Vegetius' passage on "The Arms of the Ancients"

[Nathan Ross]

you have to look at various sections in Vegetius to see where he was coming from. In this case you need to read these two sections in Book 1-

'...the right foot should be advanced, so that the body may present less aim to the enemy, and the right arm be nearer and in a more advantageous position for striking...'

'...the body is covered while a thrust is given...'

These two quotes appear contradictory. The Milner version I gave of the first is clearer, I think ("to draw the flank away from the enemy lest they be wounded, and to have the right closer so it can land a blow.")

It seems to be the experience of reenactors that, in the 'classic' stance with the left foot forward, the body is almost entirely covered by the shield - this is as V describes in the second quote.

So the first quote still seems odd. V is perhaps drawing from a different source, or has unintentionally reversed the correct position.

[Dan Howard]

The left foot is forward while leading with the shield. When using the sword you step forward with the right leg. After the attack, depending on whether it was successful or not, you either step forward or back so that the shield is in the correct position and the left leg is forward again.

[Alanus]

Thank you, Adrian

...for pointing out that when you lunge, whether you are a Roman or not, you do so with the right foot forward. If you thrust a sword while bringing your left foot forward, you lose 50% of your power of momentum.

Also, thank you for hinting that the Goths were Sarmatized, as I had mentioned earlier. The Greutungi lived between Sarmatians and Alans for at least 8 generations, and No Man is An Island. If the Greutungi lived in some kind of ethnic void, then why were Alatheus (a Greutungus) and Safrax (an Alan) given the charge of protecting and raising Videric, the "boy king," after his father died? Why would Alatheus and Safrax be called the "Two Duces?" Some Huns were in the mix, because the Two Duces led the "Triple Peoples"... the third people being Huns. At Adrianople, this group was mentioned as being a contingent of all three-- Greutungi, Alans, and Huns.

And last, we are now seeing a lot of Turkocentric references designed to change historical perspectives. The online info-center www.TurkicWorld has managed to turn the Saka and Massagetae into Turkic peoples nine hundred years before the first Turks appeared in the historical continuum. This website lists virtually every Indo-Iranian nomen and placename as a word of Turkic origin. This sort of ethno-bias isn't doing any student of history a favor. I will continue to believe that the nomen "Attila" had a Gothic origin until someone can prove inextricably that it was Turkic or Egyptian or South African.

[Nathan Ross]

when you lunge, whether you are a Roman or not, you do so with the right foot forward.

When using the sword you step forward with the right leg. After the attack... you either step forward or back so that the shield is in the correct position and the left leg is forward again.

Sure, an occasional lunge would involve reaching forward from the right. But Vegetius is not describing an occasional movement, or even a back and forth movement, but a basic fighting posture. In order to keep the shield in front and fight from behind it, whether stabbing or slashing, the soldier would have to keep his left (shield) side advanced. Continually swinging the body out from behind the shield to lunge or strike would not keep the body protected, as V himself describes.

I've had a quick look through some images of Romans in combat, both ancient and modern reconstructions, and all of them - from Mainz to Adamklissi to the Ludovisi Sarcophagus and Arch of Constantine, and both early and late reenactments - show the left foot advanced. Some even show a greave on the left leg (the opposite to what V claims).

It may be that there was an alternative, perhaps more 'open' and aggressive, style of fighting used at some point or in some situations, but I still think it far more likely that V has just reversed the standard position.

[Dan Howard]

The greave needs to be on the left leg because that is forward when the shield is in position.

[Nathan Ross]

The greave needs to be on  the left leg because that is forward when the shield is in position.

Exactly. Vegetius (I.20) claims that the greave was worn on the right leg, which is what prompted the original question earlier in this thread. The section that contains this note is apparently describing the Republican army, which (I think) suggests that V has switched left and right.

[M. Val. Naso]

Stepping with the right still exposes your right side. Funny how V scorns the slash on this basis, since - even if you lead with the shield - you will be exposed. This does not seem as a practical movement. And if you need to move your shield freely, w/o jamming it against your left shoulder and knee, you're gonna get tired easily, your arm will experience severe fatigue after heavy swining and lunging around.

I'll try this at home or in Aquincum with my group, but it still goes against every bit of logic and experience we have.

[Dan Howard]

Stepping with your right DOES expose you. Which is why you lead with your shield - hitting the opponent with the boss or the edge. You don't use the sword until the opponent is already unbalanced. This is the only time that Roman armour is needed. For the rest of the time the shield covers the body.