LegateLivius

Found this thread earlier bak int he weekends. https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/1bed6er/why_do_romance_languages_have_so_strong/ Be sure to read it because the OP is very necessary as context to this new question. So while the correlation to Slavic languages and Greek is quite murky unlike Romance languages and the Western Roman Empire in tandem with Catholicism....... Am I alone in seeing that so much of modern Eastern Orthodoxy today is in the former Eastern half of the Roman Empire and the later Byzantine empire? Is it mere coincidence or is there actually a direct connection? I mean even countries that were never Eastern Orthodox during the time of the Roman Empire often had strong trading connections with the Eastern half as seen with Russia's history. So how valid is this observation of mine?

I know its borderline going off topic territory but I have to ask why? As I read into Chinese religions, I am amazed at the amount of witch hunting various Chinese dynasties did. Fushigi Yugi actually downplays how much Qin. Tang. and other reigning monarchs went out to hunt people who worshiped what was deemed as evil spirits in Taoism, Confucianism, and other Chinese religions and philosophies. They were still hunting down witches even as late as Mao Tse Tsung's war with Chiang Kai-Shek before the Japanese invasion I learned! And since I mentioned Japan, I am amazed at how the Sohei Samurai monks not only did purgings of cults and other people who worshipped not just Akuma but dark Yokai and other evil spirits irl but its such a common part of their pre-Meiji culture that its impossible to avoid if you read Japanese comics or watch Japanese movies and cinema or even just play video games and computer software games (and I'm not even getting into novels nevermind ancient literature). So I'm wondering about the pathway Roman paganism took?

I read Fushigi Yugi which is heavily based on Chinese mythology and ancient religions. The antagonist of the story comes from an ancient tribe of worshipers of demon Gods and they were wiped out by the governments of the lands they live in for engaging in a taboo religion. In addition I also seen Sony Chiba's Ninja Wars and in the movie Buddhist Warrior monks were sent to raid a temple of people who worship Akuma, Japanese equivalent of demon lords, and mass fighting ensure between the dark cult and the Buddhist militants. In the early Prince of Persia games not only is Jafar shown as evil for using dark spells, but I remember at least one installment showing he worships Ahriman or some ancient evil Zoroastrian god and the Prince fights his way to stop his ritual. In Asterix the Gaul a few chapters of comic book stories has Asterix stopping some druids who were abusing the Celtic magick to summon a powerful creature or casting curses on people and other cliched use of black magic shown in modern TV programs like Supernatural. Despite Asterix as a Gaul worshipping Celtic gods himself. So it makes me wonder....... Were witches and other people who practised black magic not necessarily accepted in contemporary society and same for pagans and polytheists who worshiped dark gods who were evil spirits esp those who were the equivalent of Satan in their religion? Were they possibly even persecuted? Sure these are all works of fiction but Ninja Wars was explicitly revolved around on Buddhist cliches in Japanese culture and Fushigi Yugi was specifically based on various sacred customs of Chinese B.C. The fact that even non-Christian non-Western cultures are showing the persecution of devil-worshipers and black magick is really making me curious.

I saw this post just now. https://old.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/1bed6er/why_do_romance_languages_have_so_strong/ And I admit I'm quite flattered someone linked two old discussions I made on this site! Still its an intriguing question the OP makes. I already covered the correlation of Catholicism to former Roman territory in the links OP took from this site but I never also realized how much of the former Western Roman Empire speaks romance languages! And how much the Romance family is so correlated with Catholicism! So I'm wondering what people say about the topic? Particularly OP observation that most of the European colonial empires like France and Spain in addition to being devout Catholic strongholds and using a Romance language, also became the mightiest empires of their time? OP even insists in adding the UK as an example because of how much influence French and Latin had on the English language despite being Germanic and how English Christianity especially the Anglican Communion is so heavily modeled after the Roman Catholic Church, having the most similarity to Latin Rites than almost any other Protestant denomination out there. So he argues the British Empire is proof of the continuation of the impact Rome had on European civilization and that the British Empire is one of the direct descendants of Rome along with the French and Spanish Empires and the Kingdom of Brazil.

