Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Martial Arts?
#1
What do some of you know about Roman Martial Arts, armed and unarmed?

I have read accounts of Romans who would do things like punch through boards, their love of wrestling and boxing, as well a fencing.

I am more interested in what might be taught to Roman soldiers and gentlemen, as oppossed to Gladiators, as I have heard thorugh much of History, they were trained to fight in a flashy and entertaining style, vs. what is quick and to the point.

I ask as a martial artist (Aiki Jujutsu and Fillipino MA), whos primary study is in what works when life and limb are on the line.

A society that went to war and fought as much as they did would certianly have styles and techniques of fighting,and their is much written about their love of the raise the sheild into the enemies face and pu the sword 3' into the enemies bladder, stomach or heart.

Thoughts, knowledge, resources and links w ould be greatly appriciated.

Thank you,

dylan Thomas aka Darthicus
Reply
#2
Wrestling and boxing, maybe some Greeks brought the Pankration as well?
James Kell ey Never Trust a Fart
Reply
#3
Wrestling really was the premier combat sport for the gentleman, I think. Poliakoff certainly rates in his "Combat Sports in the Ancient World," and if one thinks about the type of sport it is, this stands to reason.

After all, the equites probably didn't want to be going around with smashed noses, gapped teeth and cauliflower ears which were the "trademarks" the boxer or pankratist.

Cheers

Russ
Reply
#4
Marius would join in the wrestling and boxing practiced by the soldiers on the Campus Martius, so it wasn't restricted to the upper classes or officers by any means. Didn't pankration become a part of gladiator training and sport after Greece was conquered, but a much bloodier and brutal version using spiked gloves or some such?

I'm really not sure about the reliability of this page: http://www.aibudo.com/history/pankratn/pankratn.html
"Exhibitions of superhuman strength were frequently witnessed by the awe-struck Greek people. Practitioners displayed the power of pneuma (Gr. inner energy) by breaking stones and planks with their bare fists and driving their hardened feet through forged war shields."
Which sounds very much like modern perceptions of a martial art to me, if it was the case.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#5
Quote:...it wasn't restricted to the upper classes or officers by any means. Didn't pankration become a part of gladiator training and sport after Greece was conquered, but a much bloodier and brutal version using spiked gloves or some such?

Sure, but I think the question was what "gentlemen" practiced (though I could have misunderstood!) as opposed anyone being restricted. As far as I can ascertain, wrestling was regarded highly, and as I say, I can see why it would be the MA of choice for the gentleman, simply because he'd take less facial damage - the mark of plebeian?

Also - now, this is of the top of my head with no googling, so forgive me - I think the gloves you're referring to here were called "cestus" - they had metal plates on them in some instances. I don't know about spikes, but there is bound to be some text to evidence this. But, spikes or plates...it would be sore to get a dig from one of em, that's for sure!

Russ
Reply
#6
Quote:As far as I can ascertain, wrestling was regarded highly, and as I say, I can see why it would be the MA of choice for the gentleman, simply because he'd take less facial damage - the mark of plebeian?
As long as you don't apply that to Republican or early Imperial 'gentlemen', otherwise you're possibly transplanting Eton and Harrow onto an ancient upper class who were literally nobody of importance unless they bore wounds, scars, and the like, to prove their worth as Roman citizens. Virtus and manliness were held with high regard, where a 'pretty boy' was an object of disdain. He may have had more luck with the ladies, but in actual fact there is as much reason to believe he wouldn't and may have enjoyed more attention from men. You only have to look at plenty of early Principate and Republican busts with weathered faces and broken noses to see what I'm talking about :wink: I'll repeat that Marius partook in wrestling and boxing with the common soldiery, in a way to try win popularity against Sulla, but I think that only emphasises my point.

Added: Note the line from this article on Rogueclassicism: Boxing in Antiquity
"When Sulla plundered Olympia in 80 BC, the Greek Olympic tradition effectively ended, although boxing was evidently in vogue in very ancient times in Italy,.....During the Republic, boxing was cultivated as a gentlemanly exercise, but contests increased in violence and depravity at the dawn of the Empire."
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#7
I'm not honestly convinced that Roman aristocracy went around with their faces smashed in from boxing matches. I can see where you're coming from, but manly virtue you speak of was the province of the battlefield I think, and not the sporting arena. Or even the gladiatorial arena, where a Roman aristocrat would have disdain to appear in (well unless he was a loony emperor, of course!).

But the only source I have is the "Combat Sports in the Ancient World" and I don't have any comparrison works. So as I say above, this seems to make sense to me. It may not be the case, but I do think that virtus was more war than sports. But I could be wrong, of course - it might be both. I mean, in the modern era, many fella's practice boxing, but not everyone is walking around looking like Floyd Mayweather will be after his suicide attempt against Ricky Hatton!

Cheers

Russ
Reply
#8
Quote:I'm not honestly convinced that Roman aristocracy went around with their faces smashed in from boxing matches. I can see where you're coming from, but manly virtue you speak of was the province of the battlefield I think, and not the sporting arena. Or even the gladiatorial arena, where a Roman aristocrat would have disdain to appear in (well unless he was a loony emperor, of course!). ...
...It may not be the case, but I do think that virtus was more war than sports. But I could be wrong, of course - it might be both. I mean, in the modern era, many fella's practice boxing, but not everyone is walking around looking like Floyd Mayweather will be after his suicide attempt against Ricky Hatton!
Virtus wasn't just an agricultural and battlefield concept, but one that every Roman man was supposed to follow in life - the root of the word is 'vir', meaning 'man'. It's part of the embodiment of 'manliness' and was shown in public life as well as military. How many accounts can you think of where a man breaks down in tears in public? These were hard and tough men, especially in the Republic. They were raised to fight - it was the only way they could gain public office. As such, it was nigh impossible for any man in public office, or even most male citizens, to be completely separated from the military in some form or another. Caesar's own request for Senators to train some men he wanted (gladiators it seems) is indicative of that.

As for men of high blood fighting in the arena, we know that some actually volunteered for it, and it was a means in extremis to gain enough money to pay off debts, while some did it for the thrill. It was unseemly and rare, and they were likely regarded as scum afterwards, but it was a recognised solution to penury.

On the Field of Mars you could find men training and exercising, which again is linked to exercitus. Not only did they run, but they also practiced javelin throwing, etc.

Read this: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/VIRTUS.HTM
"Unlike the Greek value areté, which means "being the best one can be," virtus stresses strength, toughness, simplicity, and bearing up under adversity...
...Therefore, virtus , which originally applied to an agricultural or martial culture, can be adapted to any situation or station in life a Roman finds himself or herself in."
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#9
Hi - I'm sure that you're preaching to the converted. I'm quite aware of the gladiatorial aspects of your argument (sheesh, I'd have to be or I'll get lynched by you lot come March), and as you know autocrati were on the rise in the Imperial era (I actually read somewhere the ratio was something like 40% at one time, but I can't find the reference right now).

All I'm saying is that from the evidence I have, wrestling was the pre-eminent martial art of the upper classes in both Hellenic and Roman societies. I'm not saying that boxing wasn't practiced, but it wasn't held in such high esteem.

Marius is a great example here, but as far as I know, Marius was regarded as a bit of a New Man by the patricians of his time,so rolling around on the campus martius may not have been the order of the day for the Sullans! But you never know.

I think we're both singing from the same hymn-sheet...but I've yet to see any evidence that equates virtus to boxing being the martial art of choice. I'm sure it was part of it, but as I say from the source I have here, wrestling was the daddy. Its a verified source, but as I said earlier, its the only one I've got, so there are bound to be others! At the end of the day, the philosophy of virtus could be applied to pretty much any situation.

But that wasn't the initial question, which was the one I was trying to answer. To be honest, I think we've pretty much done that here! Big Grin

Cheers

Russ
Reply
#10
I thought that boxing was the Roman gentleman's preference, and wrestling was the "Greek" preference?

I don't think we're singing from the same hymn sheet at all. :wink:

Just to spell it out more clearly - the more Greek the sport, the more dubious it was. Men slithering all over each other and grabbing each other was tres Greek - men punching the **** out of each other was more "manly", ergo Roman. It involved more pain. Any man with more endurance for pain was a better man, and the more he endured it without complaint made him an even better man.

That's IMHO. Disfigurement was a sign of a manly experience and disposition, whereas Stephen Boyd in the Hollywood movies was just a 1950's ideal of a manly disposition who had good hair no matter what. To a Roman Boyd would have been a complete pussy, as would have Russell Crowe.

I personally think the Romans thinking about Greeks was like the Spartans thinking about Athenians. Being like a Greek was a 'no-no' in Rome. Wrestling was a "Greek" sport, whereas boxing gave you character.

Only IMHO.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#11
I asked a similar question not too long ago:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... highlight=
Andy Volpe
"Build a time machine, it would make this [hobby] a lot easier."
https://www.facebook.com/LegionIIICyr/
Legion III Cyrenaica ~ New England U.S.
Higgins Armory Museum 1931-2013 (worked there 2001-2013)
(Collection moved to Worcester Art Museum)
Reply
#12
Quote:Only IMHO.

Yep, I think that's what we're basing a lot of this on to be fair. As I've said, I've only got the one source here and because of that, I'm not in a position to say "this is the fact." Poliakoff knows his stuff, but there are bound to be others out there that will disagree, but I don't have those sources on the bookshelf.

You make some really interesting points about the difference between Greeks and Romans, which I think are pretty much spot on. Paradoxically, upper-class Romans spoke Greek, read Greek literature and employed Greek teachers to educate their children. Caesar famously wept at the foot of Alexander's statue (OK, he was Macedonian but the sentiment is the same) yet still the Romans looked down on the Hellenes. Despite the fact that their culture was largely derived from Greece. I imagine that the Greeks at the time thought that Rome was some sort of crass upstart that would get their come-uppance sooner or later! It never did happen that way though - Rome endured and the Hellenic empire did not.
Reply
#13
Quote:I asked a similar question not too long ago:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... highlight=


Cheers, Dudicus, that was a really interesting read as well.

Thanks

Russ
Reply
#14
A good point about the Greeks, and I'm wondering if the Romans saw Alexander as a Greek Greek, or did they view the Macedonians as something different? Having Greeks teach your young would be following in the footsteps of Alexander especially if Imperial child education set the trend more and more?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#15
I believe the Romans admired the Greeks of earlier times. They regarded the Greeks of their own time as degenerate descendants of glorious ancestors.
Pecunia non olet
Reply


Forum Jump: