Legionnaires in one-on-one combat

[Gashford]

Hello folks<br>
<br>
Not wanting to steal the thread I will just leave this here for people to read, it is one of the most insightful readings I have come across on the subject of the ubiqutious samurai vs ......<br>
<br>
www.thehaca.com/essays/katanavs.htm<br>
<br>
Also I am sure, but can't find a reading somewhere of a samurai being beaten by a then modern fencer ... in fact western martial arts have had a very strong influence on eastern martial arts, probably more so than many of us realise.<br>
<br>
All the best <p>Graham Ashford
<hr />
[url=http://www.ludus.org.uk" target="_new]Ludus Gladiatorius[/url]<br>
[url=http://pub156.ezboard.com/bromancombatsports" target="_new]Roman Combat Sports Forum[/url]<br>
[url=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk" target="_new]Roman Army Talk Forum[/url]<br>
[url=http://pub27.ezboard.com/bromancivtalk" target="_new]Roman Civilian Talk Forum[/url]<br>
</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gashford>gashford</A> at: 9/15/03 1:18 pm<br></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

<br>
<br>
About it, I invite all to not consider "martial arts" only the japanese-chinese-korean-thai, etc. ones. Let's consider ANY form of professional (or not) soldiers training and techniques in all the periods, like "martial art".<br>
<br>
A well trained legionary soldier vs. a samurai... Mmmmh, you believe that the legionary should have been "sliced" so easily?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius <p></p><i></i>

[rekirts]

That was a most interesting essay, gashford. As the writer says:<br>
<br>
"...what it eventually gets down to is not the weapon or even the art, but the individual (their conditioning and attitude) and the circumstances. Bottom line, it's about personal skill."<br>
<br>
What that means is that if you have an example where a Roman beat a Gaul or vice versa, it doesn't really prove anything because you don't know that it was the best trained, most naturally skillful Roman against the best-trained most naturally skillful Gaul. So many factors come in to play that might be different another time and result in a different outcome.<br>
<br>
(Just me fence-sitting as usual. )<br>
<br>
Wendy<br>
<br>
Wendy<br>
<br>
<p>"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</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

.....what is an average Zulu anyway? A youngster in his first campaign and still carrying a white shield? Or one from the older regimetns??<br>
<br>
Having just watched "Zulu" (Rorkes Drift, starring Michael Cain) where the grizzled old English Sergeant-Major does a ovely bayonet drill to the severe discomfort of several Zulu warriors doesn't cloud my judgement tho - no, not at all!!<br>
<br>
IIRC there were 2 legions in Britain were there not - and Hadrians wall is what - 60-80 miles long?<br>
<br>
How does that denisty compare with the Rhine frontier?? <p></p><i></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>So many factors come in to play that might be different another time and result in a different outcome.<hr><br>
<br>
That's the truth. What counts more to win or lose? The size or the combat attitude? The sword blade quality or the training? The cuirass or the helmet protection? The strenght or the resistance? The "don't care of death" attitude or the prudential approach. The pure aggressiveness or the study of the opponents. A headache or emorroids? Etc., etc., etc,.<br>
<br>
Anyway this is a roman Army forum, and of course we tend to glorify the roman soldiers..., sorry... But..., just a moment..., we are right!<br>
<br>
Eh, eh, eeeeh,<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius<br>
<br>
<em>“At nostris militibus cunctantibus maxime propter altitudinem maris, qui decimae legionis aquilam ferebat, obtestatus deos ut ea res legioni feliciter eveniret, 'desilite' inquit 'commilitones, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prodere; ego certe meum rei publicae atque imperatori officium praestitero.' hoc cum voce magna dixisset, se ex navi proiecit atque in hostes aquilam ferre coepit tum nostri cohortati inter se, ne tantum dedecus admitteretur, universi ex navi desiluerunt. hos item ex proximis navibus cum conspexissent, subsecuti hostibus adpropinquaverunt.â€ÂÂ

[Anonymous]

You may want to research the Exploratio.<br>
The best and most comprehensive referance<br>
I have located is:<br>
Exploratio, by N.J.E Austin and N.B. Rankov<br>
Published by Routledge, © 1995.<br>
Several of their mission profiles fall within the realm of "Special Warfare" today.<br>
Semper Fidelis,<br>
Red <p>Red Millis, GySgt USMC (ret)</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Ahoy! Sorry for going off topic, please excuse!<br>
Could I get you to please contact me off line in regards to your statement of the Late WWII Japanese soldier?<br>
(IRT Korean/ Mongol nationalities?)<br>
As a VERY SERIOUS student of the USMC I am interested is seeing documentation which proves this statement.<br>
As far as all my referances indicate, (several Primary Sources of Japanese origin), while there were "Labor" battalions assigned in areas that were invaded by the US forces, even as late as 1945, the Japanese Army and Navy front line troops were Japanese. There were times when Labor Battalion troops did fight, however they were not major components of any assault or defense that I have seen documented. Also, the Japanese high command would NOT have placed these types of troops in the position of defending any of the targeted islands, Exceptions in exceptional circumstances may have occured as they did for the USA, see civilian construction crews at Wake Island, which is why I would like to see the source/referance). But even in those cases they were placed under the supervision and command of active untis and most certainly not trusted or expected to fight w/ the same skill or tenacity of standard front line troops. By the time US forces hit those islands, exception - Okinawa, garrisons were rarely comprised of anything other than the Best the Emperor could send.<br>
Semper Fidelis <p>Red Millis, GySgt USMC (ret)</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

sorry i havent had a chance to read this entire threat yet, and it may have already been mentioned....but i have read about gladiators fighting in the army....they would have been especially trained for one on one combat <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Forgive me if I repeat what someone else has said, I haven't had time to read all the posts.<br>
Like most of you I've heard this debate for quite awhile: the disciplined professional Roman soldier vs. the wild barbarian warrior, and I think its important to remember that most of Rome's great conquests were not carried out by the professional army of Augustus and his successors. The army of the principate was for the most part a gendarmarie, that often had trouble dealing with large rebel armies even when multiple Legions were sent to put them down: Britain, Judaea, Germania. In most cases the great Roman victories of the empire, and even during the later Republic, were a result of the Roman army's ability to move rapidly an gain tactical advantage over their enemies by using key terrain: Mons Grapius comes to mind, as does Marius's victory over the Ambrones. This being said, I think I might be argued that the Army of the Republic was successful because in fact Romans were more fearless and selfless than their opponents. Think Livy: Horatius at the bridge, Mucius...Romans were fed the ideals of sacrifice for the state from the day they were born, whereas many of the tribal societies they faced had a more familial system of loyalty(see Tacitus). As we know, during the Principate, the amount of Italians serving Legions had declined significant by Hadrian's day, and hence few legionaries would have had the selfless service ideal instilled in them. Here is where Roman discipline and tactics would have made the most difference, but as we know, it often did not. When faced with united enemies (this is key Caesar won Gaul by dividing the tribes) Roman legions and auxiliaries were often defeated spectacularly. Only by sheer numbers or tactical brilliance were the Romans able to keep their empire together, and its is no surprise that the expansion of the Empire ended almost a soon as its soldiers ceased to "Roman" either in spirit or name. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Dear RufusCaius<br>
you wrote<br>
"When faced with united enemies (this is key Caesar won Gaul by dividing the tribes) Roman legions and auxiliaries were often defeated spectacularly. Only by sheer numbers or tactical brilliance were the Romans able to keep their empire together, and its is no surprise that the expansion of the Empire ended almost a soon as its soldiers ceased to "Roman" either in spirit or name."<br>
<br>
The only words I agree on are "tactical brilliance". In the rest you over emphasize what was rarely the norm. More often than not romans were NOT in superior numbers and even when united the tribal enemies were beaten none the less. If you isolate and characterize (define) those cases the romans lost as those in which the enemy were united you get into a dangerously circular argument.<br>
<br>
Regards roman spirit and your implicit reference to late empire I still don't agree but have no time to discuss it now.<br>
<br>
bye <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 3/30/04 12:11 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Let me clear up some things. Firstly, when I said sheer numbers I was referring not to the actual battles themselves but to the theaters of operations in which the Romans operated. You are quite right to point out that the Romans were quite often outnumbered on the battlefield during both the Republic and Empire. This is not my point, such victories I would chalk up to "tactical brilliance", as I said before. What I meant by sheer numbers was that operationally the Romans were able to continue to throw forces into a particular theater/region even after suffering major tactical defeats. The Jurguthine war, Punic Wars, Judaea, Gaul, Tacfarnias,Macedonian Wars etc. That's not to say that many Roman victories weren't a result of superior disclipine, morale, tactics on the battlefield, I have already stated, this was the case. My point is the Romans could sustain many more tactical defeats than their foes. Take Boudicca's revolt, Ambrones invasion , the Gallic uprising in 52BCor the Judaen rebellion of 66 AD and many others. If these cases one or two major defeats at the hands of the Romans were enough to doom their causes, while the Romans were able to suffer even heavy losses throughout the conflicts and still emerge the victor. Do not think I am taking anything away from the Roman Army tactically, but logistics, mobility, adaptability, unity of command and strategic mass were the major keys to Roman success as the Empire grew and less and less soldiers in the ranks were so fanatical about fighting for Rome. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 3/30/04 5:51 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

I think this argument is in the realm of "what would win: star destroyer or the enterprise?"<br>
<br>
In the end it comes down to the person, without that there are waaaaay too many variables to consider. I mean what's an average roman soldier? 5 year? 10 year? We talking early/middle/late republic? Early/middle/late empire? Won't even get into what's an average "barbarian".<br>
<br>
Silly really.<br>
Cheers,<br>
Leon <p></p><i></i>