This vid is what I'm referring to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzc--zUjsk Its 6 minutes so if you haven't seen it yet I advise you to do so to get the context of this post. Now I was dong a friendly sparring with a scutum and rubber foam Gladius with a weight and feel similar to the real thing but designed in a way that it doesn't really send out hard hits when you get whacked by it especially if you wear protective gear which we both were. Now I'll openly state out I never learned proper sword training before though I have held replicas of real weapons with similar weight and designs tot he real thing. Even wielded actual blades that can cut and stab to cause wounds at Renaissance fares and in dojos. So I'm not the best person to seek advise from. However in our friendly "light whack" "light stab" play fighting (yes even with foam weapons and authentic protective gear we decided to be safe and just horseplay around), I noticed something. As my friend was whacking my scutum I felt secure enough to push in close enough that my rfoam gladius was close enough that if we were horseplaying with just our fists, I'd be able to do an uppercut to his stomach. In fact I began to approach my friend with the shield in front of me like I'm an invincible tank and while he's flailing and poking at me I simply do a semi talk to push his weapon away and then rush straight at him like a football player except witha s shield in front of me. He instincitvely backs away and you cans ee panick in his face every time I do this. I don't simply just walk towards him, I speed up for an instant confident my shield is protecting me and close in enough to poke his upper body ranging from chest to down tot he stomach. Now I noticed during our horseplay if I try to do thrusts faroma far distance, it indeed does feel awkward like Skallagram states and even outright hurts as my wrist gets bent in an in appropriate way while my hand is gripping the hilt but its stuck to grip in a hammer holding manner by default because of the hilt's design. So when I was watching Skallagram's video the first time days ago I immediately recognized what he meant about the wrong grip hurting you and my hand was doing the exact same hing as he was showing as incorrect because I was literally doing that because of the way the gladius forces you to hold a blade........ However I immediately had in my head the moment Skallagram brings up the Gladius specifically the though of "if he had tried using a Gladius with a shield and sparred a few hours, he'd know not only how to stab properly with it but why the Gladius was designed with that kind of grip". I already have an assumed theory that I think is completely correct and answers Skallagram's question at the end of the vid. But as I said I lack actual training with weapons which is why I am posting here because I want input of veterans in this subject. OK here goes. The Gladius was designed to be at extremely close quarters. To be specific its meant to be used in the same range at which two boxers exchange punches at each other. So there's really no need to learn how to change grip and hold it in more precise manners because its meant to be a close weapon. And as with waht I seen w playing with the scutum, the shield basically protects you from other longer blades and allows you to quickly rush in for the kill with the Gladius. So over-extended thrusts similar to longswords and rapiers isn't really meant to be done with the Gladius because you're meant to close in and the a brute first stabs at exposed areas in the body. If anything the grip of the Gladius which Skallagram criticizes int he vid and calls it unusual, citing that it prevents safethrusting technique actually was designed for safety! Because as we spared one thing I notice witht he Gladius is that as long as you come close for the stab, it is impossible to lose grip of the sword just by sloppy technique alone. The way the hilt with its large top guard and the ball at the bottom actually is designed to force you to hold it as a hammer grip. So you don't drop it as your fist is tightly clenched on the weapon while you do repeated thrusting. So it actually is a safety measure for the range at which a Gladius is supposed to be used. Not just that it optmizes effective stabbing and thrusting. Because A few times I unintentionally thrusted harder than warranted in friendly playing and while we were wearing full protection, my friend told me a few times He really felt my stabs and if it wasn't for the metals mixed in with softpadding and plastic underneath these replicase, he would have felt like he got punched , probably with a few bruises. The hammer grip the sword's hilt forces really does subconsciously make you stab in such a way that it'll be easy to penetrate someone's muscles possibly bons even if you have no training is what I got from using the foam items similar in feel to a Gladius. Last but not least and quite heavily related to all that I said earlier.......... Roaen warfare was fought in square rectangular formation in interlocked shields. Just by this fact alone you're not gonna have the chance to really do a long thrust rapier style. In these tight formations you're pretty much gonna be locked ina tight space so pretty much the enemy barbarians who can't kill you because of the scutum's size and in tandem with the rectangular shield wall, will at some point find himself closing in on you..... Well guess who's gonna find himself with holes in his stomach? And quite releated once the Roman legion goes ont the offensive, you're talking about a primitive moving tank. As they start steamrolling over the disorganized barbarians, just like in my horseplaying, it begins to bake sense why you need a hammer grip as you're closing in poking out exits for blood spillage as you get near enough to punch them except you're doing it with a deadly sword. So it all makes sense and I think this should answer Skallagram's question. If I knew how to make videos I'd even send a response video (unfortunately I don't know anything behind film making). Just one more note from what I send from authors, sparing sessions between Roman soldiers and known accounts between a Legatus (Roman generals) and barbarian chieftains even a few famous Gladiator events, often the outcome decided by effective use of the shield and getting the enemy into close range. You'll find the winner does moves to knock the shield away and then runs in to get close enough for punching range and kills the opponent. Or lets the opponent attacks nonstop and using the scutum for stonewall defense until the enemy gets fatigued or makes a mistake in his barrage that leaves and opening. To get close in at punching or even clinching range and then do the lethal stabs. Sometimes not even blocking with the shield at all but simply stepping backwards or circling the enemy to get him frustrated until that vulnerable moment where you can get in to send a punch but with a sword that kills him instead of KO. Without a shield? I seen an account of a centurion literally grabbing a barbarian champions arm, pulling him in for a clinch and then stabbing himg. Well thats my personal hot take based on my sparring experience and wikipedia level reading into the subject. So whats your thoughts? What response do you personally give to Skallagram about his confusion near the end of the vid? Is his question stemming from not understand the nature of the Gladius (which is my presumption right now)?

