Ancient Warfare Expert Rates 10 Battle Tactics In Movies And TV | How Real Is It?

Fire! Roel Konijnendijk: So boiling oil didn't happen. I'm sorry. I mean, you can just pour boiling water over it. Hello, my name is Roel Konijnendijk. I am a professor of

ancient

history at the University of Oxford. I am an

expert

on

ancient

warfare

and I am here today to talk to you about pre-modern

warfare

in modern

movies

. So this is the supposed Greek concept of othismos, which literally means to push. And about 100 years ago, an Oxford academic who clearly had rugby in mind decided that this should be conceived as a literal mass push. We have no evidence of this.

No one ever says that's the case, but for some reason, this

real

ly caught on. And that's why, for the last 100 years, it's been controversial. But in general, people didn't want to fight like that. The spears are right in your face. So there are many reasons to want to avoid this. So this moment, where they go from fighting in formation to chasing down individuals who are still holding out, seemed very

real

istic for most of these fights. Make sure you can kill as many of them as possible, because that's when they are vulnerable. That's when they're not fighting back.

That's when you can just stick them in the back. And that's exactly what happens in this scene. Only much later in Spartan history do they say, "We do not pursue the fleeing enemy," because if you pursue the enemy, they catch you out of formation. You become vulnerable. But in this time, the time of the Persian War, the Spartans had no rules against this and, in fact, it is a true story. You can't really argue with that, but in the sense of

tactics

and weapons, it feels like a fantasy movie. Maybe three or four out of 10. If the old man is in range, why don't they all shoot?

They're making all these people on the walls hold their arrow for a long time. And these are really heavy bows. Plate armor is meant to keep arrows away. Bows are not weapons. They are intended as a repressive weapon. You use it to keep your head down. And then of course you would still use it, even against people wearing plate armor, because even the feeling of arrows bouncing off your armor or falling around you. Obviously, attacking walls with ladders is a really, really risky proposition. And it usually doesn't work. If you think they don't have the courage or strength to resist you, then you can try this.

You just put a lot of ladders against the walls, group yourself together, and occupy the space. If you wait for them to defend it, you'll put yourself in a position of vulnerability, approaching the walls one at a time, and that just won't go well. But it's obviously a very common tactic. I mean, you can go to the British Museum right now and see depictions of people storming walls with ladders. Yeah. So, I mean, the problem when you see these kinds of siege scenes in

movies

is that they always seem to make it very easy for the attacker.

If they want to reach the wall, they can do it. If they want to bring siege engines, if they want to bring catapults, battering rams or towers to the walls, they can do so. It's like they're trying to make it possible for this place to fall. Whereas in reality, I mean, one of the most common forms of fortification is, very simply, if you have land like this, you dig a trench, pile sand behind it, and then build your wall on top of it. that. And now what do you have? The enemy wants to approach you from the front.

They end up in the ditch. Suddenly, the wall they face is much higher. If they want to bring siege towers or battering rams, they fall into the pit. They would have to fill the trench first before they could get to you. All that time, they're right under your walls. In the movies, they never do this because it would slow things down. They want the assault to remain intense. That's why many of the

tactics

they show you are actually too simple and are missing many of the points that would actually be used. Well, first of all, that hill is too steep, so everyone would die.

But, unfortunately, these horses would simply slide to their deaths. But if we take that out of the equation, I always thought it was validated by the fact that he uses sunlight to blind the orcs, meaning they lower their pikes at the last moment. So the idea is that you create those openings that the horses need to see in order to push their load. Then you see them falter and break just before the charge arrives, which is exactly the point. That makes it conceivable that this could have worked. I mean, it's still a fantasy and they're doing a lot of things wrong.

On the other hand, it certainly hits a number of points where you think, well, this is realistic, using a sort of layered initiative to get past defenses. Yes. I mean, four out of 10, five out of 10. This is just wrong. I mean, what are they doing here? I mean, where do they get the idea that Scots in this period wore leather and war paint? These are simply ordinary medieval infantry. They would wear chain mail and helmets like this. They just deliberately turned them into savages. Why would you turn them into savages? They were sophisticated people. They had disciplined pike formations.

It's so strange. So fire arrows are not entirely ahistorical. They existed, but normally you'd use them during a siege, for example, like you could use them to set things on fire, which is what they're good for. So buildings, stocks and supplies would be: thatched roofs. Because it would create chaos and distractions. This idea of ​​involving fire in

battle

scenes is something that Hollywood loves. I mean, you just want to have fire because it's a pretty sight. Also, how would they have done this without the English realizing there was an oil field or something in the ground?

They wouldn't have said, "Oh, that's probably there for no reason. I'll just stand in front of it." They just do this, in all these movies, they just charge at each other, like horse spearmen. They just crush each other, as if they don't take anything into account. And then when people ask me, "So in a

battle

like this, how would you know who's on which side? How would you know who to stab, basically?" Like, yeah, obviously you wouldn't, if it happened like that you'd have no idea, that's why it didn't happen like that. As soon as your formation becomes so messy and disorganized that the enemy is in your ranks, you know you've lost.

