Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Legionnaires in one-on-one combat
#46
Wagnijo,<br>
<br>
<br>
As for me, I read your posts. As a matter of fact, I read them twice, when you have been accused and cursed by your opponent. I enjoyed your posts greately and didn't find anything prohibited in this forum. Very polite, I would say - respectfull words. Your only guilt (or blame) is that you think differently than your opponent.<br>
I, for instance, don't agree with you on MANY points, as anyone can see from my earlier posts. But it's OK .<br>
<br>
Don't feel hurt by rude words of your faultfinder. Speaking about Roman army in RAT - What's wrong with it?<br>
Germanic cultures (whatever you mean by this term) were a big composing element of the Roman army (not to mention their enemies). So, what you have discussed is very relevant.<br>
<br>
It was not your fault that your discussion turned into 'Romans vs Germans' battle. You just stood up for Germans humiliated by your interlocutor. You were the one who tried to follow the topic of this thread 'one-on-one' combat.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
warrior11<br>
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/> <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#47
Warrior11,<br>
<br>
Consider this an official warning. You are not a moderator on this forum, as such, the duty is not yours to decide who is rude and who isn't. It has also been the decision of the moderators to promote more scholarly discussion especially in this area. This debate is not conducive to that.<br>
<br>
Please refrain from posting your flammatory remarks, or you will be dealt with. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"Lay your hand, or thy tongue against the greatness of Rome, and feel my wrath." - Matt Lanteigne<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i></i>
Reply
#48
tiberius lantanius magnus,<br>
<br>
<br>
Sorry, I don't read your posts on principle.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
warrior11<br>
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
P.S. For me not reading posts by tiberius lantanius magnus is the only means to avoid endless hot discussion with him. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#49
Please see #2 on this [url=http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm6.showMessage?topicID=53.topic" target="top]thread[/url].<br>
<br>
Don't provoke fights bud, understand? <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"Lay your hand, or thy tongue against the greatness of Rome, and feel my wrath." - Matt Lanteigne<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i></i>
Reply
#50
Tiberius<br>
<br>
quote:<br>
"Wagnijo, I didn't really read your response"<br>
<br>
This certainly goes a long way to explain the oddity of your answer.<br>
<br>
quote:<br>
"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"<br>
<br>
If you had actually read my posts, you would have seen that I acknowledge the quality of both the Roman army<br>
and the Roman soldiers but argued for better individual fighting skills in the germanic warriors.<br>
<br>
If you find that this amounts to degrading Romans and<br>
glorifying germanics then I must say that you are touchy beyond reason.<br>
<br>
That you have this image of germanic warriors as topless,<br>
mindless, unskilled madmen who would go into battle<br>
without thinking about the risk of getting wounded and<br>
other possible consequences is fine with me.<br>
<br>
I might however be inclined to challenge it when you decide to air it in a supposedly scholary discussion.<br>
<br>
Perhaps you ought to ponder how your image of Romes germanic foes reflects back on the Roman army<br>
<br>
quote:<br>
"I am sure there are some forums out there that cater to Rome's enemies. Why not try there?"<br>
<br>
There are all kinds of fora out there including some good germanic ones but I doubt you will find anyone catering<br>
for "Romes enemies"<br>
<br>
Most people find it extremely silly to categorize living people in relation to an 2000 years old conflict and I agree.<br>
<br>
quote:<br>
"And I am quite sick of arguing with people's egos. "<br>
<br>
Right now you are the only one displaying symptoms of a sore ego. So I am prepared to let our discussion rest<br>
<br>
Cheers anyway<br>
Wagnijo<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#51
I think you've got a lot to learn chief, primarily in the bigger picture regarding any type of discussion or research. None of my points that I brought up were taken into consideration, nor acknowledged by yourself.<br>
<br>
And I am quite aware of your follow up post, it was the same repetitive, circular agruments which perpetuate discussions that serve no real purpose. Something we have tried to eliminate. Ask warrior11. He's the real pro at that. Since you are new here, you haven't bore witness to such matters.<br>
<br>
My opinion of germanic warriors is not as you've said it is. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. As for your statment concering my correlation between contemporary times and antiquity, some things change, others don't. It takes a perceptive person to figure out what is relevant and what isn't.<br>
<br>
None of your evidence particularily pertained to specific references of one on one, recorded battles with Roman soldiers anyway. You quoted Tacitus, and referred to the TW, but none of it had anything to do with this. You simply took that evidence, and inferred a superior skill in one on one battle. This isn't proving your point. It's stretching the evidence to fit your theory. I gave you other possibilities, especially concerning the TW, as to why the Romans lost. None were taken into consideration, though they are as equally valid as your own points.<br>
