Login

Los456 · 08-20-2003, 04:30 PM

I'd have to agree with Tiberius that Wagnijo's argument is not terribly well thought out and does not even address any of the clear points already brought up in this thread (and not worth going over again). 
 
There is no substitute for professional, hard, and effective training. 
 
The point is trying to address that Roman legionaries were somehow less well prepared and capable of one on one fighting than any of their opponents in whatever army, though it seems that as far as "opponents" this has seemed to focus on the Germanic tribes. I'm still waiting to see anything, logical or factual, that supports this blanket belief. 
 
Los

08-21-2003, 03:56 AM

@warrior 11 - sorry, I didn't get that from your post - I thought you were sayign eth Romans were alwways at elast as good as anyoen else. 
 
Someone else said soemthing about Romans being more afraid of their commander than the enemy, and thinking this was more for Fred the Great - as it happens I have been reading a few of Plutarch's "Lives" over the last few days, and I saw precisely that in one of them - it may have been about Marius - the others I've read havebeen bits of Pompey and Caesar - so it's in one of those 3!!

08-21-2003, 01:21 PM

Salve, 
 
A number of misguided preconceptions on Germanic warfare cloud the discussion. Concerning Germanic weaponry being more geared to individual combat it should be noted that there is no proper basis for this assumption. What shield boards survive do not indicate a significant difference in weight and size between the types used by Roman and Germanic troops. Therefore it is difficult to understand how Germanic shields would offer an advantage in single combat. Germanics were not primarily swordsmen, the spear, used for stabbing as well as throwing, being the main weapon and for many warriors their only one. Shafted weapons of various types were available to the Romans as well, but these were backed up by sword and dagger. When swords were carried by Germanic warriors they were generally not different from the types employed by Roman adversaries. The concept of long sword wielding Germanic warrior against short sword wielding Roman soldier is not correct. Germanic weaponry reflected Roman types rather than the other way around. Thus in the first centuries of the principate short swords of the Roman types predominate in finds from Germanic sites while longer blades start to predominate once these became more common in the Roman army. 
 
Single combat was given a prominent place in (later) Germanic fiction, but these stories do not necessarily have to reflect actual battle conditions and tactics. Other peoples (Greeks, Romans) with similar traditions of fighting in close ordered groups likewise have stories concentrating on the exploits of individual heroes and champions instead of the anonymous mass of troops. What is good for storytelling need not have been put in practice in combat. Individual combat could take place in preliminary stages of battle, but it did not constitute the main method by which war was decided. Germanics tended to deploy for battle in close formations rather than as a mass of individuals each intent on engaging in separate single combat (eg Tacitus Annales 1.51 ... densis Germanorum catervis ... '... by the dense hordes of the Germans ...',; Germania 6 ... Acies per cuneos componitur. ... '... The battle order is composed of wedges. ...'; Historiae 4.16 ... cuneis componit ... '... he deployed in wedges ...'). Germanic battle did not center on single combat, but was as much a group affair as that of Roman warfare. Roman formations may have been on average more ordered and better disciplined, but their northern enemies deployed in dense formations as well. 
 
The Romans had their own traditions on engaging in individual combat. While the set piece battle required concentration on group effort and cohesion, there was room for displays of individual prowess at other times, including the preliminary fighting before the contact of main formations in battle. 
 
 
On Germanic warfare: 
 
Raddatz, K., 'Die Bewaffnung der Germanen vom letzten Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis zur Voelkerwanderungszeit' in: ANRW 2.12.3 (1985), 281-361. 
Thompson, E.A., 'Early Germanic warfare' in: E.A. Thompson, The early Germans (Oxford 1965), 109-149. 
Todd, M., The early Germans (London 1992). 
 
Translation of the Germania by Tacitus. 
 
On Romans and individual combat: 
 
Goldsworthy, A.K., The Roman army at war 100 BC-200AD (Oxford 1996) 311p. 
Maxfield, V.A., The military decorations of the Roman army (London 1981) 304p. 
Oakley. S.P., 'Single combat in the Roman republic' in: Classical Quarterly 35 (1985), 392-410. 
Wiedemann, T., 'Single combat and being Roman' in: Ancient Society 27 (1996), 91-103. 
 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

08-21-2003, 02:34 PM

Stickers, 
 
 
 
QUOTE: "- I thought you were sayign eth Romans were alwways at elast as good as anyoen else." 
 
