How Did The Romans Beat The Greeks?- Legions Vs Phalanx, Gladius Vs Sarissa
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 08. 2024
- Ancient Rome was originally an Italic settlement dating from the 8th century BC that grew into the city of Rome and which subsequently gave its name to the empire over which it ruled and to the widespread civilisation the empire developed. The Roman empire expanded to become one of the largest empires in the ancient world, though still ruled from the city, with an estimated 50 to 90 million inhabitants and covering 5.0 million square kilometres at its height in AD 117.
Ancient Roman civilisation has contributed to modern government, law, politics, engineering, art, literature, architecture, technology, warfare, religion, language and society. Rome professionalised and expanded its military and created a system of government called res publica, the inspiration for modern republics such as the United States and France. It achieved impressive technological and architectural feats, such as the construction of an extensive system of aqueducts and roads, as well as the construction of large monuments, palaces, and public facilities.
By the end of the Republic (27 BC), Rome had conquered the lands around the Mediterranean and beyond: its domain extended from the Atlantic to Arabia and from the mouth of the Rhine to North Africa. The Roman Empire emerged with the end of the Republic and the dictatorship of Augustus Caesar. 721 years of Roman-Persian Wars started in 92 BC with their first war against Parthia. It would become the longest conflict in human history, and have major lasting effects and consequences for both empires. Under Trajan, the Empire reached its territorial peak. Republican mores and traditions started to decline during the imperial period, with civil wars becoming a prelude common to the rise of a new emperor.
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
Metatron-153...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
amedeo.capor...
and his instagram
amedeo.capor...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
Alexander be like: "No you idiots! You're doing it all wrong!"
Yea
*Centuries later...*
Swiss: "Oh yeah, we got this"
I know, he would have been to smart to make such a mistake.
And then the Amber trading partners of Rome learn from the Romans to be cheeky and pull a fast one on the Teutonic order and totally crushing them. And another of Romes orders bite the dust courtesy of the Lithuanians.
the Swiss "Gewalthaufen" has diverse weapons inside the formation. And it was deeper. @@robwalsh9843
"Superior roman cavalry." Never hear that often.
The Imbroglio It's obvious they were mercenaries.
Axel Tenveils that makes sense
Poelmeister Weren't Numidians not on the Mediterranean?
Greek city states never fully embraced cavalry, really. While Rome didn't have the best cavalry (by far), I would probably say they were better than that of the city states.
+Axel Numidia was very much on the Medditerranean, later the Roman Province of Mauritania, later Al-Jazair, also known as Algeria.
At the battle of Cynoscephalae, the Romans and Greeks ended up fighting essentially 2 separate battles simultaneously, one in which the Romans were pushing the Greeks back, and another in which the Romans were getting pushed back. The Romans won the battle because one of the generals in the winning side detached some of his forces and attacked the other Greek line from the rear, destroying it. What really made it possible was Roman ingenuity and flexibility, being able to adapt to any situation as the need be.
That's really all bc a single centurion or whatever the name was, on the field. I forgot his name but he noticed the other half was getting annihilated by phalanx so he took some of his men and went to help. The flexibility you speak of stems from the Roman's using ranks in a higher quality.
@@joshuapena4684 all I knew from him was "a roman captain", no mention of a name.
The macedonian phalanx which replaced the classic one relied heavily on the cavalry and the peltasts that protected it. After Alexander the use of the macedonian phalanx slowly deteriorated and eventually generals started relying too much on the phalanx formation neglecting the cavalry and the peltasts. In other words they didn't use it right. Your remark on the quality of the generals basically summons it up.
Xaris Xeros why are you just being rude, what has this guy done to you exactly ?
Was there an advantage in being tall when wielding a 6 metre sarissa? Like a taller pier being better with a longer suspension bridge?
Thankyou so much for your wonderful work.
@@claudiaxander I imagine there was, people who are tall usually also have longer arms and more reach.
@@SteveSmith-ty8ko Cheers, just wondering if anyone had had any experience larping. thankyou.
@@claudiaxander At ~20 feet, the difference in the users reach will be a tiny percentage. If you use an overhand grip & strike downward(ish), being taller makes going over the shield easier. Being taller gives you a longer stride, letting you march faster. (reach the battleground first, and less tired) Also, it's kind of nice to be able to see over the heads of the guys in front of you.
I'm not sure how much of it is applicable, but those are the advantages to being tall while using a pike. (at least the ones I could find)
"Never trust mercenary forces "
_ Niccolo Machiavelli
He was sort of railing against the inevitable, seeing as how the Latin City States in his time were heavily dependent on Condottiere (Contract Warriors, AKA Mercenary bands) to do their fighting. According to most sources these mercenary bands conducted highly formalized warfare in which few-if any-casualties were taken. Maneuver decided the victors, much like in Chess. Surrenders were accepted and ransoms the order of the day. Niccolo, on the other hand, was of a dark and insidious bent; he seemed to like the prospect of others dying for his amusement.
I dont think Machiavelli enjoyed the prospect of others dying for his amusement, but rather he wasn't comfortable with how condottieri pretty much decided on the outcome of wars among themselves, since many companies would change sides throughout wars, to the point where companies only viewed the city-states as money bags. Machiavelli would have much rather have a direct hand in facing enemies and turning them home.
Thanks for your well thought reply.
Anant Bijolia at the time of Machiavelli mercenaries outperformed citizen armies lol
The Greeks knew this, but they had no choice.
You have to remember that when the Romans turned east after defeating Carthage, they had veterans who had fought for ten or fifteen years. That kind of experience can't be bought. If the armies had clashed without the Romans having veteran troops... it might have been considerably more difficult.
Good point. Maybe this is one of the reasons behind Alexander's success as well. He inherited veteran generals of his father's army, and they were already battle hardened from his Greek and Balkan campaigns before he started his conquest against persian empire.
If soldiers don't die in the first 10 years of war, they become veterans, thus less likely to die in future.
They didn't level up like a video game and brought higher tier solders lol Rome was just organized, while the Greeks weren't unified
The last point about greeks some times prefering roman control over being ruled by other greeks is actually really important isn't it? That would allow the romans to divide and conquer much more easily as it was not a given that all the greeks would unite against them
Especially as, for some city states, Roman control would have afforded them certain economic and political advantages. And they were culturally similar enough that they didn't feel their way of life had been destroyed or changed irrevocably.
Yeah, but what did the Romans ever do for the Greeks?
Except for the aqueducts
Those are just Christian fabrications
@@somefuckstolemynick gave them free empire
@@somefuckstolemynickExcept for the aqueducts, the stability, the economic prosperity and the massive build up of roads, the Romans did nothing for the Greeks. 😏
GREECE AFTER THE PELLOPONISIAN WAR NEVER HAVE BEEN THE SAME
It only became worse w/ the death of Alexander. Not all Greeks wanted Macedonian lordship. Lest I be called a liar:
www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/rome-vs-greece-a-little-known-clash-of-empires-1.3523821
Well we still did kinda rock with the macedonian rule. Someone could say that was the golden age of greece. The most powerful nation in the world
@@slukky No one ever wanted their leadership
“Greece after...HAD never been the same***”
Unfortunately it was so...
With superior pasta, duh.
Ahahaha vad i helvete
Svårt att säga om du är mentalt sjuk eller ett internet troll.
kanske båda?
Marcus Carlzén With that superior pizza supply, boyo! And greeks were naked and making love with each other.
Marcus Carlzén Sorry pasta didnt exist back then until it came from the far east.
The Romans beat the Greeks because Greeks did not stand together like they did when the Persians invaded Greece.
Dimitris Tsakalos your statement makes the most sense to me.And it was true what you said.
Not really true. In many of the greatest battles against the Persians, there were actually more Greeks on the side of the Persians than in the Greek side... the Persians continually had Greek allies and payed off Greek cities to fight each other
That's basically the truth of both ancient greeks and ancient romans. Breaking treaties, treason, wiping out military partners as soon as apossible and adopting their ideas and cultural accomplishments, then writing lies about those destroyed nations and spreading the stolen ideas and culture as "the greek / roman culture and civilisation". Research the Etruscans, how poorly the romans beat Hannibal at Zuma, where the Gladius originated from, the kinda phalanx formationfighting style of the romans, the place where most of the later as greek culture and accomplishments known ideas and culture came from: Ionia, which was "colonised" pretty much the same way the romans beat the greeks later, the epic lie that romans only fought due to being attacked, and never started a war by themselves :DDDD never ending examples.
Dimitris Tsakalos The Persians never invaded Greece. The Greeks defeated the Persians.
Dimitris Tsakalos
YES , you are very wright!
Everyone ever: “The Spartans were the greatest warriors in history” Romans: *Laughs hysterically in Latin*
U sure about that guy the Spartans with 300 army beat up 10k Persians and Macedonians with 3k beat up hmm 358k persians
Actually, at that time, the Spartans Individually were still the finest solders in the Mediterranean world. Roman soldiers did not become the disciplined, professional machines we think of until after the Marian reforms.
That being said, just as the most talented team doesn't always win in professional sports, neither does the army with the best individual solders always win in war. Coaching and teamwork/leadership and unit cohesion can overcome a lot.
@James Metric Greeks fought individually for glory? You might want to do a little research on phalanxes. Hollywood movies aren't a good source for historical facts.
Spartans individual soldiers superiority is overrated, they were highly propagized after thermopylai. I would say that you can't prove the superiority of individual soldiers. The fact that people believe Spartans were just the best of their time, only confirms the effectiveness of the propoganda. I think it's even unfair to say that they were the strongest individual soldiers in Greece, let alone the Mediterranean. www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rvusy/is_the_military_worship_of_the_spartans_really/?
@@sorryformyenglish4756 i think the Spartans often outperformed other city states in competition also, wrestling, boxing etc.
Just like you said, the Greeks did not really had to lose much from being controlled by Rome. At her prime Rome was a guarantee for stability and peace in the places under their control or allied to them.
"For it's prime" not "her" prime
@@malonei7472 True but depending on the language or sentiment, both work. I hear that in English they also sometimes call their ships female
@@malonei7472 it still works
Yeah they didn't have to lose much. Just their lives. Big deal.
@@RavingPain depending on the case, people may prefer to lose their lives than submit to certain invaders
The Phalanx originally was part of a combined arms tactic. It's just part of the puzzle. Alexander the great had 7000 cavalry, 9000 light soldiers and 31 000 heavy infantry at Gaugamela. Of the entire army, the phalanx made up only 9216 men. If you count the hypaspists, his elite brigade as phalangites, they numbered some 12 288 men. That is only 26 % of his entire force. They operated with support of light soldiers with javelins, bow and arrows and spearmen. They were the anvil in a hammer and anvil maneuver. The cavalry made up 15 % of the soldiers. In this we can see the strength of the phalanx. The support of other units in a combined arms approach.
The phalanx originally was not a combined arms tactic. The first Greek hoplites basically formed up opposite each other on an open field, then charged. It eventually changed around the time of the Peloponnesian War, and combined arms became a major part of Greek and Macedonian warfare. Everything you said I agree with, I just wanted to point out that the original phalanx was not developed as a combined arms tactic.
Jackson Keller well the original hoplite phalanx was used by romans in their very early history. By that time it was just antiquated and obsolete, the maniples were clearly superior.
The Macedonian phalanx, while a bit old, was still effective and could cause serious problems in the right conditions, which required good use of other kinds of troops as stated before.
PolluxVarangir Phalanx has one issue. It can't much move left or right. The maniples were a lot more maneuverable.
And Spartans at that time was a shadow of themselves.
Even during its "golden age", Sparta wasn't even close to being a superpower like Rome or Carthage and others managed to become. Hardly a serious threat for any of them.
the phalanx failed because the leaders of the time forgot what made the phalanx effective in the first place.
the phalanx has little to no offensive capabillities baut it is highly defensive, combined with strong attacking forces, cavalery in chariots, archers, and light infnatry, the phalanx shines through, as the enemies are being crushed between the phalanx acting like an anvil, unmoving and sturdy, with other forces acting like the hammer, striking down with great force, if an enemy got traped between the phalanx and the other units, the fight was over.
when the romans invaded grece however, the phalanx often had to stand on it's own, which is bad becasue all the phalanx could do is to push the enemy back, it has, by itself, no way of actually destroying the opposing forces, which could just keep retreating until they had enough space to flank or attack from the rear.