<br>
As you can see, this is indeed pointless. You stick with your story, I'll stick to mine. Like I said, I'd rather not debate opinions.<br>
<br>
I don't mean to come across like this, but this has been an issue here in the past. Too much has been theorized, or speculated based on evidence that has been open to interpretation by human minds.<br>
<br>
I apologize, for real, if I seemed rude. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"Lay your hand, or thy tongue against the greatness of Rome, and feel my wrath." - Matt Lanteigne<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i></i>
Reply
#52
OK... once again... posters getting hot under the collar again here.<br>
<br>
Everyone play nice. "Nice" means respecting others' opinions, and politely agreeing to disagree.<br>
<br>
If you can't be polite, don't post, please. This is not directed at anyone specifically, but "if the shoe fits, wear it."<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>
Cheers,
Jenny
Founder, Roman Army Talk and RomanArmy.com

We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply
#53
Jenny ,<br>
<br>
Just when I was going to wade in with the Celtic point of view !!<br>
<br>
They taught the Romans how to deal with the Phalanx, the manipular formation, gave them mail, the hispaniesis, a long line of good helmets, the pilum, the torque, steam power ( i dont know why they didn't take to that ? ), and chocolate buttons !<br>
<br>
Tey also taught the Germans to fight ( something they regretted later on !!), how to do buns in their hair & to eat pig !!<br>
<br>
Conal <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#54
Quote:</em></strong><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. <hr><br>
<br>
Tiberius,<br>
Slightly besides the point, but put like this, I'd have to disagree.<br>
A boxer has been trained to abide by certain rules and therefore would not expect something like a hit below the belt.<br>
A streetfighter would have no problem with fighting dirty if it would do the trick <p>Greetings<br>
<br>
Rob Wolters</p><i></i>
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#55
<br>
Saluete,<br>
<br>
About the "one-on-one combat" I cannot resist (I'm an incurable romantic), so, from Titus Livius' "History of Rome" book VII to the RAT newcomers a famous episode:<br>
<br>
<strong>... At all events it was in this year that the Gauls formed their camp by the Salarian road, three miles from the City at the bridge across the Anio. In face of this sudden and alarming inroad the Dictator proclaimed a suspension of all business, and made every man who was liable to serve take the military oath. He marched out of the City with an immense army and fixed his camp on this side the Anio. Each side had left the bridge between them intact, as its destruction might have been thought due to fears of an attack. There were frequent skirmishes for the possession of the bridge; as these were indecisive, the question was left unsettled. A Gaul of extraordinary stature strode forward on to the unoccupied bridge, and shouting as loudly as he could, cried: "Let the bravest man that Rome possesses come out and fight me, that we two may decide which people is the superior in war."<br>
<br>
[7.1 A long silence followed. The best and bravest of the Romans made no sign; they felt ashamed of appearing to decline the challenge, and yet they were reluctant to expose themselves to such terrible danger. Thereupon T. Manlius, the youth who had protected his father from the persecution of the tribune, left his post and went to the Dictator. "Without your orders, General," he said, "I will never leave my post to fight, no, not even if I saw that victory was certain; but if you give me permission I want to show that monster as he stalks so proudly in front of their lines that I am a scion of that family which hurled the troop of Gauls from the Tarpeian rock." Then the Dictator: "Success to your courage, T. Manlius, and to your affection for your father and your fatherland! Go, and with the help of the gods show that the name of Rome is invincible." Then his comrades fastened on his armour; he took an infantry shield and a <span style="text-decoration:underline">Spanish sword</span> as better adapted for close fighting; thus armed and equipped they led him forward against the Gaul, who was exulting in his brute strength, and even - the ancients thought this worth recording - putting his tongue out in derision. They retired to their posts and the two armed champions were left alone in the midst, more after the manner of a scene on the stage than under the conditions of serious war, and to those who judged by appearances, by no means equally matched. The one was a creature of enormous bulk, resplendent in a many-coloured coat and wearing painted and gilded armour; the other a man of average height, and his arms, useful rather than ornamental, gave him quite an ordinary appearance. There was no singing of war-songs, no prancing about, no silly brandishing of weapons. With a breast full of courage and silent wrath Manlius reserved all his ferocity for the actual moment of conflict. When they had taken their stand between the two armies, while so many hearts around them were in suspense between hope and fear, the Gaul, like a great overhanging mass, held out his shield on his left arm to meet his adversary's blows and aimed a tremendous cut downwards with his sword. The Roman evaded the blow, and pushing aside the bottom of the Gaul's shield with his own, he slipped