08-10-2003, 07:12 AM
<br>
That is an interesting thread. As usual, it began with one-on-one combat and ended Romans-vs-Germans. Nothing wrong with it. I would say it is inevitable .<br>
As for one-on-one combat, for me this discussion is rather ...hm... virtual, or imaginary.<br>
<br>
Romans didn't like 'duels'. They believed in formation and collective effort. When you have a comrade on your right and left it can hardly be called 'one-on-one', even in the heat of a messy battle. I suppose if there were only two legionaries they naturally formed some kind of formation, for instance, back-to-back.<br>
<br>
Every time when there was something slightly qualifying on-on-one combat, Romans were in disadvantage, taken by surprise:<br>
<br>
1. When Romans were building a fortifications around their camp. It is very difficult to force legionaries to do such a job fully armoured and armed. There were serious punishments for neglecting these things. But I wander if they worked.<br>
<br>
2. When Roman units were getting some food for their army in the neighborhood full of enemies. If you are busy in the field picking up harvest, you are not a match to a German (or a Celt) rushing out from some hiding place .<br>
<br>
For me personally there is no doubt that Romans were not worse (to say the least) then Germans or some other barbarians as swordsmen (in fencing) in any kind of combat. Till the second century AD (very roughly) they were the most agressive, bloodthirsty, furious and fearless warriors in the world.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
warrior11<br>
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
That is an interesting thread. As usual, it began with one-on-one combat and ended Romans-vs-Germans. Nothing wrong with it. I would say it is inevitable .<br>
As for one-on-one combat, for me this discussion is rather ...hm... virtual, or imaginary.<br>
<br>
Romans didn't like 'duels'. They believed in formation and collective effort. When you have a comrade on your right and left it can hardly be called 'one-on-one', even in the heat of a messy battle. I suppose if there were only two legionaries they naturally formed some kind of formation, for instance, back-to-back.<br>
<br>
Every time when there was something slightly qualifying on-on-one combat, Romans were in disadvantage, taken by surprise:<br>
<br>
1. When Romans were building a fortifications around their camp. It is very difficult to force legionaries to do such a job fully armoured and armed. There were serious punishments for neglecting these things. But I wander if they worked.<br>
<br>
2. When Roman units were getting some food for their army in the neighborhood full of enemies. If you are busy in the field picking up harvest, you are not a match to a German (or a Celt) rushing out from some hiding place .<br>
<br>
For me personally there is no doubt that Romans were not worse (to say the least) then Germans or some other barbarians as swordsmen (in fencing) in any kind of combat. Till the second century AD (very roughly) they were the most agressive, bloodthirsty, furious and fearless warriors in the world.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
warrior11<br>
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