You can't got through a Youtube clip of a boat being rowed by slaves ancient Greece and the Roman empire without someone getting hissy fitty about the historically wrong portrayal of rowers being slaves and then going on a diatribe about how in reality men who rowed boats in voyages, trading and commerce, and military expeditions would have been professional freemen. And that any captain worth his salt would look for professionals because despite what movies show illiterate untrained slaves lack the necessary skills to rowing giant boat in the galley class and larger particularly military battleships monsters. So I'm asking does rowing actually require a lot of knowledge and specialized skills? Obviously its already a hard thing to do just going by movies but is it more than just brute force? Why not just teach slaves the skills? Since most rowers were paid professional crews I'd assume that means the specific knowledge needed for moving large ship with oars is far more complicated than just lifting, dropping, and pushing the oar backwards?

Something so common among today's society is how people have a tendency to laugh at how so many old religions especially pagan polytheistic ones that existed before Christians had a god or goddess for seemingly petty stuff such as Silvanus being the patron god of trees. That its common to see devout Abrahamics especially hardcore Christians and Muslim fundamentalists to mock say Egyptian paganism for having a patron god of perfumes, Nefertem. And its not just the hardcore religious who feel this way, that many atheists and other irreligious types also often comment its ridiculous that Celtic religion had a god dedicated to pigs, Moccus. So it makes me curious why old religions before Christianity had so many deities devoted entirely to minor things such as Syn the Goddess of Locks in Scandinavian religion who all locksmiths in the Viking era revered as an all powerful entity and Fornax the Bread Goddess of the Roman Empire. Whats the reason behind this? Was it actually an important thing not to sneer at (as modern humans do) that for example that across East Asia that there exist multiple deities whose sole purpose is for hot baths? Or that West Africa had a god for drums? Was it actually a big deal that so many ponds across Europe once had an entity specifically devoted to each pond and worshiped in reverence for being patron of that small pond not featured in national maps?

Saw the above post and now I'm just as curious as the OP who created it. So can anyone give their take about morale and early gunpowder loudness?

My family is from Portugal. Grandma and Grandparents still take Latin language mass, believing it to be the only legit form of mass....... Now my Avos are pretthy nationalistic, to the point they have been accused of white supremacy by modern woke crowds. Even discounting how seemingly patriotic they are about being Portugeuse, they hold many old views like homosexuality being a great evil, using condom condemns to hell, and so many "rightwing beliefs".............. Yet despite that they will treat statue of nonwhite Jesus used by Brazillians with utmost sacredness, they had prayed to a Lady of Guadalupe statue without hesitation, and despite their bragging about Portuguese pride they treat everybody black, Vietnamese, and so on with complete respect. Even allowing my sister to marry a MidEastern person who attends an Eastern Catholic Church and treating one of my cousins who's dark skinned and half Guatemalan with utmost equality as a family member. However as I said earlier they only attend Latin mass church. They genuinely believe that Language was the one sole thing that kept the whole Church united and Vatican 2 Open a permanent damage to the Church by creating more ethnic strife bby allowing the use of different langauges. That Latin as the sacred liturgy was what keep people from all different churches and races using a variety of art traditions from the stereotypical desert Hispanic design of architectural building to the Lady of La Vang who looks very Vietnamese.............. That the Church as united through Latin and the language effectively shut people from beinging controversial issues to mass such as illegal immigration from non-English countries and white supremacy and ethnic segregation in France and other nations where French is an official language. So they believe despite John Paul II's benevolent intentions, officially allowing Vernacula Mass has destroyed Church unity and is a big reason why stuff like BLM and Latinos refusing to learn English are getting hacked into the Church......... That said I know Eastern Orthodoxy on the fsurface seems dicided by ethnicity...... Yet any devoute Orthodox Christian shares the same views as my grandparents where despite being proud of their ethnicity, they'd ultimately believe we are all human and despite nationality, race, and ethnicity were are all equal under the banner of one church.... And that this is pretty much the stancce of the Orthodox council that all humans within the CHurch are ultimately all human beings equal under the eyes of God........... SO it makes me curious. Oothodox Christianity from what I can read fromt he beginning had always been a supporter of the Vernacular and the Church believes local language liturgy reflects just how much mankind is equal in God's eyes and respectful of all the different cultures under Eastern Orthodoxy. I even seen some theologians in Orthodoxy point out to the Tower of Babel as proof that God does not want a united language in the united Churchh but wants a variety of language used in mass across the entire Orthodoxy. Yet Eastern Orthodoxy is very rigid in art traditions. Where as you have Churches in Peru of Mary wearing Incan clothes and even the Biblical people being represented as different races in a single Church (like a church in Juarez having a white Jesus Christ yet all Mary statues are the nonwhite Lady of Guadalupe) as well as apparitions of Mary appearing as a black woman or an infant Jesus appearing as person from Prague.............. Eatern Orthodoxy demands all MAry icons to appear the same, all Jesus crucifixes with similar appearances, etc. Not only is the Orthodox Church's position is permanent about the racial appearance of Jesus in Church art, they even pretty much only allow one specific style of art. 2D art. Almost all entirely icon with a few glass stains and perhaps a sculpted stone work or two. But all are completely 2 Dimensional and created to show Jesus, Mary, and the Biblical figures looking like a Jewish Palestinians or Hebrew. Unlike Catholicism where you have paintings, marble statues, colored figurrines, and a whole hell of variety of art styles ina single church in addition to the diversification of Biblical figures to represent local population's cultures and ethnic demographs. But somehow despite the reigid art approach, Eastern Orthodoxy is the Church that learned to appreciate vernacular mass centuries early on in Christian history while Catholicism was so harsh about a single language in mass and otehr sacred rites.. And one thats already been dead for centuries by the time of the Crusades, Latin...... So I ask why? Esp since so many people wrongly assume Eastern Orthodoxy is a racist denomination full of segregation or at least orthodoxy is full of ethnic strie in Churches. I seen people assume that they cannot go to a Serbian Orthodox Church if they are not Serbian because they think its a completely different denomination from Ukraine and based on bigotry whether you are Serbian or not sums up what people assume Orthodox Churches are like. Despite what my grandparents believe about Latin being encessary for the Church's unity, I myself find it bizarre it took so long for local language to be used in mass considering how diverse Catholic art tradition is about different cultures and how Catholicism has a tradition of different nationalisies and ethnic groups attending a single parish even in very racist places like Australia. Why did these trends happen?