under it close up to the Gaul, too near for him to get at him with his sword. Then turning the point of his blade upwards, he gave two rapid thrusts in succession and stabbed the Gaul in the belly and the groin, laying his enemy prostrate over a large extent of ground. He left the body of his fallen foe undespoiled with the exception of his chain, which though smeared with blood he placed round his own neck. Astonishment and fear kept the Gauls motionless; the Romans ran eagerly forward from their lines to meet their warrior, and amidst cheers and congratulations they conducted him to the Dictator. In the doggerel verses which they extemporised in his honour they called him Torquatus ("adorned with a chain&quot , and this soubriquet became for his posterity a proud family name. The Dictator gave him a golden crown, and before the whole army alluded to his victory in terms of the highest praise.<br>
<br>
[7.11]Strange to relate, that single combat had such a far-reaching influence upon the whole war that the Gauls hastily abandoned their camp and moved off into the neighbourhood of Tibur. They formed an alliance offensive and defensive with that city, and the Tiburtines supplied them generously with provisions. After receiving this assistance they passed on into Campania ...</strong><br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#56
<br>
Don't care of the emoticons, are a mistake... <p></p><i></i>
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#57
<br>
<br>
Wow, that's an excellent story. Up to the point.<br>
<br>
A thankfull reader,<br>
warrior11<br>
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#58
To all those who have posted before:<br>
It seems a minor point after slogging through all the heated debate, but to the assertion that Germanicus never captured Hermann der Cherusker (Arminius); wasn't the architect of victory at the Teutobergerwald beaten by Germanicus, and wounded in battle, in 16, offered up by his own to Tiberius in 19 (offer rejected) and then assassinated by his own tribal rivals? let me check my sources and get back to you. And my two sesterces: professional warriors always win (unless stabbed in the back by non-opponents). Unlike rule governed boxing, soldiers train for sneaky moves. The whole premise of this discussion seems to miss a key point. One-on-one combat was the very basis of gladiatorial combat. Unequal, yet differently armed opponents were the name of the game. The answers lie in the arena, not on the battlefield, but Livy's tale of Toquatus says it all.<br>
<br>
Wade Heaton<br>
Lucius Cornelius Libo<br>
[email protected] <br>
www.togaman.com <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=togaman>Togaman</A> at: 9/6/03 7:34 pm<br></i>
Reply
#59
Salve all<br>
<br>
One thing people don't seem to be emphasising here the advantages of a strong economic base and sophisticated social infrastructure to support a military effort. If you are a large empire with many resources (including human) you can afford to support a largely unproductive military caste. This might be a professional army such as with Rome or Assyria, or a well trained social elite such Samurai or Knights. Rome certainly had the means to train, supply and maintain such a force. The question is did the European tribes that they were fighting? How many of the warriors facing a Roman legion could afford to spend three hours per day training with double-weight weapons? Not many I would think. And did they have to wealth to equip their fighters to the same standard?<br>
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp<br>
While there does seem to be limited evidence for modest economic prosperity in the barbarian lands, it is highly unlikely that your average Germanic tribesman would be able to spend this amount of his time away from producing food, hunting, building or repairing his home, making tools, clearing forests etc. that would make up most of his waking life. Research into this style of life at Butser Farm has shown just how much hard work was necessary to maintain even the basic requirements of life. I agree that there is only limited evidence about the agricultural capabilities of the northern peoples, but if you consider what is known about the same area in the middle ages when farming techniques were much more advanced, the people living then were constantly fighting a battle against famine. They simply wouldn't have time to learn how to fight to the same standard as full time professionals. This is in stark contrast to the romanticised view of the warrior culture. The bitter reality is the 'warriors' were either peasants, willing or otherwise, with only a small elite actually effectively trained and armed. Without training and equipment, even the most enthusiastic and ferocious warrior will be slaughtered by a professional. That is why professionals win! Look at just how unsuccessful peasant revolts were in the middle ages. These were the same stock as the warriors of classical-era Germany, and they almost always lost. Why? Because the professional warrior castes of trained knights and their retainers and mercenaries were better fighters. Many of these professionals did not fight in an ordered fashion as the Roman Legions, but they won because their training and equipment made them better individual fighters.<br>
<br>
As for malnutrition, there is no more evidence for this in Roman urban populations that in Germanic tribes. In fact, the most likely nutritional based illness in a more advanced society is likely to be tooth decay as honey becomes more available! One of the main reasons for civilizations growing is to improve the general quality and quantity of the food supply. Rome had a variety of systems to ensure that their citizens were fed; the corn dole, patronage, public festivals and of course anything else they bought. Also having the resources of a large empire to draw from, they would be able to mitigate the effects of famine in any one given area. Did the German tribesmen have this advantage?<br>
<br>
Points raised about the sheltered nature of city life: where would you prefer to live, in an isolated village surrounded by your friends and relatives, or in a crowded city slum with strangers, thieves and murderers around you? In fact, you would be more likely to get into fights in a city! Also dead bodies were a constant sight in ancient cities, not just in the arena, but there is substantial literary evidence about dead slaves being left on the streets for days, rotting away quietly nicely. Have you ever had an Italian girl-friend? Believe me, they know about grudges and feuds (from a past relationship I might add!), and she came from a very highly respected family in Milan, the cultural capital of Italy! What makes you think Romans were any different? This was a society where the law allowed you to kill an adulterer on the spot, and where killing in self-defense was perfectly admissible. And the lawless elements of Roman life (possibly a substantial element of the city) did carry and use weapons, there are references to anything from improvised clubs (Seutonius), knives (Tacitus) and swords, though these would not have been carried openly on most occasions. Certainly, carrying these weapons in public was a crime, but since when has this ever stopped people from doing just that?<br>
<br>
On those occasions when these tribes won, it seems to be a basis on one or more of the following: better German leadership, overwhelming numbers, and incompetent Roman leadership. The above three points almost seem to act like the fire-triangle of fuel, heat and oxygen. Take any one of the three away, the fire will go out. While this last point will not always hold out as well with human factors, I think it is a valid generalisation on the basis of what evidence we have on Romano-Germanic conflict. Also, it is very easy to focus on one spectacular defeat and forget all the other victories. So Scots are very keen to go on about Bannockburn, but are surprisingly reticent about Solway Moss, Flodden, Preston, Pinkie etc! Similarly the British are very good at Rorke's Drift, but conveniently forget to mention or underplay Isandhl'wana. For Rome to have such success in keeping out the German tribes from the Empire there must have been something to the quality of the Roman soldiers opposed to the tribesmen, otherwise Arminius would have been the one to sack Rome!<br>
<br>
<br>
As a summary:<br>
<br>
1.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Germanic tribesmen did not have the time or resources to spare from basic day-to-day life to train. The Romans did.<br>
2.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The German economy was not large or organized enough to raise and maintain a professional body of soldiers to match that of Rome.<br>
3.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp They were incapable of equipping the majority of their ‘warriors’ to the same standard as Rome.<br>
4.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Most of the arguments about Roman vs. German seem to be based on one exceptional battle. The evidence from the rest seems to indicate that the Romans were better. The rest is pure supposition. Certainly the Romans had problems, but they found ways around them, this would include individual combat.<br>
<br>
As such the evidence, such as it is, would seem to support the Roman soldier being at least the equal of his enemies. If he wasn’t, the Germans would not have been as comprehensively defeated on so many occasions as they were. As for the assumption that Romans were not good one-to-one fighters, the Romans realized this a long time before they went near Germany, which is why they trained their men in techniques derived from the ultimate one-on-one fighters, the Gladiators!<br>
<br>
<br>
I have tried my best to present an objective argument, and avoid making too may unsupported assumptions. Let’s keep this professional as possible and try to avoid snap-judgments. If someone wants to prove me wrong, please use evidence, not irate gut feelings. And please keep it polite, valid criticism is a process of learning, not a personal insult.<br>
<br>
Vale<br>
<br>
Celer.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#60
Salve Marcus Antonius Celer,<br>
<br>
I enjoyed reading your post . It is indeed an objective argument.<br>
<br>
There are a lot of points where I wholeheartedly agree with you . For instance – advantages of a strong economic base, training and equipment, conditions of city life in Roman state, comparison of German and Roman nutrition and, of course, I am with you in considering Roman soldier being at least the equal of his enemies.<br>
<br>
But I would like to tell you my views on some other matters you touched. I am sorry if my opinions won’t coincide with yours or someone else’s. But I promise that I will do my best to try to avoid snap-judgments, to keep it polite. One thing’s for sure, even if I have gut feelings, they are not “irateâ€ÂÂ
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Legionnaires in first century Judea? MarcusNorwood 3 2,116 12-05-2012, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Albertomv
  Caesarean Legionnaires without armor? Severus 36 8,025 10-27-2006, 04:41 PM
Last Post: Tarbicus

Forum Jump: