'Leaping' Attacks?

[Nathan Ross]

There's a fashion in cinema at the moment for every portrayal of ancient or medieval battles to feature men running wildly towards the enemy and then leaping into the air - often in slow motion. I'm sure you know the sort of thing I mean.

I'd assumed this was just the usual Hollywood nonsense. But then I read this passage from Vegetius (epitoma rei militaris II.23, on armatura drill):

"Let [soldiers] grow used to executing jumps and blows at the same time, rushing at the shield with a leap and crouching down again, now eagerly darting forward with a bound, now giving ground, jumping back."

Milner's 1993 translation has this footnote to the passage, quoting Servius's commentary on the Aeneid (11.284):

"For those who have written on the art of war say that it is the best type of combat when the soldier steps on the boss of his adversary and raises himself on the enemy shield and from this position wounds the opponent's back"

Earlier (I.11), Vegetius writes that Roman soldiers in training "backed off, came on, sprang, and aimed at the post with every method of attack and art of combat..."

Has anyone ever experimented with these gymnastic-sounding styles of fighting? These quotes do suggest that (late?) Roman combat was rather more agile and free-flowing than it's often presented. Unless all this leaping and springing about was only intended as exercise on the training field; or the whole thing is just the fantasy of an armchair tactician...  

[M. Val. Naso]

I don't really believe we can trust Vegetius on this. Ammianus, who actually participated in battles, wrote how soldiers fought like murmillo gladiators, not to get hurt, then counter when they see the chance. Ammianus compared this to a fort, which holds out against the siege and then the defenders spur out when they see the chance to break the opponents.

Murmillos, as far as we know, fought in an energy conserving manner, counterattacking only on openings and weak spots. This is in parallel with Ammianus' writings, and is perfectly suited for the spear and shield equipment of LR soldiers.

[Renatus]

Has anyone ever experimented with these gymnastic-sounding styles of fighting? These quotes do suggest that (late?) Roman combat was rather more agile and free-flowing than it's often presented. Unless all this leaping and springing about was only intended as exercise on the training field; or the whole thing is just the fantasy of an armchair tactician...

I don't really believe we can trust Vegetius on this. Ammianus, who actually participated in battles, wrote how soldiers fought like murmillo gladiators, not to get hurt, then counter when they see the chance. Ammianus compared this to a fort, which holds out against the siege and then the defenders spur out when they see the chance to break the opponents.

Vegetius drew his information from sources dating from the Republic to his own day and did not differentiate between them. It is, therefore, entirely possible that this style of fighting was employed at a time much earlier than that of Ammianus. Having said that, these actions are not necessarily incompatible with Ammianus' description of soldiers countering when they saw the chance or defenders of a town charging out when there was an opportunity to break the enemy. It is not impossible that soldiers were trained in all styles of fighting in order to meet any eventuality that they might be faced with, even if that was different to that normally employed. A soldier might find himself on rare occasions having to engage an opponent in single combat and, if so, would have to know how to do so.

[Bryan]

Could it be an error in translation? Someone quickly moving forward to attack or then moving backward to safety can be called "darting" "jumping" "lunging" etc. It just sounds like normal fighting.

Some studies of casualty rates of infantry of the line during battles state that they weren't high enough for constant shield to shield contact (From Sumner to Rome). According to Polybius' description of the independent nature of the Roman soldier and through Valerius Maximus' description of the training conducted by Romans as taught by gladiator instructors, it would appear the Romans did not fight in a shield wall, at least not always. Many have speculated that there was a bit of distance between each opposing line and that in order to threaten the enemy a soldier would have to cross the "no man's land" to reach their opponent using short range weapons like a sword.

Polybius and Caesar both mention that the Roman needed room to fight. This was probably the reason why. They weren't spearmen, they were swordsmen, and swordsmen need to be able to move freely. They could move forward quickly (lunge forward), make their attack with sword or shield, and then bound backward quickly (jump back) to the safety of their own line. If necessary, they could move to the sides too.

[Ioannes]

A good time for a soldier to literally jump into the air to attack would probably be during a charge. Think about it: all that momentum thrown into a sword strike on an enemy's shield would at least break said enemy's defense or possibly hurt his arm, maybe even break it.

[Bryan]

Why stab at a shield? Its a hard target, the harder the stab the more likely the point will bend over or break, or the sword itself will get lodged in the shield. Sword blows should be aimed at soft spots that can actually produce a wound.

Here is one of the few examples of a leaping sword attack I can think about, and its done with the clear intent of hitting a very specific part of body.

Troy Fight Scene

The nearest example is the Superman Punch used in modern mixed martial arts, exact same principle of footward and body mechanics (where the stunt coordinators for Troy probably came up with the move). I've played around with it and it can be done effectively with spear or sword and scutum, to stab at the opponents face or target their neck/upper back. Unexpected and very fast. But its a high risk/high reward move and can be very dangerous should the person telegraph the leap. The counter is simple, any forward attack while the person has both feet off ground would be sufficient to unbalance them.

Another type of a leaping attack that would work very well against a shield wall with a thureos style shield wouldn't even involve the use of sword or spear. Simply brace the shield tightly with the left elbow and shoulder, use the right hand to grip the right edge of the shield, run forward and jump, slam into your target to batter it down. A leaping shoulder check, aided by the shield. Not pretty, but I believe it would be very effective at creating a hole in an enemy line. The person doing will probably not be able to stay on their feet, so it would probably be suicidal, but follow on forces can exploit the hole. Maybe something battle frenzied Gauls would do.

[john m roberts]

The trick was learning how to leap in slow motion.

[Crispianus]

The trick was learning how to leap in slow motion.

Seriously choreographed for effect...

[Olaf]

So anybody who knows his Latin interested in helping out:
Ad palum quoque uel sudibus exerceri percommodum est, cum latera uel pedes aut caput petere punctim caesimque condiscant. Saltus quoque et ictus facere pariter adsuescant, insurgere tripudiantes in clipeum rursusque subsidere, nunc gestiendo prouolare cum saltu, nunc cedentes in terga resilire

I would also interpret the "Saltus quoque et ictus facere" not as a leap and strike but as a lunge and strike movement.
Though actually in 19th century bayonet fencing sources a leap forward and thrust is included in the footwork as well as the lunge.
But as the Romans would most probably not have a word describing a lunge they would describe it as a jump or leap. Especially if the rear foot is brought up to the front heel first, before lunging out with the front foot.

[Nathan Ross]

not as a leap and strike but as a lunge and strike movement.

Aha, thanks! I did consider that there might be a problem with the translation, and the 'leap' was perhaps not as airborne as the English word implies.

I also wondered whether Vegetius might have been misled into exaggerating - he had presumably never seen real fighting, and might have assumed that some relatively cautious movements described by his sources (stretching up to strike over the shield, crouching to stab from below it, dodging left/right and forward/back to probe the enemy's weak spots, etc) were intended as something more balletic...

[Crispianus]

Personally I think this has more to do with training and enabling your soldiers to be prepared with sudden movements, if your going to strike its best to strike swiftly, a sudden death blow could shock other potential opponents into a moments hesitation, which would be enough to take advantage off... if your prepared to strike again...... being able to maintain your footing and balance is part of that, since it enables you to advance swiftly into contact, strike and retreat from danger effectively if necesary...
Personally I wouldn't think jumping on a shield would be a good idea generally.. too telegraphed, particularly with an experienced enemy..., a shield is not a solid object, can be moved or can deflect your attack just like the man can move and then the boot would be on the other foot... but I wouldn't rule it out entirely....
The other thing you need to consider is fitness and endurance, train for it and conserve energy where you can, so you can make your attacks count...
Training and experience takes away the necesity to think, it becomes secound nature to strike when the opportunity presents itself...

Just my own thoughts on it.....

[Urselius]

There is a coin of Constantius II which shows a lively representation of a leaping fully-armed soldier, with shield, stabbing downwards with a spear at a cavalryman whose horse has fallen:

https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/con...pg.413053/

I have a better version of this coin, but no image. The details are clearer, the leaping soldier wears a muscle cuirass and helmet.

[M. Val. Naso]

Ah, the famous tit-shield!

[Nathan Ross]

a coin of Constantius II which shows a lively representation of a leaping fully-armed soldier

I particularly like the slogan on this one: FEL TEMP REPARATIO - 'Good Times are Back Again!' :-)

The guy certainly does seem to be leaping quite dramatically, and others in this series even more so:



I suppose we'd have to ask whether this was an accurate(ish) representation of the kind of thing Roman soldiers did in battle, or just a good way to squeeze both figures into the circular 'frame' of the coin?

[Urselius]

There are strange manoeuvrings recorded in military manuals quite recently, I think the directions for isolated infantrymen faced with lancers in the British army manuals of the 19th century were pretty odd. Jumping at a horseman might work, the horse would probably be startled and the act could make even a trained horse flinch, as it would trigger innate 'fear of large predator attack' reactions.