Historian Rates 10 Massive Battles in Movies & TV | How Real Is It? 

the depiction of persians is highly eurocentric and higly greco centric dare i say highly herodote centric

I was waiting for so long to have "Ditch Man" review HBO's Rome Battle of Philippi.

I'm a huge fan of Roel after watching his commentary on Historical Battles on other RU-vid videos. Thanks for inviting him over and I hope he'll show up more frequently for next videos.

Introduction of battle management style become possible, when you have competent sub-commanders who lead by example. This way actual person in charge can focus on tactics. We in fact do know that Romans use this method.

Dear Invicta, do You know that not only Hollywood made historical films with great battles? Are You going to make the same mistake as Insider? Where's Waterloo (1970), where's Knights of the Teutonic Order (1960)? Watching experts rate the same five movies over and over again has become boring a long time ago. No upvote this time.

What about advertisements?? Make that 4...😂

@@Gitsmasher No. Ad-Blocker!

@@marvinamann4969 its 5 seconds and you support the content creators, don't be a dick

​@@Gitsmasheryoutube Premium. My attention is valuable n

Ditch-man 😂😂😂

We dutch sure love digging ditches and making dikes 😂

Ditch'n.

Lol I just left a comment about him liking ditches because “dijk” is in his name and sure enough I scroll down and see your comment here.

Roel is the best historian on youtube (commenting on pre-modern age strategy and tactics)

“There is one certain means by which I can be sure never to see my country’s ruin: I will die in the last ditch.” Stadtholder Willem III (aka King of England, Scotland etc.)

As Roel mentioned, understanding how different cultures used their commanders to manage a specific battle during an exact era, etc. The leader is either fighting up front or simply at the back, managing his lieutenants to conduct the battle, etc. Ex: Thrawn in Star Wars knew the particular styles of each commander inside the rebel resistance/New Republic due to their race & art.

add 4) cavalry blindly charging pikes.

I especially hate the 2nd one. Formations look so cool and cinematic, they should be a main reason to recreate pre-modern battles on film! You could do so much to dramatize the flow of the battle by showing formations moving, colliding, stretching, almost breaking, pulling together and reforming etc. The "just run, scream and then everyone pairs up" style looks like crap and doesn't really tell you anything, it's just unrealistic without a real upside. (Except I guess that it's kind of simple to do.)

Also, the order "fire" instead of "loose", or "shoot" given to archers.

@@Echo1234on that subject... Hollywood's mania for fire arrows...

Damn!!! really nice work on the costumes i imangine it must have taken a lot of work. Keep it up👍

@@alicebokka9002 Thank you, most kind.

That's so cool!

amazing ❤ good job ❤

You did a great work in Alexander

Unless ofc you were on the losing side of the ditch

"I got 99 problems, and ditches are all of them" - Losing Guy

No ditches? Get stitches!

😂😂😂

Ditches be trippin' 😂😂😂

A lot of shows do this. Early episodes show a lot of attention to things. Take Vikings. A lot of shield walls, etc in the early seasons. Later seasons are just armed mobs charging at each other.

@@RandomStuff-he7luwhat is it with this fetish of turning every battle into a mob ? It’s not exiting at all

I really liked the opening of Rome with lucius blowing his wistle and shouting commands to keep his men in formation like a centurion might had done. The whole changing the front guy to the rear and the next guy in line fights keeping the rotation going like a war machines fits so nicely with the perception of order and discipline of the roman legion. The drunk pullo fighting on his own and getting pulled back was lol and really sets the scene well.

@@JayzsMr personally I think it's partly laziness on the part of the movie makers. It's much easier to just tell a bunch of guys to go at it however they want than it is to actually portray the flow of battle through maneuver and counter maneuver. It's also likely that they feel like the giant melee is more visually compelling, and since movies are about visual storytelling most movie makers will prefer to go with that option.

