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 KZitemr, and I always get excited when you upload. Much love, man! ❤️
@nickkerr7597
11 ай бұрын
Agree. No other history creator gives this much detail.
@amendingamerica
11 ай бұрын
You know you are one of the reasons why I think of Rome everyday!
@facoulac
11 ай бұрын
Same
@idiottalkshistory
11 ай бұрын
I've been thinking of Rome everyday for years! If I have to so does everyone else! Thanks for watching!
@miquelr2353
11 ай бұрын
30 years old and I still smile when I hear "Publius". Great video brother, with some smooth looking animations!
@jlop985
11 ай бұрын
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.
@idiottalkshistory
11 ай бұрын
Exactly, that's what I was trying to get across! I think that's almost exactly what happened! Thanks for watching the video!
@nickkerr7597
11 ай бұрын
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.
@modyusa1
8 ай бұрын
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?." 😅😂🤣
@JIZZBAWS
11 ай бұрын
GREAT VISUALS! they look much better
@lucius_cursor
11 ай бұрын
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.
@idiottalkshistory
11 ай бұрын
An interesting point and something (to spoil the video a little bit) I've always disagreed with! Definitely something I will look more into and one way or another we'll talk about it! Thanks for watching my friend!
@lucius_cursor
11 ай бұрын
@@idiottalkshistory of course! thanks for the content!
@bombasticbadassbrigade3552
9 ай бұрын
@@idiottalkshistoryI think Alexander the Great (ATG) would have rolled Rome up had he lived and turned his attention westward into Italy. But I also suspect he may have allied WITH Rome as his uncle, Alexander I of Molossus allied with Rome when he was campaigning against the Lucanians and Bruttians to aid the Greek Cities of Magna Graecia. Alexander I of Molossus was killed so it may have been likely that ATG would seek vengeance against those who killed his uncle. Whether or not Rome bows to ATG as a client state would have been interesting. I suspect they would not, given their expansionist position at the time. ATG and Rome may have shared the spoils of the war against the Samnites (assuming ATG invades say between 320- 310BCE). This would probably lead to a power struggle between him and Rome). By this point ATG could easily muster Magna Graecian resources better than his uncle and also future descendant Pyrrhus as ATG is an even bigger force to be reckoned with after he stabilizes his empire, inevitably he clashes with Rome. A series of battles commences but ATGs superior use of combined arms triumphs (there could also be a Cannae like battle resulting in a heavy Roman defeat). The siege of Rome would have been very interesting (after the Rome's rebuild after the Gallic sack of 387BCE) but ATGs pedigree gets this done in 12 months. The Etruscans (will be a vasal), ally with ATG and help stem the flow of food and resource into Rome via the north. ATGs navy blockades Ostia, the Greek/Macedonian contingent have the south and east covered. Perhaps Carthage allies with Rome? So may give ATG some naval headaches. On land, ATG is unmatched and beats Rome. If ATG's recklessness in battle does play a factor, then all his efforts crumble on his death. Though *IF* his empire is indeed stabilized, the war may continue though not with the same vigor and zeal that he would spearhead.
@Dataism
10 ай бұрын
I like the sound effects
@jakegarvin7634
11 ай бұрын
5:06 - there's garum all over this
@Fatherofheroesandheroines
11 ай бұрын
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.
@WWFanatic0
11 ай бұрын
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!
@idiottalkshistory
11 ай бұрын
I can definitely see your point on Mount Gaurus. I think that's more down to the way I read Livy's account as I hadn't really thought of it in the way you described it. To me it always seemed like the Samnties were fairly confident during that last charge but that it was the looks on the Roman's faces that broke the men. But now that you mention it, your way of looking at makes more sense! The reason I used the word rout (I am such an idiot sometimes when it comes to spelling!) is that as the line broke it was chaotic, in fact it was so chaotic that the Romans would have been able to slaughter the entire Samnite army if not for nightfall. The only reason that the Samnites were able to orderly retreat was because of nightfall and the Romans stopping because of it. So I guess it really depends on which retreat we're talking about! In terms of Publius, I go back and forth on if I really believe that story. Militarily, I think you're definitely right and I certainly would bow to your knowledge on that one but the story just sounds so insane to me. It's just never made sense to me that the Samnites conveniently forgot to take one hill and it just so happened to be Publius who led the effort to take that hill. Combine that with our evidence for what is essentially the same story from the Punic Wars and I just get very doubtful! You are 100 percent correct though on that being a real tactic, the Romans would also use it later in the history of empire! I should have done a bit of a better job separating those two facts! I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of how Livy wrote! His outlines are probably fairly accurate with him just filling in the gaps as needed and we know that Roman historians loved to embellish battles to make Rome seem all the more impressive so it definitely lines up! I appreciate your kind words and I'm so glad you enjoy! This is my favorite period of Roman history so I'm always happy to cover it!
@WWFanatic0
11 ай бұрын
@@idiottalkshistory Thanks for the reply and thanks for doing this videos! I hope my commentary didn't come off as too nitpicky or pedantic and for things like spelling errors I always point them out because I want people to do the same for me! After you write a paper where you mix up rogue and rouge...yeah I learned my lesson really fast! Classical and ancient history is always fascinating to me in that it's a lot more like being a detective than modern parts. We know some of the top line big picture stuff like Roman conquered the peninsula and we have to piece together what we can from the collection of archeology and questionable reliable writings. As one professor I had put it: it's possible the only surviving writings were from the dumbest guy in the class, but that's all we have. It's actually a crazy what-if to think about, that many of the more intelligent and insightful writers' works may have been lost to time. It was actually a Catholic theology class of all things that got me into it a bit more and gave me a better way of reading older sources. He really emphasized how they had to write for the audience and that the things we care about today like exact numbers of the step by step wasn't really a concern for most of history. He also pointed out that there's no reason to think people back then didn't write with an agenda or multiple motivations as they might today, but unfortunately we rarely have the greater context that these things were written in. As he put it, you can have a true myth in that there is a literal truth from the story. With the Samnite battles my rough reading is that Livy was emphasizing Roman resilience and bravery. There may be a practical reason to emphasize this too. The side that breaks first loses, and usually loses badly. Talking up how they made tactical blunders at times but it was bravery and resiliency that won the day might have been as much about a fable as it was history. The two often blended in writings back then. Sorry for the long reply. Thanks again for responding and I look forward to more of your content!
Пікірлер: 22