The 1st Samnite War: Battles or Stories? (Rome and Romans) 

Love it! I love the quick way you get into the action, I love your choices of the more 'niche' parts of history that you cover, and I love the improved production value. These videos are not only great, but I imagine will hold up very great with revisits It's a crime you don't have more subs, but you're my favourite up and coming history RU-vidr, and I always get excited when you upload. Much love, man! ❤️

You know you are one of the reasons why I think of Rome everyday!

30 years old and I still smile when I hear "Publius". Great video brother, with some smooth looking animations!

Video was fine. Your maps are good. Clear, basic and neat. Good colour scheme too with your contrasting colours. That’s important. I studied a bit of cartography back in the day not that I remember much. But complicated maps don’t work with your style of content presentation. Too much to take in while you’re trying to listen. So I reckon you’ve done well for what it’s worth. The other graphics are fine and help to visualise events. Always great content regardless.

GREAT VISUALS! they look much better

4:55 😃😁😂 Dude, your comment 😂😆, specially the last one on the subject. "Did they bait the samnites with caring looks before suddenly unleashing their rage in the last few moments of the battle?." 😅😂🤣

Welp, my closed caption is funny again. Apparently it's not Samnites..but Sams Knights. Well done caption guy? Also due to the fact that Livy wrote this account..I'm gonna need about fifteen tons of salt here.

Since Publius Decius Mus would have appeared on the consular lists, he probably existed. Livy simply made up a backstory for him, copying details from the life of his son, also named Publius Decius Mus, including his death by devotio.

I like the sound effects

Great job! I have a suggestion because it’s coming up, a video dedicated to Livy’s discussion about Roman generals that Alexander the Great would have had to face and why he believed Alexander couldn’t have conquered Rome if he stayed alive long enough to turn west and then of course your thoughts on his speculation.

5:06 - there's garum all over this

Good job on this!

So yes, we should take Livy, and all ancient writers/historians/philosophers/etc like him with a big grain of salt (especially any numbers), I think you missed the mark a bit on the Battle of Saticula. Livy claims they *retreated* due to the ferocity of the Romans, not that their line initially was broken by said looks. An army that gets beaten back multiple times only to form up again and launch another attack can be an unnerving thing. A tenacious enemy that will keep attacking, which you cannot easily beat, may be one its best to disengage from. It's not clear how well their lines were holding either and that's probably unknowable now. The Samnites were likely exhausted from fighting and what their casualties/morale was like isn't knowable. From the Roman perspective, they may have seemed resolute but in actuality were holding on by a thread. Also a bit technical, but this isn't a rout (also perhaps a typo on your part but it's rout not route). What is described is more akin to a breach in formation and lines. The fact that the Samnites retreated as a unit after the battle by definition means they weren't routed. Units that flee the field in a chaotic fashion are routed (though the line isn't always so clean). That doesn't mean Livy was accurate, but some of the critiques here I'm not sure I agree with. For example the men taking a hill to escape the ambush thing. Something that's taught in militaries to this day is to "fight through" the ambush. Basically get out of the kill box ASAP even if you have to blast your way out. So the army splitting with the vanguard taking the hill while the rest retreats isn't unreasonable. It's also possible that this was a teachable moment for their military. We use past battles to demonstrate tactics like how academies still use Cannae as a textbook envelopment. IF (and that's a very, very big if) the events transpired similar to what Livy said, it very well may have been something taught to officers going forward as a case of something that worked. All that said, we should probably as a rule for Livy and others of his era think of them as "true but not accurate" with some moral messaging thrown in. Sort of along the lines of what you said in your conclusion. Although numbers often were again about "truth" not "accuracy" which may sound contradicting. Think about how religions and empires talk about lasting 1000 years. It's not like they're literally plotting a calendar. It's conveying the idea of "forever" or so long that nothing else matters. It's an arbitrary big number that the average person who is an illiterate farmer can hear and go "damn, that's big." While some authors were better in accuracy, others were more concerned about getting the idea across. In this case "we destroyed their entire force" is the idea. Livy was writing at a time when Rome had hundreds of thousands of men in the legions and auxilia. The Samnites probably had a tenth of the men Livy claimed, the logistics don't make sense given what we know of later Roman armies. Problem is though, if he said "we killed 3k Samnites" that would sound underwhelming and like a minor conflict. It wouldn't carry the weight that he was trying to attach to its importance. He also may have been a product of his time and just assumed armies were also as big as they were when he was alive. Good video, love that some of the lesser talked about parts of Roman history are getting some attention! Usually it's Punic Wars onward and sometimes it's only the second one. Not a lot of content on the pre-Marian wars and especially not on the pre-Polybian wars. Keep it up mate!