp. And a cohort was composed of 2 centuries. So, 2 centurions, but on was the superior of the other, all other soldiers were egals. ;)
Romans faced perfect "not Roman" legions during the social war. Those were the allies that traditionally provided half of the "Roman" army in the previous wars, so they used the same equipment, formations, logistics, command structure and tactics. Not by chance, famous Roman generals that won in the east with ridicolus ease, struggled in the social war, and it had been the only time when, shortly after having narrowly won, Rome granted to the former enemies all of their requests.
Dude, Ive been playing conquerors blade for years, its the only game ive ever really enjoyed making vids on too, what an awesome coincidence. I really hope you get into it and start uploading some gameplay stuff, its an awesome medievil tactics game
It's not medieval, it's medieval-XVIII century xD Also make a video about countering annoying lb players for once instead of teaching peeps how to play them :/
This synopsis is outstanding! I’m very impressed by your knowledge of history and of the Romans. The Roman system was copied by Western Europe as it evolved over centuries. Some great generals during the Dark Ages and Medieval Era of the Middle Ages, most notably the Eastern Roman Empire which continued to evolve with technology, then the Normans who became the British followed by other western countries and the USA. The exception was the Mongols under Temujin and Subotai whose genius was exemplified despite being illiterate. He is the lone exception of all the greatest generals for his roots. All European Great Captains had great armies and a great education. Temujin began as a slave but rose to power. He had an army everyone knew how to beat yet he crushed all opposition. There’s so much to learn from all of military history. Thanks for producing an excellent teaching video. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Legion is not just a "style of waging war" its economy and industry that can maintain this "style of waging war". Most military organisations were first and foremost defined by resources they had avalible.
the long version, this awesome vidoe. the short answer, logistics. The Roman army was an organized formal army payed for by the state. It was well supplied, and it ran like a fine oil machine.
Awesome topic, I was wondering the same question a couple of days ago after playing a game of RISK with my friends.
Dude I really like Conqueror's Blade! Glad to see them getting bigger!!
wowowowo, i know that picture at 04:27! Have you read "Tiberius Claudius Maximus - cavalry man" aswell? what an awesome reminder of my childhood! gotta find that piece of art somehow... Greetings!