Ye, something like that. I said: "Romans were not worse (to say the least) then Germans or some other barbarians as swordsmen (in fencing) in any kind of combat." 
 
As for NightHunter24's words about "Romans being more afraid of their commander than the enemy"... 
I think I know what he meant. Tacitus is very eloquent, espressive in depicting that while speaking about early empire, including legionaries' riots on the German border. He mentioned a centurion, whose nickname was something like 'give me another stick (cane)'. The meaning was clear - one stick was not enough to bat (cane) the hell out of some unfortunated soldier. 
 
 
Regards, 
 
warrior11 
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/>

***Praefectusclassis*** · 08-21-2003, 02:57 PM

There's another one in that style, a late Republican centurion with the cognomen Lorarius, disciplinarian is the most PC translation. Greets 
 
Jasper

08-21-2003, 03:08 PM

As for this popular belief, that Germans were better in single combat, I think the root of this is that Romans used Germans as auxiliaries, as scirmishers (mounted and not). Scirmish is usually considered to be closer to one-on-one combat than other kinds of fighting. 
 
I personally don't see any logic in thinking so. 
 
Sorry, but can't remember exactly what Roman author I read it in, but remember it was early principate: In short - some Roman emperor (was it Nero?) was eager to stage beautiful gladiator games and gave gladiators to be trained personally to certain Roman centurions. The meaning and the context was that they were most fitted to teach them combat skills. He didn't give units, the emperor gave individual gladiators, so I got that it was for training sort of one-on-one combat. Definitely not for wall-of-shields sort of fighting. 
The point of my remembering it is that the emperor didn't give gladiators to Germans. Though I am sure there were a lot of these guys nearby. I suppose it was because Romans themselves didn't have any ellusions about Germanic fighting abilities. 
 
Regards, 
 
warrior11 
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/>

08-21-2003, 10:44 PM

Of course to the Romans Auxiliaries were pretty much disposable - which is, IMO, a more likely explaination for them being prefered to do the fighting!! 
 
I remember reading in Tacitus's "Agricola" that Agricola was to be congratulated for beatign the Caledones at Mons Grappus without risking Roman lives - ie he won using only Auxiliaries. Of course Agricola was also Tacitus's father-in-law so maybe he was laying it on a bit thick??!! 
 
But there are other occasions where the Auxilia were sent out in front of the legions - vs Buodacea rings a bell, also various battles vs Germans??

rekirts · 08-22-2003, 12:03 AM

That's something that has always seemed a bit strange to me. You have your well-trained Roman legionaries waiting in the wings while your well-trained but expendable auxiliaries fight. So the auxiliaries win the day and the legionaries get to go back to camp without even mussing their uniforms. Are they going to say, "Wooohoo! We didn't have to fight again! What luck!" or are they going to be royally ticked off and wonder when they'll ever get the chance to do what they were trained for? 
 
As has been mentioned in different threads here, a Roman soldier could go his entire carreer without taking part in any battles whatsoever. There must have been at least some who would prefer fighting to sitting back watching the auxiliaries do all the work. I realize this wasn't how it always happened, but when it did, I wonder how the guys who didn't get to fight felt about it. 
 
Wendy "I am an admirer of the ancients,but not like some people so as to despise the talent of our own times." Pliny the Younger

08-22-2003, 02:14 AM

.....that's why Tacitus made a point of praising Agricola - because there was a bit of mumbling in the legions about missing out on some loot or somesuch, and so a positive "spin" had to be put on events to "sex them up" a bit for the plebs??

08-22-2003, 09:52 AM

Salve, 
 
That is from: 
 
Tacitus, Annales 1.23 
 
... et centurio Lucilius interficitur cui militaribus facetiis vocabulum 'cedo alteram' indiderant, quia fracta vite in tergo militis alteram clara voce ac rursus aliam poscebat. ... 
 
'... and the centurion Lucilius was murdered to whom they with soldiers' witticism used to give the nickname of 'gimme another', because he used to demand another one in a clear voice when he had broken his vinestick on the back of a soldier and then continued. ...' 
 
