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?<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Surgical instruments are not unusual in germanic weaponsacrifices. This strongly suggests that germanic units had some kind of medical assistence attached.<hr><br>
<br>
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 <em>evidence</em> to say otherwise, we can't assume the germanics had any type of medical knowledge beyond the basics.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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.<br>
<hr><br>
<br>
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 <strong>completely</strong> underestimating formal training.<br>
<br>
You say that conflicts were a distant thing...remember the punic wars? How about the various revolts and civil wars that plagued the empire?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
Based on what? Over 450 years of Roman domination of Europe?<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
On the contrary, the individual soldier <em>must</em> 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 <strong>any</strong> combat situation would produce such an effective army. The soldier must be able to function on his own, should unit cohesion fail. Period.<br>
<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Roman military advantages was elsewhere; notably<br>
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><br>
<br>
Here's where you might be off a bit. Individual combat skills are <em>part and parcel</em> 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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Soldiers have always been tired, cold, lost and hungry.<br>
The enemy has always done his best to foil your plans.<hr><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>But please try to convince your commanding officer that this is an adequate excuse for loosing ;-)<hr><br>
<br>
Tough to do when he's dead. <br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>They lost anyway to an enemy who took this golden opportunity to take them out one by one in a very<br>
messy and confused situation.<hr><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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.<br>
<br>
He never captured Arminius.<br>
<br>
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><br>
<br>
That's ok, they didn't get OJ either.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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 <em>trained</em> for it. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine."<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tiberiuslantaniusmagnus>tiberius lantanius magnus</A> at: 8/23/03 5:30 am<br></i>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Surgical instruments are not unusual in germanic weaponsacrifices. This strongly suggests that germanic units had some kind of medical assistence attached.<hr><br>
<br>
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 <em>evidence</em> to say otherwise, we can't assume the germanics had any type of medical knowledge beyond the basics.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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.<br>
<hr><br>
<br>
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 <strong>completely</strong> underestimating formal training.<br>
<br>
You say that conflicts were a distant thing...remember the punic wars? How about the various revolts and civil wars that plagued the empire?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
Based on what? Over 450 years of Roman domination of Europe?<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
On the contrary, the individual soldier <em>must</em> 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 <strong>any</strong> combat situation would produce such an effective army. The soldier must be able to function on his own, should unit cohesion fail. Period.<br>
<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Roman military advantages was elsewhere; notably<br>
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><br>
<br>
Here's where you might be off a bit. Individual combat skills are <em>part and parcel</em> 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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Soldiers have always been tired, cold, lost and hungry.<br>
The enemy has always done his best to foil your plans.<hr><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>But please try to convince your commanding officer that this is an adequate excuse for loosing ;-)<hr><br>
<br>
Tough to do when he's dead. <br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>They lost anyway to an enemy who took this golden opportunity to take them out one by one in a very<br>
messy and confused situation.<hr><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><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.<br>
<br>
He never captured Arminius.<br>
<br>
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><br>
<br>
That's ok, they didn't get OJ either.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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 <em>trained</em> for it. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine."<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tiberiuslantaniusmagnus>tiberius lantanius magnus</A> at: 8/23/03 5:30 am<br></i>