@@AlarKemmotarAnd I wonder if it sometimes come down to safety for the actors/stuntmen. Like, why is it that whenever we see a cavalry charge in movies, they always end up hacking at people with swords? No lances? They clearly could do it, but don't for some reason.

“I have a cunning ditch”

​​@@euwalkIs it so cunning that you could pile dirt opposite it and call it a mound?

Hollywood. There are no battlefield flares, lights and such, any enemy can sneak close to another enemy and find ditches. Hollywood would have you believe that they were all dumb, when the opposite is true. It is estimated that middle ages people for example were about 10pts higher on average than today's people. Draw your own conclusions as to why. Start with "The Bell Curve".

Isn't that a ditch on a ditch?

@@curiositycloset2359 similar, that's a fairly common mistake

Such a shame the rest of the movie ranges from meh to bad. The opening with Gaugamela is really the highlight of the entire film, just goes downhill from there.

@@cutterpatterson6368 yeah. :/

@@cutterpatterson6368 Have you seen the ultimate cut of the movie? It fixes a lot of the problems with the theatrical release and the 45 minutes of added scenes add much needed cohesion to the badly edited theatrical release. It is not the directors cut but the one called 'Alexander (The Ultimate Cut)'

@@cutterpatterson6368 It's really not as bad as that, and is in fact incredibly accurate throughout by movie standards. People just overreact to it to the point that it's created this myth of badness around it. The later cuts also fix the pacing issues with the theatrical release.

But did you burn through the witches and ride in the back of the dragula?

And I prepared a lot of rocks too, you know, they hurt and free.

I think we've found a serial killer's excuse for why he's dug so much in the south 40 on his farm....

You definitely want to dig ditches after the battle

@hrantk2060 Sorry I forgot to emphasize the importance of digging ditches

funsies aside, digging ditches is what we were taught to do, as well, like, all the time. If you're a soldier, and you've just finished your tenth anti tank ditch, and now you're done and have nothing to do? Well done, now start the eleventh... "Schweiß spart Blut", "sweat saves blood", as they say.

WW1 in a nutshell. Get digging!

After the battle, you dig more ditches (graves) for the fallen.

The whole "Rome" series is unfortunately extremly lacking. If you know nothing about this area and the characters, it looks good - because they did invest money and you can see that. But as soon as you have some basic knowledge, it just falls apart :( Quite sad, they could have made it a good show but some stupid stuff just ruined it.

​​@@wedgeantilles8575I somewhat disagree, but I'm personally more lenient when it comes to balance historical authenticity against storytelling and cinematography. Let's also keep in mind that it was only a TV show, long before the times of GoT's monumental success. Overall, Rome Season 1 was significantly better than Season 2. S01 had still been "properly" produced, but since success didn't come as fast as they expected, it was deemed a flop and S02-S05 (I think) were summarized into what we know as Season 2. Then the show was cancelled. Unfortunately, after that decision had already been made and after parts of the set were broken down (some of it even burned down I believe), THAT'S when the series saw sudden enormous success and popularity. But alas, it was too late. For me, I think it was very, very enjoyable to watch, very immersive and enjoyable. Was is historically inaccurate? Did it mash together events and grossly mischaracterize historical figures? Sure. But it was *_good enough_* for people like me to then start looking into the actual history behind the show and put hours upon hours into it. That's probably the best one can expect from a TV series that's completely focused on entertainment.

@@wedgeantilles8575 Please elaborate ? I think they did a good job considering the show was cut from 5 to 2 seasons, they made some choices to streamline the narrative but I can't think of anything particularly outrageous

@@ethienosinsky5186 They never really elaborate, let alone explain how they would have written it any better especially knowing how the writers for Rome were forced to end the show prematurely (as you mentioned). People hating on HBO's Rome don't know history nearly as well as they think they do. Most historians love the show, overall and consider it the best depiction of Roman life of any Hollywood production.

​@@ethienosinsky5186 at Philippi they threw no pila, for example...