There is also the centurion named Baculus ('stick') (Bellum Gallicum 3.5; 6.3. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

08-22-2003, 09:57 AM

Salve, 
 
The incident about gladiatorial training involved senators and equestrians training gladiators and was in republican times, not the principate (Divus Iulius 26). 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Wagnijo · 08-22-2003, 08:11 PM

Tiberius 
 
In your ansver you spend a lot of effort on describing 
the effectivenes of the Roman _army_. 
 
This is beside the point since we are looking into the 
Roman soldiers effectiveness in one on one combat against a germanic foe.. 
 
A couple of points 
 
On average size and bodystrength: 
 
You say that I underestimate roman military training. 
I dont. But there is no way that training can make up 
for malnutrition in childhood. 
 
All it can produce is a tough small bastard who - all things equal - is going to be at disadvantage against a big tough bastard in one on one combat. 
 
The Romans might have recruited some foreign auxilia but 
the backbone of the army was still the legions which 
were recruited among the poor citizens. 
 
I still think it is a safe assumption that your average germanic warrior was a tad bigger than your 
average legionary. Please note that I make no such assumption about the Roman and germanic societies in 
general. 
 
 
BTW You say that you dont recall hearing about germanic surgeons. 
 
Surgical instruments are not unusual in germanic weaponsacrifices. This strongly suggests that germanic 
units had some kind of medical assistence attached. 
 
home20.inet.tele.dk/wagnijo/Faerge.htm 
 
Surgical instruments from Illerup 2nd c. The pic will stay 
up for at least a couple of days. 
 
On miltary training vs a life devoted to combat: 
 
I have no problem with your Roman recruit being a tough 
and streetwise survivor. 
 
But he would come from an enviroment : 
 
Where you couldnt carry military weapons inside the city limits. 
 
Where civilians rarely if at all posessed military weapons. 
 
Where meat when you saw it was something you bought from the butchers or in ready made meals from a take away stand. 
 
Where killings mostly was done by the proper authorities, 
by entertainers or by criminals. 
 
Where war was something that struck far away places or was something you heard about but never actually 
felt as threath to your own existence. 
 
 
Your germanic young warrior otoh would have known 
his whole life that he was destined to become a warrior. 
 
He would have played combat related games and trained 
with weapons or replicas from the moment he could lift them. 
 
He would come from a life where the slaughter of 
animals was a vey ordinary occurance that he would have participated in. 
 
He would come from a tradition where feuds and revenge 
killings was an accepted way of settling conflicts. 
 
Wars with and raids on rivalling tribes or clans would be a very real and normal state of affairs to him. 
 
That you think some military training of your roman recruit is going to adequately prepare him to take on 
a germanic warrior on his own is simply beyond comprehension. 
 
This becomes even more incomprehensible when you concider that most of the roman training was geared to 
prepare the recruit to fight as part of a unit. 
 
Roman military training might very well sort the chaff from the wheat but I think the germanic actual combat experience would tend to have the same effect. 
 
The Roman military advantages was elsewhere; notably 
in their recognition that the fighting ability of an well trained and well diciplined unit was far higher than the sum of the individual soldiers fighting abilities. 
 
Then you have the better Roman logistics, command and control, dicipline, equipment , engineering capabilities etc. 
 
In short the germanic warrior was an individual whos vocation was warfare while the legionaire was a professional among other pros and their proffession was war. 
 
On Teutoburger Wald you write: 
 
"They were tired, hungry, constantly on the move, in foreign territory, and as you stated, lost the element of surprise. Not to mention the fact that Ammianus was likely bringing up more troops as the days stretched on. " 
 
Soldiers have always been tired, cold, lost and hungry. 
The enemy has always done his best to foil your plans. 
 
But please try to convince your commanding officer that this is an adequate excuse for loosing ;-) 
 
And I really dont think that the Romans at TW stayed surpriced for more than the initial face of this protracted 
battle. 
 
They lost anyway to an enemy who took this golden opportunity to take them out one by one in a very 
messy and confused situation. 
 
Then you write: 
 
 
"Are you aware that the Romans made several punitive raids into german territory after this fact, and recovered 2 of thier eagles? I wonder how many germans died during those raids...slaughtered by one of the most efficient fighting machines ever witnessed in human history? " 
 
Germanicus was taken on an extended tour of the germanic countryside by Arminius where his major accomplishment was the annihilation of several germanic villages belonging to random tribes. 
 