When all the combatants use the same tactic, like in the Wars of the Diadochi, you need something to break the stalemate. That's why they introduced Elephants and Chariots to do the work that Alexander did only with the cavalry.
The Phalanx could have been worked as an offensive formation if they had uses skirmishers and cavalry, and more heavily armoured infantry to protect the flanks. Just have the Phalanx move continuously forward while keeping the flanks protected, sure you may lose some men to the 1-2 volleys of pila, but after that the Roman infantry would be forced to either engage you head on (and lose to massed pikes) or fall back. Keep the flanks protected, avoid uneven ground, and you could not lose.
Start moving from a perfectly flat terrain in any direction, and you'll end up in a not perfectly flat one. Your formation can't be so picky.
Fact is that the phalanx is not a killing machine. It can advance only slowly, and the sarissas are not accurate. In all the engagement between the phalanx and the developed (not early time) legion, at first the phalanx advanced, because the legion couldn't break through a perfectly formed phalanx, but the legion suffered negligible losses. Then something happened, and at that point the legion adapted and slaughtered the phalangites. The phalanx relies completely in the cavalry to complete the encirclement and inflict real losses to the enemy, but to have a dominant cavalry is not a given.
Well of course you will eventually hit not perfectly flat terrain, the Greeks were fighting a defensive war and they had no need to pursue the Romans once their infantry pulled back.
The Phalanx can be a killing machine when used correctly, sheer numbers of Sarissa points (4+) can be brought to bear on the enemy for every 1 Roman Gladius, and you can inflict casualties while the enemy infantry cannot get into melee range.
Apparently the Roman Commander became distraught and threw the Legion Standard into the Phalanx to try and force the Legion to retrieve it, but they failed to do so.
The something that happened was the Phalanx moved onto rough terrain and gaps formed in the line. Had the Generals maintained control and kept the Phalanx stationary, it would have held. Cavalry do help to inflict casualties but when all you have to do is hold the enemy, a Phalanx works fine so long as you are not flanked.
For some reason the Greek Calvary failed to pursue the fleeing Romans and according to some sources, some 10,000 Greeks did not partake in the battle. So there was more to the outcome than the Legion simply being superior to the Phalanx. It has flexibility, but keep in mind by this point, 'Greece' was a shadow of its former self. They neglected their cavalry and the Phalanx were mostly levies, had they maintained a properly trained Phalanx things may have been different.
Historically they didn't inflict those casualties. And this has little to do with using the phalanx correctly. The phalangites were not using the sarissas incorrectly.
Flat terrains are not so common in Greece. If you can accept battle exclusively in flat terrains, and cannot move from there, you are going to lose anyway.
Some centurion (not "the Roman Commander") did so, and, the fact that some centurion did so talks of the fact that they were frustrated, not frightened for the losses. As already said: "In all the engagement between the phalanx and the developed (not early time) legion, at first the phalanx advanced, because the legion couldn't break through a perfectly formed phalanx, but the legion suffered negligible losses. Then something happened, and at that point the legion adapted and slaughtered the phalangites". Fact is tha the phalanx needed TOO MUCH THINGS going its own way.
Had the Generals maintained control and kept the Phalanx stationary then the battle would have been inconclusive in the best case, OR the legion would have outflanked the phalanx (you must keep contact with the enemy to prevent it to manuver, and that was important for the phalanx, since the legion was faster and easier to manuver).
I've not talked of "Greece". However Rome used a fraction of his forces in the Macedonian wars, and the legionaries at that time were conscripts as well. However, as said, having a cavalry so dominant that it could dispatch the enemy cavalry, then regroup and invest the back of enemy infantry WAS NOT A GIVEN, it was not like the others didn't know the horses. To the roman cavalry was not requested to be so dominant, it was enough for them to keep the other occupied (a goal that you can accomplish even with an inferior cavalry)
*Machicolations!* Oh, sorry. Wrong channel.
Well all these channels (Metatron, Shadman, Skallagrim, ect) kind of have the same audiences anyway lol
@@Noctua8 although shad's "strange" humour in this video:czcams.com/video/11Xe04jbXZg/video.html
you are right
Hahaha
@@ErikaBracamonte The FilthyFrank of history
The comment section is pretty cancerous, hate between Italians and Greeks. So sad, how could you forget that we are brothers? We should not fight each other to prove who is better, history has showed us that we both have beaten each other. Romans beat Greeks and you Greeks beat us in WW2. CASE CLOSED!
Love to Greece from brother Italy 🇮🇹❤️🇬🇷
*Una faccia una razza*
Italians descended from Greek settlers, like the Etruscans for e.g.
@@CptMole Yeah many Southern Italians are descendants of Greeks
i have no idea where this hate comes from.
i've met greeks that have fought in WW2 and still dont hate the italians.
and i know for a fact that italians like greeks very much. and that feelings are mutual.
i honestly dont understand why the hate here.
@@SordMasta Same
Italians and Greeks need to unite once more to recapture Constantinople!
"Conquered Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought her arts into rustic Latium."
"Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio." - Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Roman poet and philosophor
Rome conquered Greece militarily. Greece conquered Rome culturaly and intelectually. Hence Hellenism was spread by Rome.
+Jizldiedizl B
Yes really
In fact, Tiberius reduced taxation to the provinces of Achaia and Macedonia, a unique case in the Empire.
John Smith I agree
Hellenic influence was crucial to the development of Etruscan civilization. This influence is visible in Etruria from the eighth century BC, both in artifacts and in cultural aspects such as religion.
Jizldiedizl B I love how trigered some people got over this ... when im literally quoting a ROMAN saying what he said...
Also about the Etruscans, the greek historian Herodotus states that the Etruscans were greeks from the city of Phocaea which was located in agean coast of turkey. He says that at some point half the population of the city when to northern italy and settled there and states that these people were the Etruscans.
Now there is 2 ways you can react to that:
1- Omg Herodotus was an idiot italy had its own people etceetc
2- Actually go check out a genetic study from 2006 I think (?) that showed that people from modern day Tuscany (Etruria) have most genetic similarity with people living in Izmir a region in Turkey was thousands of years ago the greek city of Phocaea stood.
www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/health/03iht-snetrus.1.5127788.html - Article about Etruscan origins from New York Times
Genetic Analysis that I talked about, in The Guardian - www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper
Wiki - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins
Also cool sidenote : The Etruscan language which is not related to ANY other language that people in Italy spoke ... in the Greek island of Lemnos people spoke a language VERY SIMILAR to Etruscan which further support the theory that Etruscans were Greek colonists.
Overwhelming manpower and a culture better fitted for empire.
While Greece were used to short wars and compromises (Carthage the same), Rome was born on the ethos of total victory or death.
SoulRippster expect Sparta was the one in Greece to actually fight till the last and do their best
Kimbo Trinidad That’s a myth. Thermopylae was one of the few occasions the Spartans actually fought until the bitter end
@@jeremyxiv4667 Not to mention that Sparta did not have the manpower or desire for an empire throughout most of its history. Literally the second word in original OP comment and he seems to have completely dismissed it.
Byzantium Eastern Roman Empire outlasted and they even reconquered Western Roman Empire.
merlingt1 definitely had the manpower just no desire
In Rome: Total War with pila, archers and cavalry charges from behind.
Gar
Spartan Hoplites and Cretan Archers
@@A_Person7307 With Balearic Slingers as well, went out of my way to get them, they mowed down the hoplites pretty well.
In Rome total war, phalanx is unbeatable as long as its flanks are covered.
@@OkurkaBinLadin that probably isn't actually all that unrealistic.
We owe a lot to the ancient Greeks! For me they are the coolest ancient soldiers
metal soundtrack and snyder slo-mo intensifies
except for the man boy loving culture and all of the ass grabbing they were ok
You may have beat us, but then you gave us Lamborghini. No hard feelings, Metatron. I forgive you.
Brian Powell Hell no.
It can even be argued that they didn't beat us, since so many greeks openly supported Rome.
Dakis Vassiliadis and the Romans adopted much of Greek culture. Seems like a fair trade hahaha
It was more of an assimilation. Romans only had to beat those kings who opposed them after all Greeks won with their culture while Romans won with military.
metal piece of garbage? Better buy a decent war horse
Basically using the United Airline technique.
....delaying them for hours and sending their luggage on the wrong flight?....
Quite an effective method of warfare I suppose, but I don't see how it applies...
If Greece united like they did with Persia, Rome would Romoupolis.
No it would have been the Iliad 2 electric boogaloo.
Well, in all fairness the Greeks didn’t immediately unite against Persia initially. Most Greek states actually initially submitted to Persia, even after the battle of Marathon where the overwhelmingly outnumbered Athenians won a huge upset. It wasn’t really after Thermopylae that most Greek city states really started backing the cause against Persia. So, had the Macedonians managed to achieve the same massive upsets, it’s possible that the other Greeks would’ve joined too.
Also, fun fact, the Seleucids battled Rome at Thermopylae the same way the Greeks did with the Persians, except the Seleucids also had managed to get a ditch, wall, towers, and apparently even light artillery set up along with Greek phalanxes before the Romans got there.... and the Romans utterly destroyed them anyway, albeit with a bit of trouble to start.
Personally I am more into Greek history as an Indian as we had Alexander The Great as our emperor he was a great conqueror full of wisdom and knowledge and very respectful to defeated Porus and so Alexander The Great is the reason I prefer Greece
It’s the cycle of empires. Greece was in decline, Rome was rising.
Strong men create good timesGood times create weak menWeak men create hard timesHard times create strong men
george 24
Al Bundy - The Romans had superior logistic, training and a professional army.
@Philip Arvanitidis What did you question? The Romans conquered Greece and so had Alexander the Makedon.
@Philip ArvanitidisDoes it make you feel better? The point was overcoming the Greek. We have seen Alexander the Macedon smashing the Greeks and we saw later the Romans conquer Greek and stay.
@Philip ArvanitidisDivide and conquer is the oldest rule in the book, but in the case of the Greek they already where divided. So Rome just took side with the weaker of the warring Greeks. In the end Rome ruled all of the divided city states.
In your video you asked, why political fragmentation appears to have been no problem when facing the Persian Empire, but should have ruined the Greek states centuries later, when they fought the Romans. Well, the answer is actually not very difficult to give: the political elite of Greece in case A (Persia) did manage to more or less sufficiently unite forces over time (don't forget all the military and political failures which brought Greece close to being integrated into the Persian Empire more than once) and repetitively repulse the invaders, while in case B (Rome) they continued to perceive each other as a greater danger than Rome for too long. The nature of politics simply is such, that depending on persons involved, historical and cultural contexts etc. you may see different results developing from superficially identical situations. Take for example the Swiss cantons; in the late Middle Ages you find dozens of similar and even more advanced proto-confederations, but none of them developed into a modern nation-state. They didn't even get close to that. History is not science, therefore you won't get far with strict rules.
This, while I like Metatron he uses far too many absolutes when speaking of military history.
Damn, the people back then wouldn't be able to see it, but from our point of view, anybody who doesn't see a Roman invasion as the most dangerous threat is a bloody idiot.
Good reply, actually had to stop the video as he said that as it sounds like he's just speculating there.
Why a threat? For rich men surely, but for lower class it pretty much does not matter, you just change your master and continue to work. Do you think workers who worked in close to slavery conditions wanted to sacrifice their lives for their masters in a war?They had no reason. It is another story, when the invader is someone like natzis with ideas of exterminating population, but they knew romans won't do anything like that.
It is always quite complex, because everyone has his own interests, there is never a complete unity.
Interesting, what proto-confederations were you thinking about?
This vid has just made me load Rome Total war on my PC, not played it for months as well.
@MrGianni09100 poop
**Deleting R:TW in the first place**
Pathetic
Really happy to have found your channel. It was very helpful in preparing my daughter's ( yes my daughter's ) Roman legionnaires Halloween costume, homemade including scutum and gladius. And I am hooked on the h historical and reenactment content on your channel. Many thanks
Dont forget DIVIDE ET IMPERA some Greeks actually fough as allies thats why they never unite as one
Petros Porfiridis Hey Petros.. How is the economy doing in Greece now? Have things gotten better?
Roger didit no
Andreas Konstantinos They say Italy is next. When they have trouble, it's going to be big!
Political fragmentation did play an important role. It was not a problem when the Persian invasion happened because they managed to unite for the purpose of kicking out the Persians. Not that it is the only reason that they lost, but rejecting it is very reductionist and incorrect
No it did not, post-Alexander Greece was far more unified than Greece ever was before, Rome conquered them because it was stronger, period.
Great analysis. I would also emphasize on the fact that all Hellenistic Kingdoms gradually developed the idea that the macedonian phallanx was the ultimate weapon. So they started misusing it and neglected the other units. But they were mostly fighting each other and they all did the same mistake, so nobody noticed how wrong this was until the Romans came. The Hellenistic armies were very different than Alexander's army.
The Romans beat the Greeks
The next day in Greece: Nothing happened...
AAHAHAHAHHA
Centuries later: The Greeks became the Romans
@@Gabsboy123 Ah yes, the Byzantines!
@@yuuyakizami2133 basically
@@flawless_Cowboy Basically? They called themselves Romai till the 20th Century. Remember, Greece as a united country is very modern.
Because the legion was more flexible and adaptable than the Greek phalanx.
With the later day phalanx, most certainly.
U cant compare a 5000+ men thing to a couple hundred men thing
The phalanx would hardly move
Yes & no. Had they fought on level ground, the phalanx likely would have held its own. BUT, the Greeks let themselves be sucked into a position they should have known was untenable. For my dime's worth, it was that lethal gladius that cut its swath through the ranks of the Greeks. As for the formation, you can't really maneuver w/ a 16' spear borne by several men. So yes, in that sense, the Romans had an advantage in flexibility once they had the Greeks on uneven ground.
Keep in mind too that many of the Greeks wanted Rome to take over bc those city states hated the Macedonian overlords. Greece, as usual, wasn't unified until Rome established the Eastern Empire which kept Rome going for another five centuries after the City of Rome was sacked in 476 A.D. The rest is a tale of a madman.
@@slukky but thats the weakness of the phalanx, sometime you can't just wait to figth on level ground, what would you do if your supply line is cut, will you starve to death or figth on uneven ground, roman manipule are very flexible, sometime battle are win without figthing(i think mostly of the battle of Ilerda)
how long do you wait crouched until you make your entrance? :D
Strong legs :3
I believe that was a question of time, not methods.
So, are you actually a slav?
why is he wearing a cape
Clayton Poon why are you not?
"Superior Roman cavarly"... Well there's something you don't hear every day.
the Romans had Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and he know how to win. He won with a smaller army.
Stephen Sparks and all those names are greek
@@hsjqkahfbejabvse1659 I don't think so. They are clearly Latin names and surnames...
Sniper Elite well usually with Greek names it ends with ius us ous is as and more well vowels with s, my dad told me that the romans came from the latins and Greeks so we could be both right!
@@hsjqkahfbejabvse1659 The Romans came from the Latin and Italics under a genetic point of view. Greeks influenced Rome only from a cultural point of view. Romans were mainly influenced by the Greek settlers along the coast of Southern Italy. Then Greek and Latin can be similiar since they came from the same linguistic lineage, since they both were indoeuropean peoples...
@@hsjqkahfbejabvse1659 your dad might be a great guy but He doesnt seem to know much about ancient history :p
Metraton, do a video talking about the Spartan Hoplites, they formations, weapons, strategy, please.
Yeah i agree, that'd be great!
Classic Hoplite Phalanx with professional soldiers basically the only historical correct thing in 300.
Short, sweet, and to the point. Superior training + will to die in battle= ferocious city state of warriors
What? They didn't fought naked? Wtf!
except the armour, hoplites supposed to be heavy infantry, doesnt they?
Thank you so much for this video... and many others. I was investigating the beginnings of the Normans, and several hours later I am educated on so much more. Your videos rock man! Keep them coming!
GREAT Historical Vid. Thanks! :-)
Great video! I have been wondering for years about the Roman conquest of Greece, particularly about how one battle formation and strategy worked against the other. Many thanks for a great overview.
The roman Empire vs Alexander's united Empire would have been epic.
It would've been exactly the same, the armies the romans faced were far superior than the ones Alexander raised, Hellenistic warfare science had created a phalanx that was never beaten head on as long as they had flat ground, the sarissae had become over 20 feet long and so you could have upwards of 7-8 ranks of spears, the romans caught the hellenes at the right time, as per usual they got a stroke of luck and capitalised on it, in a head on battle in a flatter area, the romans would've been defeated, as they were time and again against phyrrus
The Macedonian empire would win on sheer numbers alone unless you make it Prime Alexander army vs Prime Roman Empire. In which case, the Romans would probably win. I'm not counting the skill of the generals because that would be another topic.
Alexander fought in mountains and won against all odds. I don't think an uneven ground will give the win to the Romans automatically under command of Alexander.
alfie horn, the Romans were defeated by Pyrrhus because they had Pre-Marian armies. Pre-Marian armies were way weaker than Post-Marian. Plus, the Roman generals in the Post-Marian time like Caesar or Aurelian would have been pretty smart and wouldn’t have thought of charging straight in the phalangists. Yet, the Romans beat the late Macedonian Armies with Pre-Marian armies.
AFGalwayz the Romans could field more troops against Alexander, they had greater manpower at the time.
Thanks for doing a Greek related video ^_^
Just found this channel and I'd like to say you do great work, my curiosity for anything historic is satisfied! Keep up the great work
By far one of my favorite historical video on CZcams. This topic doesnt seem to have many videos or documentaries online and on television.
I just wanted to tell you as a random guy on the net, i will read your book if you publish it.
Do you want to read a book where a 'doctor' saves the life of Alexander the great and then he aids him as his personal doctor until he defeates Rome?
Not a good joke.
Why was my comment erashed?!
I was not necessarily deeply interested in the Romans or the Greeks or medieval weapons or the other things you're talking about but your knowledge of the different subjects you present seems so profound and the presentation is so well made that I really deeply enjoy being taught by you and my interest slowly grows bigger and bigger. Thank you so much for your efforts, Metatron. Your content makes learning a pleasure.
Thank u your intellect and knowledge of the ancient world makes his small pee pee grow bigger and bigger 😂😂
Great music, great images! Thanks!