We've actually been working with Roel for about 7 years now. But this may indeed be the first time he appears on camera

​@@InvictaHistoryget him on more often please!

​@@InvictaHistoryplease make more videos with him, please. He's amazing.

@@InvictaHistory make more videos with him if u can lol it is really interesting please

@@InvictaHistory Film him digging a ditch!

He's actually been helping to research and write scripts for many years. He even did some ride along commentary on our AC: Odyssey historical tours

@@InvictaHistoryYet you can't get his name right in the description.

@@doowappable Oh no! A typo! How terrible!

@@Agentcoolguy1Twice, on a name.

@@Agentcoolguy1 typo says more than just it being a typo. it shows the level of care and professionalism.

I remember seeing this movie when it came out and I loved the formations. This was after the game Total War: Rome. Great times.

Too bad he didn't make a review of all the movie! The battles were so good (for once, the historians were the one given full control, not marketing or the moviemaker wanting lot of badass scene for his trailer and then the whole movie boring. - as you already watched all important scenes in the trailer😅), yet they made the movie so boring with so much useless talking. I remember sleeping a few times until I got woke up before such accurate action scenes😂 But maybe it was accurate too, all the talking for hours.

I agree, it's actually the Gaugaissus battle combo. Still the most accurate ancient battle in the history of the cinema.

It's a pity the movie has such a bad rep. it really is one of the best historical movies out there because it's about the actual history. I found all of it fascinating.

Same here

I actually thought it was going to be Alatriste, even if I'm not sure if it is more accurate than Alexander. Expected the latter, sure, but a list such as this missing the chance to show off that depiction of the Battle of Rocroi?

@@brunokopte1347 I agree. The 2 best movies showing history. -Pour le roi! - Espagna!

I remember the fighting in that movie being heavily criticized at the time for being boring. Apparently if it does not look like Braveheart a lot of people find it boring.

@@GhostBear3067 People are dumb. That's why Marvel works so much.

@@brunokopte1347dont speak a lick of Spanish but saw Aragorn fighting in the 30 years war and decided it was worth suffering through the subtitles. No regrets, one of my favorite movies now. The sword duels and sapper scene are just 😮‍💨🤌🏼

True, I think he is more than generous with his 1-10 scoring too.

I wish so bad I could master this way of speaking myself.

Yes, I like that he understands movies are there to entertain. (dumb things to make it easy to understand in a 2 hour theater movie, and then make another more complex version of 5 hour for those who want the more complex version, where you can act a more accurate version) Especially Hollywood. He helped some movies (or games?) apparently, so he gets that historians like him are just present to give an accurate take on past events (as much as can be proven) and then try to get it accurate on screen, and then, movies maker want massive scenes to impress the theater paying spectators (and later people renting the movie or buying it, buying a DVD or Blu-ray, watching it on Netflix or another platform etc), lot of special effects, a good versus evil easy to understand story (because spectators can't have the brain to understand a complex story where there is no evil versus good. - just like ww1, no evil Germans vs good allies, just a complex system of alliance and countries forced to abide by those or get dishonored and have their words no longer taken as official) so his voice quickly disappear when it comes to 'badass scenes' which can bring money. (you often got most of those scenes in the trailer, then you watch the movie and wonder where is the rest?) Hollywood just want actual historical events (no matter the period, from 300 to Napoléon, to modern battles to future space battles etc), things which really happened, then they make everything right until they just want their big brawl to make sure the spectator get the massive idea that it is historical and really fun to watch (fun or at least impressive due to the number of soldiers on screen (even more if it is scripted for security, with a real trained crew of hundred of actors/stunts rehearsing for months for a scene of less than 5 minutes where no one got hurted)

Link please

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xPGdOXstSyk.htmlsi=mVvhab5Gse0g22LM

kind of sad that he became famous for the ditches and not for "just throw rocks, they are everywhere and they are free"

@@tommerker8063well I mean, did you dig a ditch?

🤣🤣

More ditches win the battles.

Phillipi was clearly shown as an example for a battle where discipline got out of hand (and as a part of the character relation buildup between Octavian/Augustus and Marc Anthony - the show's grip on history is this kind of highlighting, building around this Forrest Gump character Titus Pullo, it's just not a documentary

Sleep tight and don't let the Mau Mau bite....seriously!

I'll taste anything that Roel has cooked.

The thing is, the Battle of Philippi WAS that chaotic of a mess. Both sides were disorganized with Brutus' men charging without orders but routing a big chunk of Octavian's forces while Antony flanked Cassius' camp and due to the lack of communication, he killed himself despite suffering far less losses.

The thing is, we actually don't know for sure how the roman soldiers fought within the battle line. Although whistles have been found in excavations of roman army camps, there is no written source and also no archeological evidence of the use of whistles on a battlefield. Furthermore we don't know exactly how the roman army cycled through the line. It is evident, that they had to use some sort of swapping, because noone can fight longer than a few minutes straight. The way the pilot episode of Rome depicts it, is therefore just an imagination of the director without a real source backup. Although it is a very plausible depiction, it is in no way "how the roman legion actually fought", as you wrote. Simply, because we don't know it.

I’m no philosopher but I can confirm this also as I have watched a very similar documentary on Alexander and his conquests ( RU-vid channel called Kings and Generals )

Absolutely right!

Genghis Khan would be proud.

Sounds kind of suspicious re-writting of history....the battle field at Thermopylae is very narrow and there is not much room for 300 Spartans and 2,000 greeks on the hills to run back and forward. Even with the tide out... I've always wanted to go there about 50 yards off shore scuba diving with a metal detector!

Yeah that was something I always wondered: if youre standing there with an upright pike doing nothing and an enemy comes from your right, why wouldnt you just turn to your right and lower the pike? Its like how in an old ancient warfare book i have it used roman letters to explain that actually pike phalanxes werent easy to shoot at. Turns out all the pikes sticking out would catch arrows and javelins and stones, hence their lighter armour focused on just the vulnerable points

They were some of the most, if not the most, disciplined soldiers of their time. I would think they could do as you mentioned, flip the flanks to protect themselves. We can look at the tercio’s for some inspiration. Although quite different, the idea was the same as far as the pikemen were concerned. Highly trained volunteer professional soldiers. Tercios could change formations on the dime. No reason the Macedonians couldn’t do this as well. And they had a lot more manpower than the Spanish with competent generals that grew up together or were brought up by Phillip II

@@lobehold2263 i get the feeling the pop culture Phalangite Phalanx is based more on gamified versions that reality. In games they also move slower than much heavier armed and armoured troops, are easy to shoot at and never react to their sides or rear, when contemporary records don't describe them like this. It's like how people think of DnD dexterity rolls when thinking of archery and assume they were weak (when records and olympic and reenactment archers have all proven its great for the back muscles and professional archers would happily fight knights in melee)

@@Rynewulf great points! I agree

Yes. I mean: they also had frickn swords.

You're right about the change in Roman formations. But most scholars today don't believe that the "Marian Reforms" actually existed as such.

*and Barbarians TV show

sort of like the purposeful mistranslation of the "virgin" mary from a "young girl" to "virgin". Ya just can't trust some old weird guy who studies ancient languages in a dark room all his life, too much.

There was an unfortunate lack of ditches in this commentary. But that was somewhat deliberate as its been stated a ton already by Roel on other videos and that wasn't the focus of the episode.

@InvictaHistory Bring him back!!!Bring him back!!!! Seriously though, he's great, please bring g him back.

Except that massive ditch made absolutely NO SENSE. It was waaay too big. Impossible to build and to hide.

Roel thought the Spartacus vs. Crassus final battle was good at first until the ladders. The strategy of using ramp ladders to bypass the trench you just made and fight the Romans with a single-file assault of Gladiators over into the Legions defeated the point of creating the trench that divided the two armies. Roel did an episode highlighting that scene further beyond what Invictus presented. Hollywood screwed that part up just for dramatic effect instead of utilizing the ditch efficiently. They only benefit Crassus more and make Spartacus seem like he had forgotten (or make him look like he lost his IQ) from his former experience in the Roman ranks in the Balkans. By that stage in the show, Spartacus was acting similarly to Crixus's rash charge into a situation without the tactical sense of using the ditch to limit the Roman advance. Constructing a defensible ditch that could have forced the Romans and Crassus into narrow killing zones, similar to the Battle of Loudoun for Scotland, is more logical given the manpower and technological disadvantage. The Scots defeated the English by utilizing ditches at specific key points and using the English's heavy armor and strength of cavalry against them in bogged-down terrain to compensate for the limited window of preparing their defenses. Roel recommended that scene in Outlaw King for its historical use of "ditches" when an outnumbered & potentially inferior army faces a larger opponent while finding the best terrain for minimizing the attrition of war.

@@asellandrofacchio7263 It was to highlight the last glimmer of Spartacus's military knowledge in the show before the emotion of Crixis & vengeance against Crassus overshadowed his tactical common sense. The show's directors thought that the impossible ditch early on would distract viewers from how Netflix's Spartacus would make the trench irrelevant in the next few scenes when they decided to use ladders to make that "great work" pointless to benefit the gladiators charging into the Roman legions with limited manpower without any unit cohesion or decent formation to counter the Roman's overall manpower. Logically, the real Spartacus, given his experience in the Roman ranks, would have potentially used ditches more efficiently in hard terrain (like swamps or river-like chokepoints to limit the advance of the Romans)

Seconded. Thank you for commenting. I thought it was my tv.

I figured, and wondered if I'm crazy or had a stroke.

That was actually the inspiration for our True Size series. So far we have focused on army organizations but do plan to recreate battles

@@InvictaHistory That's amazing. I'm looking forward to it.

Well this what i imagine when iam thinking what it must have been being a soldier in battle. Just imagine youre standing in line with some guys. You're in full armour and you're holding in your left hand a big shield up to your lower jaw. In your right hand, you have a sword that is either placed on top of the shield or is just being pointed toward the enemy with your arm relaxed by the side of your body. Your vision is similar to when you have a hood on so you can see only in front of you and barely some sides the only thing that makes you sure there are comrades beside you are the tips of their shields next to your shield. Then you just regularly in synch with formation walk through no man's land and if you have you throw a javelin on the enemy. In a fight, you are sticking your shield up to the front and hacking with your sword over the shield at the enemy. That's basically all, no fancy swordsmanship, no heroic charge etc. just you exchanging hits with the enemy until your left-hand hurts so much that you can no longer block with the shield and your head is smashed with enemies sword/club or pierced with a spear if you are lucky your helmet may save you a few times but you're basically fighting to your exhaustion and death. That's the reason why vanguard units had crazy death rates as not only did they ate all the missiles but the soldiers couldn't even get replaced as it could potentially destabilize the front line. Also take in account that humans did not changed that much so what you can and would do they probably did. Real fight is just straight barbaric with zero heroism beauty or nobility. Just animals fighting for survival using all means necessary.

Not to mention, rome levied recently granted citizens from nearby cities so they may had retained their local traditions for a while. They are in Manga graecia so yeah, they could be armed with spears to save time as they still need to build them if they were to be standardized.

Literally all peoples of all cultures throughout all time were spearmen. Literally every culture used them from the time of the dawn of mankind when we figured out how to sharpen the side of a stick. It is the most effective weapon that humans have ever created and will continue to be so. It's easy, cheap as fuck to make, and takes literally zero skill to use effectively. You can equip trained soldiers, or peasants from the field with them, and you will have some measure of good success. If anyone...ANYONE disputes this, they are no one to listen to. There is a reason that you can find spears on the battlefield of every single battle from ancient times to modernity: they fking work. Even now, sharp points on a stick are effective: wtf do people think bayonets are? it's literally just a spear tip on a gun (stick). When you run out of bullets for a gun, you're kind of screwed unless you use the weapon as a club, which isn't as effective, but still possible as a bludgeoning instrument, but it will damage the gun's components. A Spear? You just sharpen it again with a rock or cut off the bad part and resharpen it.... or just grab another stick with a rock and sharpen it. It's actually insane how dumb people are to not know these things lol. Spears are GOATed for being weapons.

Maybe, to keep the fusillade of arrows going on, without any delays. One shoots and arrow, moves aside to set up the next arrow, while the fellow archer who is already ready with the arrow drawn...

@@A0A4ful its not a crossbow, grabbing an arrow and pulling it back is literally 1 motion. It takes more time to switch places Also shooting in volleys wasnt really a thing, thats hollywood

Battle of Pelanor Fields, Rohan is CARVING through the orcs, simply just knocking them down and trampling them effortlessly with the weight and force of the horses

@@fergusmccallum7751 Yeah, see, that's an example that strikes me as particularly unrealistic, even if it is exciting. There's a Polish movie about the Siege of Vienna 1683, "The Day of the Siege" , which has the hussars charging down the mountainside, which is correct to the history, but then the actual engagement the follows seems absurdly unrealistic. And not just in the sense that armor doesn't do anything and one hit-one kill and other insane Hollywood tropes like that, but the very tactic itself that is shown doesn't seem right. As best I understand it, the hussars start out in loose formation at distance, and close ranks until at the moment of impact they are nearly stirrup to stirrup, presenting a dangerous mass of lance tips at a concentrated point in the enemy line. Nothing remotely of the sort happens in the movie. It may seem like an exciting cavalry charge to witness on screen, but as soon as you give it even a moment of those, it's really pretty absurd. Hence the question: when do movies ever get cavalry charges correct? If ever?

I guess I'm meaning it illustrates how devastating cavalry charges can be simply with the horses alone in a panicked mass of people.

I'm no expert but as I understand it one of the best uses of cavalry was just having it and not using it, or using it sparingly. The threat of potentially having to fight cavalry puts a lot of strain on people. No one wants to fight a horse, almost certainly not even well trained pikemen with big pointy sticks on account of the fact that killing a horse or its rider doesn't nullify their momentum. Not to mention the presence of enemy cavalry means a rout is going to be much more costly as you really can't outrun a horse.

​​@@cameronbreeze4029 Cavalry had to be used sparingly and wisely, these were very expensive units. Common battlefield use may only include hitting the exposed flanks, to exploit a gap, or charging a line which has been loosened. Head on charges must be done in a desperate situation. Then the most common use was, as you mentioned, to cut down a retreating enemy, chase them to cause even more casualties. And remember most casualties were caused during a rout, after the formation was broken. Also the psychological effects of facing a cavalry is too an important factor, imagine a 500 kilo horse, with a 70 kilo rider, charging at you at some 50-60 kilometre speed with all the energy of that charge focused on the tip of a lance pointed at you, it's surely going to impale you or send you flying if not properly defended. Even when a cavalry force is armed with a sword the speed will aid in causing massively powerful slashes. Also ... cavalry may disrupt the reformation of units anywhere closer, if your routed units are still in range of cavalry, then the chances are a commander would not stop and regroup nearby. Which is advantageous to drive away an enemy from strategic locations.

There's 4 versions of that movie. Which one is worth checking out?

There's 4 versions of that movie. Are any worth checking out?

@@ricardoaguirre6126 the Ultimate cut is generally the easiest to find and I find is the best balanced. Cheers!

I thought it was kittens...

DITCHES

Idk why you clicked but I wanted to see what an expert has to say on big battles in movies.

Gladiator?

Why

That Oxford professor most definitely have had ditches and trenches weigh heavily on his mind given that was where he spent his fighting years in some of them...

Are there 2 versions??