Pinned post for Q&A :)

The Virgin Harpoon Over the Horizon Missile vs the Chad Rock

11:28  "I've got a scale model trebuchet that's about 3, 4 foot long.  About 4 foot high."
WHO ELSE WANTS TO SEE THIS?   IN ACTION!!!

Roman naval tactics: Artillery terrible? Then turn the naval battle into a land battle.

Me:The 2nd Pacific Fleet wants their boarding snakes back.

(The Greek or Romans, I forgot who): flings snakes to the fleet.

The 2nd Pacific Fleet: 'Insert a lot of panic and gunfire here'.

The Kamchatka: Ahh! Torpedo boats controlled by snakes!

"I am tired of those mother****ing snakes on this mother****ing trireme" ~ Captain Samuelus Jacsonus Africanus

For anyone interested in what catapults have to do with shields:
The Greek word for catapult is καταπέλτης (catapeltes). It consists of the preposition "kata", meaning "against", and the noun "pelte" (πέλτη), which was a crescent-shaped shield used by light infantry. The bearers of such shields were called peltastai (or peltasts in English).
Incidentally, the heavy infantry was also named after the shields they bore: Hoplites derives from hoplon, which was a large round shield.

Time to get absolutely stoned.

Coming soon in World of Warships: New Tier 0.0001 rock-throwing trireme

Hello, a historian of antiquity here. It was a very interesting watch. I would like however to clear up some misconceptions that appeared over the course of the video. Those minor mistakes do not detract in any way from mr. Dean's presentation, however they may affect our understanding of what role the artillery played in the developement of naval warfare and historical dynamics in general.
1) The Romans never used a specialized marine troops - this is not entirely true. In the 4/5th century Notitia Dignitatum (list of offices and forces in the Empire) there are 6 units of 'Praefecti classi et navium' being named, which mean about 1800-3000 men aboard the ships of the danubian river flotilla. Those are not neccessarily fully fledged 'marines', but still a specialized force trained for water-borne operations, and, the Romans did not have much use for the navy at the point when the document was being written (the Vandals did not establish their naval power then yet). Subsequently, in 533 when the Eastern Rome tried to reconquer Africa from the Vandals, Procopius of Ceasarea mentions warships (dromons) escorting the transport fleet with about 2000 marines on board. Since I do not specialize in earlier times, I cannot confirm whether a similar practice was the case in earlier times of the top of my head, but it would not surprise me.
2) The use of artillery declined after the so-called 'crisis of the 3rd century' - To some extent, yes, but it never disappeared from the battlefield. The battle of Frigidus in 394 saw an extensive use of artillery engines in the field battle. I also recall the use of artillery in the defense of Rome by the Eastern Roman troops of Belisarius as late as 537-538. This is land based, but the Byzantines also extensively used artillery in naval combat. Besides the famous greek fire (as I don't know if huge flamethrowers classify as artillery strictly speaking), here is what the 9/10th century military manual (Taktika of Leo VI) says about naval artillery -
"On the largest dromons erect the so-called wooden castles with their wall
of planks somewhere around the middle of the mast. From these <vantage
points> our men will shoot millstones or heavy pieces of iron such as those
shaped like swords. These will either break up the enemy ship or, landing with
great force, crush those on whom they fall. The men may also hurl other things
capable of setting the enemy ships on fire or of killing the troops on board."
Artillery is not mentioned explicitly, but the 'millstones' and 'pieces of iron capable of breaking ships' suggest something more than a very strong throwing arm.

As You see, the technology of naval artillery was not forgotten. It was just a solution to a specific problem. It however required that one builds big warships, which are expensive to build and maintain and equip the with artillery pieces that are also expensive to build and maintain. And if there is no one really to shoot at, it should not be a surprise that the Roman navy transformed into a more flexible and efficient force with smaller vessels that could double as transport craft. Only the emergence of new sea powers (first Vandals, then Arabs, Normans and Slavs) renewed the need for specialized warships that would give an edge over the opposition. The knowledge of how to solve Your problems with a rock that moves at high velocities was not forgotten, neither in Rome nor in Byzantium, it just was not always the most optimal and efficent solution.

29:04 I see the French inclination towards ships that are best described as “F***ing Weird” predates the existence of France. Because of course it does.

Back in the era when warfare was civilised. Where roads were thrown a the enemy

48:30 Nothing stirred my soul quite as much as listening to a Mathematician and an Engineer discussing the use of tables, cube roots and ancient tax records.. lol

Men, I have good news and bad news. The good one, is that everyone gets double metaxa ration tonight. The bad one, is that the captain wants to waterski.

I'm tired of these mfing snakes on my mfing ship

26:28 "There was supposedly one Greek navy that loaded their stone-thrower with ceramic pots filled with venomous snakes"
Drach: snorts Hehe giggles

The peak of military technology, pointy sticks and big rocks

I would love to see a video about Admiral Yi of Korea, using turtle ships against the Imperial Japanese during the 1500's. The west largely ignores eastern naval technology prior to the late 1800's.

Something to keep in mind... in an era of earliest sail and rowing the simple act of adding ballast to an enemy vessel is a form of combat.

So my uncle died recently and he made catapults and ballistas. I was raised around the SCA. Old lesson are taught from them. It was a nice experience.