Now, infantry would often charge into battle in the sense that they would run the last distance to meet the enemy, because everyone is afraid. In reality, no one wants to be there because they know they are about to be in mortal danger. Then you run and scream to get over that point and psych yourself up and know that there are many of you who are all in this together. But then you'd probably, according to the best modern theories, probably slow down when you got to the enemy, and then start stabbing each other in more or less even lines, because otherwise everything just, it just goes out of control.

This is a joke. I mean, from the equipment to the tactics, none of this has any bearing on what really happened except that William Wallace was defeated. Basically that's it. Two out of 10 or one out of 10. That's one of the most common forms of antique artillery, these bolt shooters. They would shoot at these big rods. This type of metal bolts. They are very effective. They shoot farther and more accurately than arrows. There is a story of someone who flew down and got stuck in a tree by one of these things. They are very useful in a siege because, again, they clear the walls.

You don't want to stay there. I mean, what's the point here? This forest is clearly very humid. It's not going to burn. It just looks cinematic. And they form a testudo! Of course they do. I mean, it's not ridiculous. I mean, the Romans had a formation like that, it was called testudo, and they used it on some occasions when you knew you had to go through a lot of arrows and you didn't want to lose casualties. but it is a desperate measure. So you're stuck waiting, essentially, for the enemy to stop shooting at you. So in a battle situation, you don't want to waste time trying to get into that formation and then waste time trying to get out of it again when the enemy is there.

Instead, you would just try to get through that area and get into the thick of it. Maximus: Don't worry. Because you're in Elysium and you're already dead! Roel: It is an endless debate whether those speeches really occurred, because it is difficult to speak before an entire army on behalf of the people, especially without a microphone. But it is something very, very common in descriptions of battles. So the best we can do is assume that they happened and that they were a very important part of it. So, the cavalry here strangely charges through a forest. This is a very bad idea.

Your horses are going to break their legs. You would try to find open ground. I mean, it uses a lot of real Roman tactics and equipment, so I'd guess six out of 10, but it's a mixed bag. The thing is, they're just making "Saving Private Ryan." This was just made up because they wanted to have a scene like "Saving Private Ryan." Resisted landings are not common in ancient wars, because they are a type of modern war. Most of the time, they would simply find a suitable beach somewhere within a reasonable distance of their target and land there.

And then they would advance towards their goal. This is just the stakes to show. Who are they going to arrest? They're not trying to land tanks here or anything like that. People can just walk through them. Like, if you want to fortify something, in ancient times, in the Middle Ages, today, a moat and a palisade. It's that easy. It's easy, you just need some wood and some shovels, and they haven't done it. They just placed a few bets here and there for no reason. I just sprinkled in some bets. This kind of shield formation is total nonsense.

Well then. There is nothing like it in Greek history. They're not going to be like that kind of overlapping turtle. At the time in which this poem takes place, mounted cavalry did not exist. And even in later periods, people are rarely seen fighting on horseback. It is difficult to know how to use cavalry tactically. It's hard to use if you don't have many and horses are very valuable. It costs a huge amount of money to maintain a horse, so you don't want to waste your horse on something like this guy and his hammer. Charging all together.

They have no sense of order. And in fact, if you look closely at one of these scenes, just to the left of Paris, after the next shot of Paris running away, I think. The extra falls on his face. I mean, I love it, because it shows exactly why you wouldn't want to do this, right? Because if everyone runs together, you'll just trip over yourself. Everyone gets in each other's way. They're making a beach landing, which is obviously inspired by a previous movie. It has nothing to do with the story except that they have swords and arrows.

Yeah, I mean, what do you want? Two out of 10? So, again, where is your ditch? Where is your ditch? You have to have a ditch! Otherwise, they'll take those siege towers to your wall. You know it! And obviously Jerusalem at that time had a ditch, and it had a pre-wall and another ditch, so you can't just put your siege engines right next to the wall. Of course they start throwing fireballs. Enough with the fireballs! Admittedly, it is realistic here that they would be very concerned about trying to prevent their siege weapon from catching fire. The defenders would try to set them on fire, so it is very important to protect them from that, usually by covering them with wet skins.

So boiling oil is a great trope, right? You see it in many movies. It is not a thing. It didn't happen. I'm sorry. So, there is no evidence that this happened. There is no description of people being asphyxiated in boiling oil. It is certainly not oil that has already been set on fire. I mean, you can just throw boiling water and it does the same thing, which is hurt people, or you can just throw rocks. But they don't cost you anything, require no preparation, and you just throw them at people. They get hurt. It's great. So boiling oil is unnecessarily complicated and you are burning fuel.

You don't want to burn things without a good reason. In the account we have of this siege, it says that there was constant fighting outside the walls, and there were also assaults on the walls. In fact, this one is better than the other. Better than Helm's Deep. Once again, they should have been digging trenches. Literally all they do is stand around carrying spears from one point to another. You should be digging ditches. Many ditches. Once your first trench is ready, build another one. The female characters, aside from those who have been trained to fight, basically hide in the dungeon and do nothing.

