Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Invicta"
channel.
-
I'm only 2min in and as a combat vet who is passionate about tactics, strategy, logistics and history, (and developed multiple successful tactics which I was able to test and prove in combat) I can already come up with tons of counter arguments about what may have actually happened. And I HIGHLY doubt they lied about the battle. Now, it's normal for stories details to be lost in translation or in retelling, and people didn't have cameras to record and recall details accurately, and stories often are embellished a bit and such. But even factoring all that in, the core elements tend to remain true. I've experienced first hand in combat multiple units after a battle recounting events the way they claimed it happened, and then I'd stitch together all the common threads of each story to figure out what had really happened.
Now, I'm not an expert on this battle, and so I'd need more details of what was claimed about the battle to form a proper opinion. but these lead to questions I need answers to, and cast doubt upon your assertions, unless they are answered in a manner that addresses those issues sufficiently.
I don't care about media depictions nor academia opinions. I want the historical accounts and details. Media and academia tend to get things wrong more than right, especially these days. They lack the experiences and fail to view things in context, resulting in false conclusions, especially when sufficient recorded detail is not available about what really happened.
1
-
1
-
@InvictaHistory it's an excellent overall analysis, and you did mention many factors most people never even consider. but there is still far more that could be done here. I think too often you make too many assumptions and just roll with that one assumption, without giving other ideas a second thought, that could result in a different conclusion. I love that you considered the river moving, most people never would have thought of that. I did, and was super happy when you considered it and loved the effort you put into that.
I specialized in unconventional warfare, and 90% of my tactics were psychological in nature. I'd learn what my opponent does find ways to use that to my advantage. you touched on that a bit, to your credit, but there is so much more that could have been used. How the feint was setup, how it could have been used to manipulate the wings, how the wings could have changed shape, how the wings could have been used to envelope the Romans, more use of terrain, etc.
Many depictions are of the Romans even more so bunched up due to terrain, and what if that had been the case? you move their forces into a large open field, when as you pointed out the romans would have preferred hilly terrain to limit the cavalry, and they might have bunched up more to try to do that.
You mentioned the Romans have tried punching through lines to get a breakout, and perhaps that very idea is what was exploited to get the envelopment to develop. You discussed this, but I feel you didn't discuss it enough, or in enough different ways.
Also, in battle, there also tends to be a great deal of Planning, plans not going as planned, then having to adapt on teh fly, then happy accidents and coincidences and surprise outcomes working to your advantage. Some amount of luck might have played a part, and then was passed off as tactical genius afterwards.
You have set the bar much higher though, for such analysis, and that's a good thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1