So many ages ago when I was playing Age of Empires, the very first mission of Caesar's campaign was to wipe out a fleet of pirates. I lost a few times and I remember the Defeat screen saying that because Caesar used his own private fundings for the military expedition, he is pardoned and won't face imprisonment, loss of military and political leadership, and nmnost importantly a lawsuit from the Roman government for loss of warships..... But it sstated something the Republic will take over in battling the pirates since Cesar's defeat alerted the Senate just how big of an issue the pirate attacks are. When I won the campaign, it emphasizes just how big a boost it is to Caesar's career that he managed to wipe out the entire pirate coalition. In addition I finally watched the entire Once Upon a Time In China series for the first time in completeness rather than just stopping at the 3rd movie the last few times I seen the film over the past decades. The 4th movie had Jet Li on the mission to capture the pirates and he doesn't simply use the police but gets an entire militia and round up 50 volunteers so they can capture one of the heads through abn unexpected ship counterattack. He then uses the captured pirate leader to gather intel and attack the pirate base with an elite cadre of volunteers and then continues holding the elader hostage awaiting for the rest of the pirate fleet to attack the enarest town in retaliation for ransacking their unprotected base and in expectation they will try to free their leader by attacking the local prison. He has the complete militia force of over 200 to fortify the town and a big battle takes plae as over 400 pirates besiege the town....... So this makes me wonder........ Were pirates so huge a deal that not only do local militaries like Jet Li's character in Once Upon A Time in China have to mobilize a military force to defend against them but even a brilliant military mind like JUlius Caesar have to be sent in sometimes to battle them? Oh I almost forgot, Ben HUr even has a battle between Greek pirates and the Roman Navy that ended with not just the ROman deeat but the Admiral's ship being destroyed and it kicks off the whole reason why Massala was even able to become a charioteer. Because he saved the admiral from drowning, the Roman militaryman takes him in as an adopted son and gives him funding to become one of the best chariot rider throughout the whole empire. Is this actual realistic? That actual professional navy could lose to a bunch of ragtailed pirates in an engagement? For a long time I couldn't believe Caesar actually had been sent to fight pirates until I learned recently the event was real. And ditto with the idea of a Roman fleet facing defeat from pirates....... Just how far fetched is Once Upon A Time in China sending Jet Li to mobilize a militia to defend a community from pirates? Was piracy really the big a danger?

My medieval buckler replica, made through old school blacksmithing by a HIstorical European Martial Arts (often abbreviated as HEMA) group, just arrived by mail today. It reminds me of a statement I saw a HEMA practitioner made........ I am curious, why is the weapon just as important as the shield is in defensive action? I cannot tell you how people often think of using sword and shield as simple as "wait for the enemy sword to land on your shield, let the sword bounce from impact, and you immediately follow with a strike against your now defensive enemy who's still trying to recover his grip on his sword from the impact". Seriously popular media portrays it this way from movies such as 300 to video games such as Legend of Zelda and live TV such as Deadliest Warriors. Even and educational sources and serious academic studies portray it this way. Can't tell you how many times I seen the History Channel have people test the effectiveness of a shield by banging swords, warhammers, and other heavy weapons against them and there are videos of university experiments you can see on Youtube where they test a shield's effectiveness in precisely the same manner. So I am confused.What is meant by the above quote? I mean if scientists and historians with PhDs are saying a shield is enough for defensive action and the sword is pretty much a purely offensive weapon, why is there a need to learn parries, feints, blocks, etc as you stated in your earlier post? I mean real university experiments portray defensive moves with sword and buckler as merely "let it land, bounce off, than follow up with a sword cut or thrust) as universal standard when it comes to discussing about defensive actions! Is there more to it than simply putting your shield to cover the area that you anticipate will be hit and simply awaiting to hit it while standing still like a stop sign on an intersection? Since Roman sword and shield go hand in hand in Roman swordsmanship reconstruction, I thought to ask here in this forum.

Important to point out in France, people weren't genocided for being Gauls but because they wouldn't surrender. Some of Caesar's most important legions were made up of plenty of recruits from modern day France. And Caesar wanted to grant citizenship to loyal Gaullish soldiers. If Cleopatra had been stubbornly open at resisting Caesar, similar atrocities would have taken place in Egypt. If Caesar's campaign in Britannia had been solidified and the tribes continued to fight, whole villages would have been wiped out. Caesar's brutality was not out of blind hateful racism nor was it done simply for the kicking fun of it. Its motive was around horrifying but effective pragmatism.