He never captured Arminius. 
 
Arminius OTOH almost did a second Varus on Caecina? when he caught him on muddy grounds. Only his co-commanders insitence on plundering the fallen Romans gave the remaining Romans time to escape the trap. 
 
 
Cheers 
Wagnijo

08-23-2003, 03:21 AM

No offense Wagnijo, but most of your arguments are unsubstantiated by evidence. If you wish to see mine, I think the success of the Roman army in general defines it, especially against european enemies. I don't feel your arguments of germanic youth experiences carry any substance either. Can you provide some accesible literature on studies made regarding the childhood and adolescent experiences of germanic tribal youths contributing to single combat proficiency? 
 
Quote:<hr>All it can produce is a tough small bastard who - all things equal - is going to be at disadvantage against a big tough bastard in one on one combat.<hr> 
 
Have you ever served in the army? Studied martial arts perhaps? Have you ever fought a larger, stronger opponent? Discipline and training will beat size and strength EVERY time. I can give you about 10 pages of examples, from ancient to modern, from personal to biographical. 
 
Quote:<hr>Surgical instruments are not unusual in germanic weaponsacrifices. This strongly suggests that germanic units had some kind of medical assistence attached.<hr> 
 
First of all, were they actually germanic, or were they Roman? Just because they were found in Germania, does not prove the existance of germanic surgeons. Secondly, without evidence to say otherwise, we can't assume the germanics had any type of medical knowledge beyond the basics. 
 
Quote:<hr>Where war was something that struck far away places or was something you heard about but never actually felt as threath to your own existence. 
<hr> 
 
Your other sentances which precluded this. I think you have underestimated Roman military training. You have little concept of disciplined fighting, in ranks or single combat. I understand this; it is difficult unless you have experienced it. If you have, you would see the above points are mout. Any SCA fighter even, can and IS out matched by an opponent that is half his size, if that person is better trained and disciplined. You are completely underestimating formal training. 
 
You say that conflicts were a distant thing...remember the punic wars? How about the various revolts and civil wars that plagued the empire? 
 
Many of your following points seem to be gleaned from something you've read. That's fine, but can you make these references available? Some of it seems to be infered, or theorized. This should be avoided, and in fact, any evidence on germanic social habits should be taken with a grain of salt, since there is hardly any surviving literature on the subject. 
 
Quote:<hr>Roman military training might very well sort the chaff from the wheat but I think the germanic actual combat experience would tend to have the same effect.<hr> 
 
Based on what? Over 450 years of Roman domination of Europe? 
 
Quote:<hr>This becomes even more incomprehensible when you concider that most of the roman training was geared to prepare the recruit to fight as part of a unit.<hr> 
 
On the contrary, the individual soldier must develop personal combat skills effective on the smallest scale in order to also be effective on the unit level. Battle lines break down, skirmishes and melees ensue. If the Roman army had not trained for this, they would not have enjoyed the success that only learning from their mistakes has granted them. Only a well rounded soldier, able to adapt to any combat situation would produce such an effective army. The soldier must be able to function on his own, should unit cohesion fail. Period. 
 
 
Quote:<hr>The Roman military advantages was elsewhere; notably 
in their recognition that the fighting ability of an well trained and well diciplined unit was far higher than the sum of the individual soldiers fighting abilities.<hr> 
 
Here's where you might be off a bit. Individual combat skills are part and parcel of fighting effectively in a unit. Think of it like those fancy Gillette Mach 3 razor blades. Together, they give you a closer shave. One razor by itself does the job, but 3....now you got something that does the same thing 3 times better. 
 
Quote:<hr>In short the germanic warrior was an individual whos vocation was warfare while the legionaire was a professional among other pros and their proffession was war.<hr> 
 
Who would win in a fist fight? Joe shmoe, who's been living on the streets all his life, in say, down town New York, or Lennox Lewis? I'll take Lewis. The difference I am trying to illustrate, is that formal training is leaps and bounds ahead of experience when it comes to mastering any kind of art, especially combat. 
 