In real sieges, especially when they were so desperate, I mean, they were simply expected to contribute. Women, children, the elderly, everyone does something, because there are always things that people can do even when they are not fighting. You know, go and bring arrows and stones to the people on the walls, go put out fires, help with water and food, help with clothes and the wounded. There is noso you can simply store them in a corner. Obviously, these catapults are in the wrong place. They should be on top of the wall. Why would you put them outside the walls?

They're going to be invaded. You can't get them out of the way fast enough, so place them on top of the wall. That's where you put your artillery. So, you can put your cavalry in front, and it totally works, if you don't expect your enemy to stand their ground. So putting your cavalry in front is a very common and time-tested strategy that totally works, unless you're fighting ice zombies, who aren't going to break and aren't afraid of you. You're just wasting your cavalry. So it's the right tactic for the wrong time. There are probably several battles, other battles in "Game of Thrones" where this could have worked very well.

If you find yourself fighting an army of ice zombies, place your artillery on the wall, dig lots of trenches, just lots and lots of trenches. You can, of course, put your infantry in front, if you want to engage them there, because that means you'll have several stages to fall back on. After that, you won't ruin everything in one go. But move your cavalry away from the main line so that once the enemy engages, once your ice zombies are trapped against your line, you can dash in from the side, where they don't expect you, and overrun them.

I mean, you won't necessarily win your fight against an army of ice zombies, but at least it means you're fighting them in a way they don't expect. At least you will have done something with your cavalry that made sense. But otherwise, I mean, obviously it's all a bit silly. So what should we say, five out of 10? I mean, this movie had an Oxford professor advising on the movie. You can see all the little details that they got in terms of their clothing, in terms of their tactics and maneuvers. All this is about the best we can get.

It's very, very accurate, except for the fact that, for the Persian army, they still went with this sort of slightly racist depiction of, you know, puny warriors wearing eyeliner and stuff like that. It doesn't really reflect reality at the moment. They would have been much more organized and much more equipped, but that's how people like to represent Persia in general and the East. It just... leaves a bad taste in your mouth. In fact, throughout this entire period, the Greeks were the ones who fought like this, while the Persians were known to be much more organized and silently advance into battle, which was something that really impressed the Greeks.

Camels, always useful, because they scare the horses. It's kind of a theme throughout Persian history. They would use camels to scare off enemy cavalry. With this film, the entire team is perfect. These guys, you know, are the Companions. You know, there will be some Thracians up ahead. For example, you can identify exactly who they are. The entire pike phalanx is accurately represented, with all the weaponry, the spacing between the men and the type of blocks they maneuver on and things like that. Now this is obviously a bit silly. People wouldn't deliberately impale themselves on a giant stick.

It's much more likely that they simply stopped in front of it and started backing away. And you don't really expect a big pike formation to kill all those people, because people don't, you know, try not to die. They are going to run away from it. I mean, this is exactly as it says in the sources. This is our best reconstruction of how this battle occurred. This is, in terms of ancient warfare, this is the most accurate description you'll find, and I'd give it a nine out of 10. Kill 'em all! Roel: Stop! No! Where are your missiles?

Now, here's where... These battles would be about trying to disrupt the formation, not trying to crash into it and hope it goes away. I mean, you'd be throwing, shooting arrows, and throwing javelins to try to see if you can create some gaps in it. And then eventually, once you see a weak spot, you might rush forward. And then you could use your swords and spears to try to create a hole in the shield walls. It does nothing, it achieves nothing. Yes, no, the Vikings would definitely use shield walls. I mean, that look is realistic, except the fact that it's a three-layer shield wall seems a little excessive.

That is a Roman formation. But that's the way it is, obviously Viking shield walls are how they would fight pitched battles when they did. So they would try to avoid pitched battles and would mostly fight in surprise attacks, ambushes, and sieges. So this is a rare occasion where, according to this scene, they apparently had numerical superiority, so they could take a chance. So for this one, I would probably give it like a six or seven out of 10. So, this movie is completely based on romance. So, not in the historical record. It's essentially just a fantasy story.

This formation, in the historical record, there is something called the eight gates formation, which is not described. It means a really elaborate infantry formation that has these sort of shifting, shifting shield walls, the goal of which is to trap the enemy cavalry. And that's what you're seeing happening here, which is that they're using moving shield walls to trap enemy cavalry. There are a couple of descriptions of how this happens in a kind of competitive maneuver, where two armies try to show that they have more control and more discipline by moving troops competitively. But there is actually no evidence that it was ever used in battle to defeat anyone.

It's too complex. The amount of control that would be needed over each individual detachment, the amount of coordination of each man, everyone has to know exactly where to position themselves for this to work. And none of them can, you know, even a stray arrow killing one of them would disrupt this entire formation because it would create a gap. So it's just not feasible. That seems wildly optimistic about the capabilities of any infantry force. In real life, if you could get that close to the cavalry, why not just stab them? It's another one of those things that's based on a story, so how can you judge it?

It's cool, it's evocative, but it's not historical. He has the right equipment, so maybe four.