08-05-2003, 03:56 AM
Caius Germanicus, you said that an average barbarian was a better match than the average legionary. I disagree on a few accounts. Legionarys had better, more stable dietary sources, were likely on average, in better physical shape than any barbarian as well. Also, I would like to quote Los from another topic in Reenactment/Reconstruction (hope you don't mind Los):<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Anyway, I think it's prety clear that in general, competent legionary swordsmanship training was approached in a systematic fashion. I say "competent" because there were clearly times when training was allowed to slide, even in good legions, most likely during long periods of sedentary life such as the state of the Xth a few years before the Roman-Judeo war when it was sationed in Syria. It is mentioned in some accounts that Galdiators were brought in for training, most likely during times when the in-house expertise had degraded due to casualties retirements or poor leadership or some legate wanted to add that extra umpff to his guy's training.<br>
<br>
We have good evidence and accounts of how swordsmanship training was conducted, what types of training weapons and equipment were used, what the training grounds looked like (posts and what not) and the fact that they conducted armatura (sparring) and force on force combats. What's missing, unfortunately is detail on exactly the moves they would have used.<br>
<br>
From medieval times there are still numerous books, codex and fectbuchs (sp?) surviving which have been reproduced, that show the actual moves used in training. We don't have any of that to my knowledge. Has anyone found an engraving showing the structured moves?<br>
<br>
One thing is clear however. Combat soldiers performed their duty effectively based on the establishment of "muscle-memory". The Romans clearly recognized this from way back based on the way the organized and trained and fought. The initial pell work would have served two purposes. It would have been a strength bulding excercize for fighting to increase power and stamina. It would also have served to instill muscle memory in the basic moves required to thrust, smash, cut and parry while holding shield, in line, WITHOUT THINKING. These would have been the basic building blocks of fighting, and to that extent, they would bear some resemblence to the methods (but not the moves) sword fighters, fencers and what not use in their initial training.<br>
<br>
Other key points during initial sword training would have included drawing the sword. In particular when the line is advancing you don't have a lot of time between release and contact. It's no time for one to be fumbling with his gear trying to get unstuck. I believe that the more competent the line the closer they can be to the enemy for release, the more effective the Piila volley would be. Two key determinates here would be effectivess of the line in hitting it's target (range and accuracy) and secondly, how quickly it could draw swords. while maintaining cohesion. This would have required constant practice to establish muscle memory. (Just like we spend hours learning how to draw pistols).<br>
<br>
With this initial basics down, the experienced instructors would have then added the advanced details to make things work in real fights, Boss smashes, kickss and or foot stomps, grappling, dirty language, etc to take it to the next level. Everything would need to be simple to grasp and practice and approached in layers, so that muscle memory in all these things could be firmly established. And they would have been evaluated and graded along the way, hence poorer perfroming (or motivated) soldiers receiving punishments and deprivements such as extra fatigues or withholding of better foods until they met the standards.<br>
<br>
Then they would have been cut loose on opponents in 1v1 action (Called armatura) perhaps this included an initial half speed drills (Since parrying normally requires somewhat to swipe at you), then this would have progressed up to full speed sparring, most likely one pair at a time while the instructors graded and critiqued and others watched and learned. Added to this would have been demonstrations of the different styles of fighting they would have encountered. Either with instructor demonstrating celt, barbarian, greek, and parthian methods and weapons in action or maybe even captured slave duels for demonstration. Who knows? But it wouldn't have done much good to just have Romans training against Romans (except during civil war times) using only Roman methodology if they were more likely to face say Celt attacks or Zealot fighting styles.<br>
<br>
At this point our budding swordsmen would have had a firm grounding in 1v1. Now there would have been added 1v2, 2 v1 3v2 and other circumstances to practice the essential work of fighting with others. Eventually this would build up to squad and century level fighting.<hr> <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine."<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i></i>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Anyway, I think it's prety clear that in general, competent legionary swordsmanship training was approached in a systematic fashion. I say "competent" because there were clearly times when training was allowed to slide, even in good legions, most likely during long periods of sedentary life such as the state of the Xth a few years before the Roman-Judeo war when it was sationed in Syria. It is mentioned in some accounts that Galdiators were brought in for training, most likely during times when the in-house expertise had degraded due to casualties retirements or poor leadership or some legate wanted to add that extra umpff to his guy's training.<br>
<br>
We have good evidence and accounts of how swordsmanship training was conducted, what types of training weapons and equipment were used, what the training grounds looked like (posts and what not) and the fact that they conducted armatura (sparring) and force on force combats. What's missing, unfortunately is detail on exactly the moves they would have used.<br>
<br>
From medieval times there are still numerous books, codex and fectbuchs (sp?) surviving which have been reproduced, that show the actual moves used in training. We don't have any of that to my knowledge. Has anyone found an engraving showing the structured moves?<br>
<br>
One thing is clear however. Combat soldiers performed their duty effectively based on the establishment of "muscle-memory". The Romans clearly recognized this from way back based on the way the organized and trained and fought. The initial pell work would have served two purposes. It would have been a strength bulding excercize for fighting to increase power and stamina. It would also have served to instill muscle memory in the basic moves required to thrust, smash, cut and parry while holding shield, in line, WITHOUT THINKING. These would have been the basic building blocks of fighting, and to that extent, they would bear some resemblence to the methods (but not the moves) sword fighters, fencers and what not use in their initial training.<br>
<br>
Other key points during initial sword training would have included drawing the sword. In particular when the line is advancing you don't have a lot of time between release and contact. It's no time for one to be fumbling with his gear trying to get unstuck. I believe that the more competent the line the closer they can be to the enemy for release, the more effective the Piila volley would be. Two key determinates here would be effectivess of the line in hitting it's target (range and accuracy) and secondly, how quickly it could draw swords. while maintaining cohesion. This would have required constant practice to establish muscle memory. (Just like we spend hours learning how to draw pistols).<br>
<br>
With this initial basics down, the experienced instructors would have then added the advanced details to make things work in real fights, Boss smashes, kickss and or foot stomps, grappling, dirty language, etc to take it to the next level. Everything would need to be simple to grasp and practice and approached in layers, so that muscle memory in all these things could be firmly established. And they would have been evaluated and graded along the way, hence poorer perfroming (or motivated) soldiers receiving punishments and deprivements such as extra fatigues or withholding of better foods until they met the standards.<br>
<br>
Then they would have been cut loose on opponents in 1v1 action (Called armatura) perhaps this included an initial half speed drills (Since parrying normally requires somewhat to swipe at you), then this would have progressed up to full speed sparring, most likely one pair at a time while the instructors graded and critiqued and others watched and learned. Added to this would have been demonstrations of the different styles of fighting they would have encountered. Either with instructor demonstrating celt, barbarian, greek, and parthian methods and weapons in action or maybe even captured slave duels for demonstration. Who knows? But it wouldn't have done much good to just have Romans training against Romans (except during civil war times) using only Roman methodology if they were more likely to face say Celt attacks or Zealot fighting styles.<br>
<br>
At this point our budding swordsmen would have had a firm grounding in 1v1. Now there would have been added 1v2, 2 v1 3v2 and other circumstances to practice the essential work of fighting with others. Eventually this would build up to squad and century level fighting.<hr> <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine."<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i></i>