Quote:<hr>Soldiers have always been tired, cold, lost and hungry. 
The enemy has always done his best to foil your plans.<hr> 
 
Whoah...hang on a second. 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. It's another thing, when you are totally lost, in a swamp, surrounded by people trying to kill you. It's another thing when you have a good idea that your chances of surviving are next to nil. And it's another thing when you are days and days from home. Sorry, but when morale goes, so does hope. Morale keeps a soldier in fighting condition. Without it, he's only about 60% combat effective. On this, I can get you references from WW 2 as well as ones from antiquity if you want. 
 
Quote:<hr>But please try to convince your commanding officer that this is an adequate excuse for loosing ;-)<hr> 
 
Tough to do when he's dead. 
 
Quote:<hr>They lost anyway to an enemy who took this golden opportunity to take them out one by one in a very 
messy and confused situation.<hr> 
 
I agree. I wouldn't use the TW as evidence of germanic superiority on one vs one combat. I'd say it's because of surprise, innitiative, fresh reserves of troops, home advantage, strategic advantage and complete knowlegde of that particular army, and it's route of advance. 
 
Quote:<hr>Germanicus was taken on an extended tour of the germanic countryside by Arminius where his major accomplishment was the annihilation of several germanic villages belonging to random tribes. 
 
He never captured Arminius. 
 
Arminius OTOH almost did a second Varus on Caecina? when he caught him on muddy grounds. Only his co-commanders insitence on plundering the fallen Romans gave the remaining Romans time to escape the trap.<hr> 
 
That's ok, they didn't get OJ either. 
 
I am not familiar with this though, first it was arminius that led Germanicus into Germania, but Germanicus was trying to capture him, meanwhile his legions almost fell to the germanics? 
 
In the final analysis, germanic combat skills in one on one situations cannot be attested. In fact, there are literary references of legates challenging tribal cheifs of gallic (and possibly germanic) origins, and defeating them in one on one combat. 
In order for a combat unit of any size to function cohesively and efficiently, each soldier must be proficient on all levels of combat that may be demanded of him. It's part of the flexibility and adaptability of the Roman army. They could only accomplish this, if they trained for it. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine." 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tiberiuslantaniusmagnus>tiberius lantanius magnus</A> at: 8/23/03 5:30 am

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

08-24-2003, 10:56 PM

Wagnijo, I didn't really read your response, sorry. I am ending this discussion. However, I will leave you with a paragraph from Tacitus: 
 
Upon any recess from war, they do not much attend the chase. Much more of their time they pass in indolence, resigned to sleep and repasts. All the most brave, all the most warlike, apply to nothing at all; but to their wives, to the ancient men, and to every the most impotent domestic, trust all the care of their house, and of their lands and possessions. They themselves loiter. Such is the amazing diversity of their nature, that in the same men is found so much delight in sloth, with so much enmity to tranquillity and repose. The communities are wont, of their own accord and man by man, to bestow upon their Princes a certain number of beasts, or a certain portion of grain; a contribution which passes indeed for a mark of reverence and honour, but serves also to supply their necessities. They chiefly rejoice in the gifts which come from the bordering countries, such as are sent not only by particulars but in the name of the State; curious horses, splendid armour, rich harness, with collars of silver and gold. Now too they have learnt, what we have taught them, to receive money. 
 
Taken from this site, on Germania by Tacitus: 
www.earth-history.com/Rom...manica.htm They don't sound very tough do they? 
 
And also on this thread, dating back to the legion vs the phalanx: 
 
Quote:<hr>On the other hand, the Romans relied on tactical flexibility and skilled swordsmanship.<hr> 
 
From an artical written by by khurram wadiwalla, M.A. (War Stud.) 
 
 
Far too often I've seen debate on this forum by one or two individuals intent on creating flammatory discussions by posing questions degrading either the Roman Army, or attempting to glorify her enemies. I am sure there are some forums out there that cater to Rome's enemies. Why not try there? Otherwise, opinion and perception becomes intermeshed with ego, creating an insurmountable barrier to these discussions. And I am quite sick of arguing with people's egos. 
 
Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine." 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tiberiuslantaniusmagnus>tiberius lantanius magnus</A> at: 8/25/03 1:03 am

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Roman Legionnaires in first century Judea?	MarcusNorwood	3	2,269	12-05-2012, 02:54 PM Last Post: Albertomv
	Caesarean Legionnaires without armor?	Severus	36	8,063	10-27-2006, 04:41 PM Last Post: Tarbicus