Legionnaires in one-on-one combat

[Goffredo]

I agree that the germanic physical superiority has been exagerated by many for many reasons ranging from Hitler-like propaganda to build feelings of racial superiority, to Roman-like propaganda that admires the enemy to better underline the ability in defeating them.<br>
<br>
But there might be a seed of truth deep down below all this propaganda crap.<br>
<br>
But I think that only those in a successful war band might have been exceptional good fighters and in good health. Outdoor living is healthy but only when nature is generous! This might have been true many times but most often it wasn't. Un-predictable famines and consequential diseases due to long or exceptional winters could easily make things very unhealthy: why else would the "barbarians" have been so frequently on the move. They risked starving or were being pushed aside by others that started moving far away for similar reasons.<br>
<br>
The very existence of war-bands where young and able men were encouraged to leave home for adventure evolved because HOME could not sustain them. I believe there is some truth to some war-band individuals being remarkable fellows, but I would also not be certain the average germanic was Conan-like. And obviously not all war-bands were successful. And maybe they really weren't all that battle effective. The moment a leader lost face the younger followers, always encouraged to make a career for themselves by the very life style they lived, could easily leave him on the spot. The leader led simply because he was charismatic and capable to make his warriors live better off with successful rampages. Else he was no leader. I suspect the honor code rhethoric that many ascribe to the warrior myths arose much later and for obvious reaons: to re-program restless young warriors, that would rather run off, into reliable proto-soldiers that stick to long-term commitments in self-sacrifice such as to defend a permanent King or long term politician. Just guessing.<br>
<br>
The roman army was professional: the individual signed up for a considerable length of his lifetime and corps-spirit was paramount, else how do get perfect strangers to stick their necks out for one-another. The length of service and the expected interchanability of the legionaries made their physical health (nutrition, hygene, pyscology) extremely important. The logistics and organization of the army had to ensure the optimal conditions.<br>
<br>
Keeping these boundary condtions in mind I can easily conclude that on average the roman soldier was in better shape than his germanic counterpart. Of course there were fluctuations (exceptional warriors, lazy romans). I think the roman soldier was more dangerous and had a greater staying power. He was more battle effective and would come out on top also in a one-on-one duel. On average!<br>
<br>
"The average american family eats 2.5 chickens a week".<br>
<br>
p.s. Studying burial grounds is interesting and indeed one finds nice skeltons. But then is a warrior skelton really representative of the general health of the germanic warrior? I am only pretending to be humorous.<br>
It really is an issue of bias! How do I know the finds in a tomb represent the vast population of warriors and not just some small class that could afford/deserve a burial? Their success as individuals would then explain the quality of their bones (better health).<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 8/5/03 1:35 pm<br></i>