Roman Rules for War - How to conquer an Empire 

"I never said that shit" -Sun Tzu

A general was a also a supply logistics manager, imagine all that responsibility and he didnt even have a computer to help him.

Just imagine if we had a multiple-season long series about the roman army at war. One that was so full of all the little details behind the logistics involved in planning a campaign through. The mishaps thay occurred on the march, the banter and activities during those nightly camps, the battles themselves, and even the process after like disposing of dead enemies and caring for the wounded. Thats something i always dream of seeing one day.

I am aware that i am repeating my self alot. But after over 60 years of studying Roman military history this video documentary among all the others you have provided is invaluable to me and am looking forward to many more. You have my allegince! Thank you all.

Well, first you cooka da pizza...

The psychological effect on moral makes a lot of sense. I certainly wouldn't want to approach a formation of thousands of well-equipped men on a hill, their weapon & armour shining under the sun. The Romans in the late Republic/Early Empire were also ordered to not perform battle chants in order to intimate enemies through uniform silence.

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

I really like this style of videos. Its feels alot more grounded which is what brought me to this channel! Well done!

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

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

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

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

Incredible storytelling combined with historical accuracy! This video brings the Roman conquests to life in a whole new way

Each of your videos is like breathing fresh air after a long walk. Thank you for your unique atmosphere! 😊

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

Julius studied Alexander’s battles from records.

amazing work! many thanks for sharing your knowledge in such a detailed and beautiful movie! 🎉

That´s really interesting to me. Some tactics, like taking the high ground might seem obvious, but the stuff about the supply line is probably the most important factor. Even an army that´s entrenched on a rocky mountain can´t survive forever, if besieged and unable to get ressources. It just shows how many considerations were to be kept in mind, which makes the success of the Romans even more impressive.

It’s always a good day when this channel uploads a new video

A great channel. Period. Thank you.

Excellent video as usual!

Amazing video! You should do a similar video about naval conflict as it gets far less attention than it deserves.

very interesting video, always good to learn new stuff

I'm so glad this recommendation popped up. ❤

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

One of the BEST video about Roman warfare. 👍👍👍🎉

Another Excellent Video

Dude, I'm dying to see the next part of the dacian War... when will it come out?

Excellent video!

Great video thank you!

An another great documentary,

Very well done. A lot of information in a small time slice. I didn't mind watching the obligatory commercial from beginning to end either

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

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

Beautiful History Incredible Lesson Some Pretty Nice Displays Greatluck in Improving Your Presentations Amazing Good Work Wonderful Public Effort Alot to Learn Here for Helping Anybody Understand more of Life Thank You Great Man

This channel is amazing good

This was sick

"Novices talk tactics, professionals talk logistics" I am surprised that the Roman where well aware of this, as a lot of later Generals forgot about it.

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

Great video. But a video or 2 about some famous roman defeats and why did they happen may do a nice opposition to this video.

"It's not over until is over" Great American General and philosopher Yogi Berra :)

Love it ❤

15:15 - I'd like to make an addition: Roman generals in the first few centuries were often the consuls of the year. When Rome was smaller, typically the Consuls lead the army. Later generals were assigned by the Senate, so the most important thing a Senator who wanted to be nominated had to have was cloud. This could be by having proven in the past to be a capable military leader - but by no means was this necessary. He could just be well connected. Or - very important - his ancestors had fought against the same enemy successfully. If your grandfather fought against the same enemy successfully, you had a very good chance to get the command of the army, even if you hadn't a reputation for being a good military leader yourself. Romans often believed that great feats the ancestors did was transfered to the current generation. In Africa e.g. it was long believed that only a Scipio was able to win a victory - because a Scipio was the first who won against Carthage. So in later African campaigns, a decendant of Scipio got "the job", just because many believed a Scipio was necessary to win.

The other thing is timing of the battle. If you can own the night that's absolutely the best utilizing night vision but back then they wouldn't have had that. So what they did instead was they'd make sure that the sun was to their backs. So when the enemy archers went to engage you, you would start the battle when you knew that sunlight was going to be in their face. So they're not getting precision shots off where your archers are dropping arrows in like crazy and they're not able to see them either. Cuz if they're looking up they're getting blinded by the Sun but only temporarily cuz when the arrow hits them they'll see again and they won't be concerned about the battle But it enhances the flight of the slings because that was the most popular weapon for poor people. So they would oftentimes it would negate the flight of those slings for the rocks that were thrown forward, the arrows and the Spears. Yours would have the advantage as long as you keep the wind to your back, which is why oftentimes these battles. They would wait long periods of time so that the conditions were just right. The Egyptians used to do something like this as well before they lost their minds with their pharaohs. The Pharaohs used to have the archers riding a big oval and they would stay outside of the range of the enemy's archers cuz their bows were superior and they would fling the arrows in and then as they rode in the arrow the Archer would reload and then on the way back through they would drop rounds in. By doing this with a couple hundred chariots, you're actually dropping in so many arrows that it's equivalent to that of a modern-day minigun the Egyptians used to say let the sky go black with our arrows and that's how they would deliver on that promise.

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

Subscribed . Very nice analysis better than most . Gains Julius Caesar is one of my heroes . Please explain the Helveti disaster .,,,,,,

To be a Roman General, One must be principled, in both scholarly and soldierly fields.

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

great video thx for that comrad but at the end - clausewitz already told its not only military education, bravery, honor, inspiring and trusting presence etc ... but the special mind of a military genius.

11:30 IMHO that also applies to A.I. especially in aircraft dogfights. You are going to go that way.

11:54 Especially if you find a place where you can threaten 2 or more places and the enemy can properly defend only one due to numbers and having terrain preventing quick reinforcement of the attacked place.

You said there were no military school. But didn't Octavian met and form a life long friendship with Marcus Agrippa at just such a school?

Could you do some thing like this Roman playlist you have here, but for Carthage and the Byzantin Empire? Would love such detailed information videos on them. Like you do for Greece and Rome. 😁

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

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

How did you do these great animations?

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

This just goes to show that there is a Hell of a lot more to the Ancient Roman military than we realize. Getting ready for war, making sure all of your needs were met, and making sure your ass doesn't end up in a bind. Mighty complicated, but that's how things were done in those days. The big question is, can we fight like that today and win? Thank you for the enlightenment.

Did you use total war Attila for the machinimas?

Master Sun says: War is more than just tactics

No but one of the tactics that you can utilize if your ene is embedded is you just constantly make noise you let him know that you're always there so they can never sleep. And the repetitive training is something we still use to this day. Because in survival mode your body because of the adrenaline will repeat motions that it knows we're successful. So going for different weapon systems or bringing different weapon systems back online or transitioning to a different weapon system. It just becomes natural. And also by doing this your forces get the reassurance that the Roman still haven't taken out your noise maker so they get a peaceful sleep. Were those going up against your forces? They're going to be out all night long and this stacked for several days after 24 hours. The human body is so depleted of energy that is not making rational decisions and by 72 hours of sleep deprivation your your. You're basically operating drunk, which in a military conflict that's going to end in blood is definitely putting the advantage in those that know how the harness the battlefield

Dacia Part 3 !!

"The answer? Use legions, and if that don't work, use more legions" -Romans

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

Do we have an example of Roman general faking weakness to provoke attack on his terms? Before late antiquity

For those Waraboos who missed the key lessons. Those who only do the fighting only needed to practice fighting. Those who did the winning needed experience almost everywhere else more. Logistics is king, an army fights on it's stomach

Never underestimate the value of good mor-all

How would you like a strategy game where its like Manor Lords but you're managing the legion through a campaign, and battles are like Total War? I think that would be fire.

Would you like a lesson sir, in the rules of war?

Who wants to join me in reuniting the Empire?

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

is it true that when the ram touches the wall, all negotiation ceased?

13:34 I think you’re talking about a different nero and not the emperor Nero. The Nero at the Metaurus was a general from the 2nd Punic war Gaius Claudius Nero.

The clips showing romans marching and fighting come from a game, right? Which game is it?

Im just curious the video uses Total War Rome 2 right?

If every Roman army built a new marching camp every time they paused after a march in enemy territory, how did they prevent left behind camps from being taken by enemies? Did they leave behind troops to guard them? Otherwise, the enemy could enjoy all these advantages and cut the army from resupplies.

Last man shut off the lights

how was getting a house or place to live in the roman times? how did people know a house was for sale or bought?

It's important that while we know most about the Romans because they won, most of what is stipulated here would be done in one form or another by most other military powers, too. Best case study: "Greeks had these over complicated non standardized units..." then proceeds to explain how Romans used overcomplicated specialized units Hellenistic armies had a different structure and by the Rise of Rome were in decline, in particularly due to politics best embodied by the fact that a Hellenistic king could barely survive won setback in battle before having to give up. However their doctrine and works on doctrine would have been a core part of Roman military education, just adapted to their own system.

I think Caesar’s military career began long before his Gallic conquest and I think you’re overselling his “near disaster” against the Helvetti.

How did Romans deal with local law enforcement, or enemy military units that did not engage them in combat? Apparently those who engaged in combat, survived and were caught were sold to slavery. Logically it would follow that the Romans that had de-facto won a war would be more than willing to just outright recruit local units wholesale and have them deal with the local law enforcement; that way you wouldn't have to tie down your own italian legions nor deal with a whole bunch of new bandit groups formed by the "surviving" military organization of the vanquished.

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

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

where is part 3 of the dacian war 😭

Read "Speed and Politics," "War and Cinema," and/or "Information Bomb" by Paul Virilio,

I extremely disappointed that the sacred chickens are not apart of this list

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

War dogs were also used in the head of the army

Rule for war: WIN.

Um…great video but morale is pronounced with an “a” as in apple.

Actually, more men died through and because of disease then are actually usually killed because of bullets in a military conflict. It wasn't until recently. And until recently, even a small wound could kill you.

The greatest army ever....

I would have thought that the Generals would have learned the skills to lead from being subordinate to veteran officers. Before taking the role of being a General. Doing the job rather than sitting in a classroom and trying to stay awake listening to some lecture.

The Mongols had very good moral , and made a point to wipe out their enemies ......sometimes to the man , animals were not even spared at times . Piles of skulls were typical . They also used the Chinese decimal system , 10, 100 , 1000 soldiers . If any one of the 10 men fled ....the other 9 would be killed . It has always been speculated , that the Mongols and the Romans would have had a very difficult time with each other . Being forced to maintain an uneasy peace with each other in different parts of the world .

No mention of corner camping? Smh

I love rome

Just a word of advice those who have rules in war typically lose the war

For War or "Of" War. 4 implies ure sm kind of god inputting The Rules. Of war - is just plain simply normall.

s

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