Login

Wagnijo · 08-24-2003, 03:58 PM

No offence taken. 
 
But I have to emphasise that your evidence really doesn't shed much light on the contended matter. 
 
 
You write: 
 
" If you wish to see mine, I think the success of the Roman army in general defines it, especially against european enemies" 
 
1)This has absolutely no bearing on the one on one fighting skill of Roman soldiers since these successes was 
the successes of the Roman army mainly fighting the way it was used to and second to none - in formation. 
 
2) The Roman 1. c successes against the germanics were nicely summarised by Tacitus in Germania 37,6: 
 
"In the later years we have celebrated more triumphs 
than we have won victories against them." 
 
Then you express doubt that germanic warriors would have trained their fighting skills from an early age. 
Sadly the germanics didnt leave us any sociological 
studies of childrens behaviour but the setup of germanic society is well known. It was a society geared towards warfare and where the every free mans status was measured by his accomplishments as a warrior. 
 
Such societies has historically produced fighters with 
individual skills far above what you find in armies from 
societies where soldiering is just another somewhat despised career. 
 
Vocation and dedication to practise and perfection produces far superior skills than a centurion with a stick 
can ever hope to groom in his recruits. 
 
It is no coincidence that recruits from societies with 
warrior ideals and focus has been welcome in the armies belonging to societies of greater complexity: 
 
Ghurkas/England, Varengians/Byzanz , Turks/Arab, Mongols/China, Cossacks/Russia and germanics/Rome etc. 
 
 
Size: 
I still confidently claim that a big guy _anything equal_ holds the advantage over the smaller guy in one on one combat. 
 
 
Medical instruments: 
 
That you dont see finds of surgical instruments in 
undeniable germanic military contexts far to the north 
in the germanic hinterland as evidence of medical treatment in germanic units I can only put down as a kneejerk reaction to something you normally do not connect with "barbarians". 
 
I find it very possible that these instruments are either roman products or inspired by roman models but this does not alter the fact that they were used by germanics. 
 
With regard to training you write: 
 
"You are completely underestimating formal training." 
 
Absolutely not. The necessity and value of this in armies strikes me as self evident. 
 
I am however very much aware of its limitations. 
 
Formal military training was never going to teach a cavalry man from the 1860's US east coast to ride like a Sioux warrior neither was it going to teach his German counterpart to ride like a Cossack. 
 
Formal military training was never going to teach a londoner redcoat to shoot like a Colonial hunter/trapper neither was it going to teach a chinese soldier to shoot his bow from horseback like a Mongol. 
 
Formal military training was not going to prepare a citizen militia man to go one on one with an early medieval knight even if they had the same equipment 
and neither was it going to teach a French peasent recruit to shoot the longbow like his English counterpart 
who had been training his whole life.. 
 
 
Formal military training is not aimed at shaping each recruit into an expert with his weapon but at producing a 
useful soldier as fast and cheap as possible. 
 
Now please dont peg me as someone who is overwhelmed 
by warrior romanticism. The societies formed around warrior ideals in the end all had to evolve or go under. But it was definitely not because formal military training produced better skilled fighters. It might however have produced more powerful armies. 
 
 
On Teutoburger Wald you write: 
 
"It's one thing to be in that situation on home territory, but it's another when you've just lost your best friend because he had his head cleaved in two pieces by some screaming topless germanic." 
 
No doubt accompanied by: 
"Topless?! Who's topless now Roman?" 
 
It strikes me that you have just described a situation where a legionaire comes in a distant second best in a one on one confrontation with a germanic warrior. 
 
Sure it would be demoralising to his comrades. 
This is how it was supposed to work. 
 
Then you remark that the Romans was hampered by being in foreign territory and terrain. 
 
It was hardly a novel experience for the Roman army to operate on foreign soil and in a foreign environment. 
The unusual experience here was that they came out of it an army short. 
 
 
This was due to Arminius strategy, not so much because 
he had studied and learned about the qualities of the Roman army while served in it. Every germanic officer worth his salt in the Roman army did this and tried to implement them in their own forces whenever they returned. This is why you see a continuous development towards proffesionalism in the germanic armies from 1 AD onwards to the 5th c. 
 
Arminius otoh must at some point have realised that he had an upcoming date with the Roman army if he was to fullfil his ambitions. 
 
Had he tried to formally train his own forces according to what he had learned by the Romans he would only have produced a pale imitation and had he tried to fight the 
Romans their own way in a pitched battle there would have been no complete Roman disaster and I doubt he would have won at all, no matter how cold, hungry,lost, 
tired or betrayed the Romans were. 
 
Instead he looked for a Roman weakness to exploit and his ansver was to place the Romans in a situation where they was on the move and was forced to keep moving through a terrain that did not permit broad columns and deployment of formations. There his warriorgroups could attack the Romans man against man and disappear before the targets could organise a collective defence. Just to reengage the narrow Roman column at a later point. 
 
This way they herded the Romans into the prepared kill zone and the rest is history. 
 
But all this depend on the assumption that the germanic warriors would be able to take out their direct opponents in melee action and do it so effectively that the rest of the Romans would be demoralised or even panic. 
 
My take is that this was exactly the Roman weakness that Arminius saw... Or maybe germanic strength is a better word for it. 
 
Germanic unrest vs pax romana. 
 
Mentioning the punic wars in an attempt to document that Roman civilians was used to wars during the 1.c AD is not very convincing since the third and last punic war ended 146 BC that is about as distant in time as the US civil war is to us. Neither was the Roman civil wars something that directly affected every region in the Roman world. It is no coincidence that this period is charachterised with the phrase 'pax romana'. 
 
Germania otoh was characterised by unrest and conflict as you would expect in a society with a ruling warrior caste. This is documented by the grave finds of well used germanic military equipment not to mention the vast weaponsacrifices of battle spoils and it was a perfect enviroment for a young warrior to get combat experience. If your tribe was not at war then some other 
tribe certainly would be looking for warriors. 
 
Some quotes from Tacitus; Germania: 
 
14,2 If the tribe they are born in are becoming sluggish 
from long peace and quiet, several of the noble young men will seek out peoples who at the moment are involved in some kind of war.. 
 
24 They have only one form of spectacle and it is the same at each festive occasion. Naked young men for whom it is a sport rush in jumps in among threatening 
swords and lances. Practice has given them skill, skill has 
given them grace....................... For even the most daring act the entertainment of the onlookers is sufficient 
pay. 
 
31,20 About the Chatti: 
As soon as they have grown up they let their hair and beard grow and do not cut it until they have killed an enemy 
 
32,3 About the Tenkterii and their famous cavalry: 
This riding tradition was inaugurated by the the forefathers and the offspring carries it on. Riding is the childrens game, the competition of the young and also the old continues it. 
 
37,3 
So long have we now tried to defeat Germania. In the run of this long span of time both sides has 
suffered many losses. Not the Samnites. not the Poeni, 
Not the Spaniards nor the Gauls not even the Parthians 
has more often teached us a lesson. 
 
 
All in all I am still confident that the average germanic warrior would outclass your average legionaire in single 
combat fighting skills but the legionaire would usually have other qualities to fall back on and so would the Roman army as a whole 
 
Some sites on weaponsacrifices: 
 
www.illerup.dk 
 
Danish but with articles in English and lots of photos - Roman equipment too. 
 
www.nydam.nu/vaabenudstyr.htm 
 
Small Danish site 
 
sejren.natmus.dk/st/index.html 
 
Site of a small but exceptional temporary exhibition at 
the Danish national museum. Germanic military equipment from the weapon sacrifices; armour, lances, swords, bows, arrows etc and Roman gear from Kalkriese and 
Roman stuff (helmets aso) from the great Dutch finds - 
the Hildesheim treasure and lots of other stuff. 
Garnished with the Hjortspring and Nydam boats. 
 
It runs until November 2 if you happen to visit Copenhagen. 
 
Cheers 
wagnijo

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Roman Legionnaires in first century Judea?	MarcusNorwood	3	2,570	12-05-2012, 02:54 PM Last Post: Albertomv
	Caesarean Legionnaires without armor?	Severus	36	8,175	10-27-2006, 04:41 PM Last Post: Tarbicus