Thanks for sharing the this with so much passion indeed felt it myself
When considering why Rome was victorious in battle against the Greek city states, I believe it mostly comes down to two important advantages Rome had that Greece never developed nor needed in warfare. A flexible army organization, combined with superior minor officers. To elaborate, you mentioned yourself that the maniple was an important part of Rome's strength on the battlefield, but it is the officers of individual maniples that made them so useful against the Greeks, and considerably further in the future as well. During battle, it is safe to assume that once the battle has commenced, general's lose a certain amount of control over their soldiers, i. e. soldiers can rout, cavalry tend to charge until rallied,repulsed, routed, or victorious etc. What I'm trying to say is that it was extremely difficult for generals to micro manage their army in the heat of battle in a large or small sense to gain an advantage. This is where Roman officers show their true value. It is these men that were able to spot weaknesses that generals simply couldnt'see, as they are not on the front lines. When spotted, they have the knowledge and experience to improvise their own orders without the consent of a general. This is exactly what happened at the battle of Cynoscephalae. While the primary portion of the army was engaged in battle against Macedonian phalanxes, a maniple, without orders, spotted a weakness and exploited it to massive success. The entire enemy army was routed and Rome was entirely victorious.
Recently found your channel Metatron. I love it. :)
Wonder who would win, if the Roman legions just fought the Macedonian phalanx while both armies had no advantages (as in face to face) ,and an equally sized army .
Well if I were to guess, I believe the romans would be crushed! Macedonian phalanxes are virtually unassailable from the front (unless an excessive number of missiles are involved). Though I recall someone telling me Rome had a tool to remove the head of a sarrissa once, but I've never seen evidence for that.
huh interesting wonder what the tool was,and i was wondering because the Romans have the scutum or the big shield and its like, a wall of shield vs a wall of spears XD
also wonder why the Persians didn't "black out the sun" with their arrows when they fight the Macedonians since part of their army had light armor
That's really true. Good observation.
"Let's find out!" Hey, you're not...
Good video and great explaining.
Thanks John you nailed extremely well.
The fact of the extreme fragmentation within the Greek polis helped and not
little to the military and political imposition of the Romans.
The great social conflict between the Greek elites and the bulk of the
population with no means to barely survive, combined with divisions in
foreign policy, nationalists and pro-Macedonians could hardly oppose the
Roman advance.
In strictly military terms, the sarisa deployed in the time of Philip was an alternative that was
implemented to a certain extent by a question of costs, as well as the
use of peltastas, were cheaper than equipping a hoplite. In
contrast, protection against throwing weapons, such as the pilum, was
minor and once introduced, even a single wedge, in the phalange could
little Falangitas against legionaries better equipped for hand-to-hand
combat.
... so... what's your point?
Poor cities, divided and without a national army like the Roman had few opportunities to successfully oppose Roman military machinery.
With a few words...We Greeks always love to fight amongst ourselves untill it's either too late or almost too late...I guess it's our curse...
The love of freedom above all and individual development can give rise to such things, it is also a gift without that freedom and individualism could not have arose men so great for history. Greetings my friend.
Yes my friend I agree,but unity amongst the people of one country is the most valuable of all.Also it was not that much the "individuality" that they fought for ,beacuse all of them knew that they were all Greeks but they had more loaylty to their state than the general country.Knowing that they're basically fighting against their brothers and not felling bad about it is just unacceptable.
Now explain your take on the maniple exchange maneuver
Have you never seen riot police practice formations...?
Obviously you are not aware of the controversies surrounding maniple swaps. riot police...please.
I think Lindybeige has a video on this topic. czcams.com/video/croWDsDhgPo/video.html
No one really knows how they did it. In the end even they forgot how to do it.
@Tl2aV
"Or you could feign retreat the whole unit while the other pushes up. No one is going to chase after a unit if they see someone charging at them. You're going to prepare yourself for what the immediate threat is."
than u'd be severly outnumbered while in melee, even if the clashing armies numbers were even.
so how about murdering the Pannacotta out of the charging unit by concentrating the spears on their flanks?
And what about cavalry?
Or the wounded, that can't walk?
Love the history .
Love this show .
Thank you .
Love these! Tiny crit: Could use some more photos/pics to assist explanations
I love this epic channel
Metatron, can you make an episode about different shampoo uses in ancient times? We wanna know your secret Senpai!
Lime.
Nemdraz Agga and urine?
Nemdraz Agga ....they used pomegranate
Shampoo in its modern form was introduced to Europe in the beginning of the 18th century by a Indian businessman. So, Europeans didn't use shampoo in ancient times. Metatron usually focusses on European history.
Thanks to this man I can impress my teacher and I’ve been watching him for like 4 years
Great channel
The Virgin Greek vs The Chad Roman
Vs Thad Hebrew
Big Boss 😂🤣😂🤣
Incel Spartans
@Xaris Xeros Yeah, because battles proving the flexibility of the manipular system over the stiffness of the Macedonian phalanx weren't shown in battles like the Battle of Pydna. Not to mention Rome defeating the Seluecids and Ptolemaic Egypt. Definitely never happened
Xaris Xeros Seething Gr**koid coping mechanisms lmao
Imagine if both were used by one army? Phalanx on the inside, and Legions on the outside/flanks. I think it would have been a VERY deadly combo.
Outstanding video
Good work... good video... thank you for your work. Greetings from Gremania...
What about the Roman-Seleucid battles then?
Seleucids also used phalanxes yet the Romans beat them basically at every turn.
Those phalanxes were made up of mostly non Greeks and the generals did not utilize the phalanx as a cooperative group of different parts. Instead, they focused on just the phalangites or cavalry.
@@user-sd8ec5jv2zI remain thoroughly unconvinced that whether an army organizes as a phalanx or as a legion has much to do with how well it will fare. It all comes down to the usual factors: logistics, leadership, training, experience, motivation and cohesion of the troops, positioning ... and also sometimes just plain luck.
basically the Romans took advantage of the Greeks ' nativity and turned them against themselves, and after they fought and weakened each other, they came and offered them to surrender and be conquered or stand against them, be further ruined and then conquered
_ _ Macedonias where Greeks tho
Mate there is not point of view in some things. We can argue about many things that they can be seen from different perspective. Somethings are the way they are. The father of Alexander, Phillip was participating in the olympic games. Only greeks could do that, no one else. They were sharing the same culture and the same language. As greeks the Spartans and the Cretans were, were the Makedonians. And the thing is before 1943 there was no question about name, it was Tito's propaganda to claim the greek land of Makedonia because of the civil war we had. The people from Fyrom ethnik are Slaves and albanians and it is reasonable to have some greek gens, but they cannot just claim everything, based on nothing.
_ _ Mate Macedonias where as Greeks were the Spartans, it doesn't depend on any point of view. It is objective. Iam asking if you say they were not Greeks, then what they were?
Yes, The first original kingdom of macedonia(capitol was Aiges) was inside the borders of what is greece today. Later the Greek kings of Macedonia conquer more land to the north and made macedonia bigger. But that does not matter.Minor asia was greek but the name of the land was minor asia and not greece.It is just names of the lands and nothing more. kingdom of macedonia was greek and it is now greek too.You are confused.Yes Macedonia is Greece today.Macedonia is the biggest province of Greece at the north.
sorry I made a research and found it out. so I offer you my apologies. I deleted all my comments
You have some epic intros dude
. I also noticed that this intro song was kinda different from the originall song.
Excellent thanks
Well, Niccolo Machiavelli provided a explanation. He stated that the roman uses both military and diplomatic tactics. In the diplomacy, Niccolo said some city states brought the Romans to Greece. Personally though, I think it is in the diplomatic or politics that Rome won, not really in the battles.
Interesting that you mention this, bc the Greeks & Romans actually got on well w/ ea. other, at least the well-to-do of both cultures.
a century later greeks was already absorbed too much in roman's culture and majority of greeks in Mediterranean call and see themselves roman
@@ronank2432 Yes, until the early 20th century in fact! Not many Westerners know that. We never called ourselves Byzantines either. That was a 19th century label stuck on us. We called ourselves Romans, period. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted till 1453, but it never was wiped clean by the Ottomans. They knew a good thing when they saw it, & the Turks had no wish to destroy a good thing. That continued until the Age of Nationalism set in after the Thirty Years War, & Europe prepared for the next two centuries of wars of liberation. That, the Ottomans would not abide. It led to tragedies on all sides.
Wish I was in your line of work.
Someday...
Best Wishes from Hogtown, Florida
Good one! Vraiment!
Enjoyed listening to that thank you.
U😂
I always thought that the reason the romans won was because they could raise an insane amount of men compared to other states. I mean, Hannibal butchered maybe hundreds of thousands of romans and jet the romans could easily replace their losses.
That's a big factor good point.
Well yeah, the insane logistsic advantages, not only replenishing men, but also economy and fast transfer of armies through streets made rome a fearsome enemy. At the end they could just overhelm other countries having more money. It wasn´t only economy though. Being able to adapt (take over armour, tactics, how to build ships etc.) and the hard training did their part.
On the other hand the excessiv losses in the second punic war weren´t that easy to replace. They had to pull in poorer people where the state had to pay for equipment and many soldiers weren´t at home for a long time. This led to large areas not being cultivated and more poor people (creation of many latifundia --> leading to marian reforms later).
..but that's not relevant in the Greek wars at all. In the two/three pitched battles of the Macedonian wars, the Romans where completely victorious each time, with most casualties being Greek/Macedonian. Manpower is not the story here, different tactics, superior officers and luck where much more vital.
Yeah, my favorit examples are the battle of Pydna and the battle of Cynoscephalae. Second one was just 4 years after the second punic war ended. Even with the huge losses they managed to have an army of impressive size to fight in greece (ressources are always importan). While pydna stands as main example of roman vs. phalanx, I like the fast tactical adjustment a roman trbune made in Cynoscephalae that secured the overhelming victory (its the first time romans defeated the phalanx btw).
+Nocnocjoke
Its the first time they defeated the phalanx because it was the first time that the phalanx didnt fought as phalanx!
A phalanx is unbeatable , except if it "broke" formation. Then, it can be destroyed
If the Greeks used the noob pike boxing formation, they would have won.
Nah, the city states were rotten in every level at that point in time. The strategic acumen was fairly gone.
Even in Total War, you can absolutely demolish a noob box with Roman scorpions and pilum- throwing.
Calling the boxing formation "noob" just shows how much of a sour loser the opponent is... in this case - you. Its a legitimate strategy in certain situations - like when the enemy has superior (melee) numbers.
(damn! I hate that cliche word)
Malay Archer. Nothing is a noob tactic in war. If it works it works
woosh
Just found your channel, and I find it really informative. An observation if I may. You say that manpower for the Roman legions was not an issue, but at the time of the pyrrhic war, surely the criteria for enrolment into the Roman army had a negative impact on its size. It wss the Marian reforms of 107 BC which allowed the landless to join and as a consequence expand its size.
Thank you from your newest subscriber.
My first time on your channel. I was not expecting to see someone walk in with an outfit lmao
I belive that political fragmentation played a bigger role then you may think. Whereas it's true that the Persian empire was politically unified, their army was not. The army itself was conscripted from soldiers of the entire area under Persian domination. Therefore they spoke different languages, had different tactics, equipment, ect. On the other side the Roman power was strengthen through the use of the same language, tactics, equipment, etc.
That's actually not it at all. Militarily, the Persian Empire did fine against the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and even won victories against the Greeks after their invasions. What led to the Persian Empire's demise was more due to the fact that in the later half of their reign, continuous revolts and never ending incursions by the Greeks led to a hardening of Persian attitudes to their own subjects. The tolerance and justice of Cyrus and Darius gave way to brutality, intolerance, and a tougher stance on dissent throughout the Empire. On top of that, the Shahs began to neglect their Satraps, allowing them to become increasingly independent and develop their own private armies and dynasties. When Alexander invaded, Darius was no longer leading a unified Empire as much as he was leading a loose collection of semi-independent Kingdoms, all of whom were looking to their own survival.
Ah a real topic and a real interest! Enjoying this one.....Better than debunking Ninja pajamas!!!!! Which everyone knows the truth about these days. It's not the 80s/90's lol This video was great!
This is great I'm a teacher going to show my class this thank you!!
Why was Persia a failure and Rome not? Because Rome was close enough to Hellenic ways of life that it was able to sell itself to a number of tribes and cities as a viable Greek successor. Persia thought it could subsume Greece. Rome had no such ambition. Also, Greece had spent centuries of manpower and resources trying to maintain Alexander's empire and/or rebuild it. Whereas Persia came across a Greece on its own path of ascendance. So discounting the fractured nature of Greece is a bit of apples to oranges.
There was an element of tactical flexibility the Legion possessed that Phalanxes did not. Also, the Alexandrian army was more balanced than Successor States became. Rome exploited the imbalances. There was nothing to choose between the Legion and Phalanx as such. Except the flexibility of the Legion, and the initiative it gave maniple commanders. But superior manpower, resources, and yes political and military unity allowed Rome to wear down Macedonia.
Iran acctually beat the greeks many of the greek historians wrote lies and i say many beacuse there was fellow who wrote the truth and some modern historians are poceing the wrongs togther persian historian made a video on this you may say it is bias but he came in with reasons deatils and sources
The actual truth is that greeks after losing thermoplye were hopeless and the 2 people greeks saw as heros themestaciales and the dude at plata battle of plata they were iranian spies the greeks surrnderd iran never really retreated why beacuse greeks promised to work in favoir and intrest of iran herdoutis and later other manupliated history for the greek good and some other deatils there was a median genral present always at athens for irans intrest until xerxes the great passed and then there is a deatil the dude at platu got excuted for treason and themastucles had to escaped in women's clothing and ardashir or artxerxes, xerxes succeror gave him shelter or else he lost his head too
@@anushirwanirani2950 bro you are a 🤡
@@yourstepdad1632 how come?
Cause i told the truth
@@anushirwanirani2950 cry me a river
@@wankawanka3053 no the greek historians well as persian historian put it this is pomade for your burnt azes
Only one thing was there. Divide and Conqer. This is what defeat Greeks and not Romans.
Anagnostopoulos Theodosis what? The Roman empire collapsed shortly after it split? It was literally divided.
The romans fell because they were divided but NOT conquering. Roman generals and statesman were more worried about their orgies than their empire.
THIS. Look at Gaul and Britain. Classic Roman tac tics.
if Greece didn't have a civil war. It would be a very bloody war. Both armies have really good tactics.
South Perks Greece did in fact have a civil war. Look up the Peloponnesian War
@@therafmaster5958 He meant that if the Greeks didn't have civil wars and had been one united group then Rome would have had a more difficult time with a more united Greece.
gjesus051 thank you for clarifying
Good video.
GREAT VIDEO...............
The diadochi wars also weakened the GrecoMacedonian armies
yes, this is often understated
Macedonians are not "grecos"
@@PerdiccasMKD they are greco-thracians
@@PerdiccasMKD whatever you say dude. Either you know Greek history or you don't. For example, Macedonians where Dorians and their bloodline came from the city of Argos. The rest is bullshit by people who simply don't know (like you)
Only Hellenic.
5:43 cornith instead of corinth
finaly i spotted a mistake on your videos anyway keep up the good work YOU ARE MY FAVOURITE CZcamsR
Greek Irish do you know any irish hotties
technically he said Corinth, but messed up the text lol
Nice vid my recommendation would be to add map visuals and art visuals
Strange thought had subscribed to your channel. Anyways i enjoy your content. Better than the history books i read in school lol.
I'm in Italy this week and I am literally breathing in the history and enjoying the wonderful Italian people! Just visited Pompeii. Wow! Thanks for this great channel.
What were you doing to that poor gladius? It's chipped so much.
he's been plundering greece ofc
You can't plunder modern Greece. D:
Sir Potato it's not a case of attitude it's a case of there being nothing to plunder for plundering to work.
but that was part of the joke. it was implied he had success there is nothing else to plunder, so he's back in italy now
Very good analysis indeed
nice video
It's more complex than that:
Rome has multiple wars and most of them were Rome allied with some Greek states fighting against other Greek States.
Many Greek states considered the Romans liberators against the Diadochi. Rome for example was allied with Pergamon and Rhodes against the Seleucids, and when they won the land was given to the Greeks not Romans. Also Romans gave the Greeks more freedom than the Diadochi
This was also a time when Greece was long past its prime, at this point they didn't have the great commanders they did during the Greco-Persian or Peloponnesian wars. If Rome would have faced them then, the outcome could have been different.
Perhaps. Only a unified greek force could have withstood the Roman onslaught. Even then though, I doubt that the Romans would have gave up. I have a feeling even if the fight with them went worse then it did, the Romans would have just built another army like they always do and go fight again. There was just one constant in most of the wars that the Romans fought, they always came back even after a devastating defeat. The Romans were an incredibly stubborn people.
@@SteveSmith-ty8ko Roman's just built different. Literally. 🤔🤷♂️
@@SteveSmith-ty8ko I doubt it, seriously. Romans did not consider Greece part of Italy and they did not the territory for survival or whatever. If Greeks were united (likely under Macedon), they would gave up. Like they did in Germania or Parthia.
@@OkurkaBinLadin Romans did not consider Carthage a part of Italy either. Unlike Germania or Persia, Greece and Carthage both were a neighboring nation with a common interest in dominating the mediterranean trade rout, so always a potential threat to their existence. The Greeks already showed that by supporting Carthage in the Punic wars. And also right after defeating Carthage in a bloody war, that generation of Romans were too hardcore to give up on an enemy. So I think if war went on too long, we would see another "Graeco Delenda Est" approach from Rome. :
@@YourRiceBoy Hannibal and pyrrhus proved that romans weren't really built different
ciao, sto divorando i tuoi video, apprezzo moltissimo il tuo lavoro e le competenze che metti a disposizione di tutti noi, appassionante. farai mai una versione in italiano?
Love ancient history done so well
I wonder who were the consuls during the conquering of Greece. They must be pros at Total War.
Would love a match with them. Please ask them to call me up, if u happen to know of any.
Rome's chief winning strategy was the emphasis on using one's initiative. I read somewhere about a Cohort Commander - I believe in a war against Persia - that was advancing abreast with the rest of his Legion, saw an opportunity so peeled his Cohort off from the main force and went off to do his own thing - took the enemy in the rear and slaughtered them.
This is how the Roman generals were so good because they were given the opportunity to prove themselves very quickly.
The Phalanx gave no real opportunity for junior officers to use their own initiative due to the nature of its shape and battering ram like tactics despite the fact that Rome initially copied the Greeks and used the Phalanx before it adopted the Maniple and later the Cohort.
Ver y good vídeo. Suscribed
We had wasted all our stamina on Alexander Leonidas and others of the past and couldn't think up new strategies 😂
Greetings from Greece :) Great video man, loved your breakdown.