One of the cliches about the Battle of Hastings is that the Battle was won Because the Fyrd Militia repeatedly broke out of the Shieldwall to chase the Norman cavalry who suddenly start retreating only to turn around and counterattack or run away further for the rest of the Norman army to hack these isolated Anglo Saxon individuals. In fact the first time this happened in the battle it wasn't even an intentional feign retreat by the Normans-they actually suddenly fled out of panick because they thought their king William was killed and thus when some Fyrd militia broke out to chase them they really had the momentum against the Normans and had Harold sent his entire army to attack and not just these individuals who disobeyed orders, there's a good chance they would have won Hastings. William had to follow the demoralized Norman knights back tot he main army when he actually wanted to press a full cavalry charge and remove his helmet to show he was alive. And it was his infantry who killed some of the early berserking fyrd. IN fact it was from this actual real full on retreat that William observed what happened and decided to test it a few more times and ultimately saw this to be the key ti winning the fight. So he used retreat than counter attack fryd who leave the Anglo-Saxon shield wall over and over and eventually it weakened the Anglo-Saxons enough that he was able to do the killing blow. Now this sounds like typical disorganized poorly trained Medieval Warfare esp since one army was composed almost entirely of militia....... Except in the first major battle of the Vietnam War, Ia Drang....... When the 7th Cavalry Regiment entered the field, one platoon against Colonel Hal Moore's orders spotted some NVA patrols and proceeded to chase it. That unit would get pinned down and spark the first firefight of the whole battle. So while Ia Drang was ultimately won, that specific units suffered the heaviest casualties of any unit. It was like despite all the training for jungle warfare, that platoon's officer suddenly just went "enemy! Lets chase it down!" So it makes me curious. Why is it so difficult to stay in formation and resist the lure of chasing enemies? Why do even disciplined armies suffer from resisting this urge? The Romans even had very heavy specific death sentences for troops who go out on their own to fight of the enemy as one of their most important rules! Forget that, even modern armies of the highest quality like Americans in Vietnam suffered from this! Is it really that hard to obey orders and not chase down fleeing scouts after your unit's sniper killed another one nearby?

Saw this post on Reddit. So I'm now intrigue. Are the Scutum and other military shields much harder than we assume to use in formation and far heavier than people think? Is the weight a major factor in victories from enemies of the Empire esp barbarian tribes in an extended battle?

So many Sword Reconstructionist like ScholaGladiatoria Who Runs a Youtube Channel claim that the Gladius is one of the least effective swords on its own..... That a Gladius user will lose to other sword styles 95%+ of the time according to another Sword Revivalist Metatron on one of his Youtube videos........ But ScholaGladiatoria and Metatron and practically every other Historical European Martial Arts enthusiast online states when you add a rectangular Body size shield into the equation, the Gladius becomes one of the flatout most effective swords and easily a contender for most noob friendly with minimal moveset (think attacks commonly used in formations like stab stab maybe a few cuts stab so common in shield wall fighting).......... But this brings one single but extremely significant detail..................... What about infantry Scouts? And lone defenders in a military building like sentry towers and a small 3 story barracks? Cramped camps? I bring this up because a o you can find on Reddit and Quora multiple users pointing out that Scouts not only would have been used to disorganized combat outside of formation but even single one on one fighting but a lot of times they'd even drop out shields because they'd be too difficult to bring across wild environments like rocky roads full of potholes and caves. Another user also pointed at during the Siege of Rome after the disaster at the Allia Battle, the Celts manage to sneak into a Rome past the watchtower and the Roman miltiai were int for a surprise and had to rush last minute to the hidden pathway the Celts were sneaking into, many of them leaving their shields behind as they rushed. They managed to hold off and force the more heavily armored Gauls who all had shields and other heavy stuff because they were fully pumped up for battle to retreat,killing a surprising so many that ultimately it was the straw that broke Brennus's back and after a female days with some skirmishes in between, he made truce to leave Central Italy in exchange for Gold. So it makes me wonder how much the claim that a shield was necessary to fight with a Gladius even outside o formation is true? Considering the accounts of foot scouts in wars in the Middle East foot scous would travel much lighter because of the heat including dropping large straps of armor and still defeating more individualistic warrior cultures like the Hebrew Zealots and Armenian cavalry harassers in unorganized out-of-formation fighting and a lot of sieges fighting in places too cramped for shields to be used like stairways across towers or inside a bedroom in a Roman barracks or at a bandit's lair climbing a steep hill into caves but Roman infantry still wininig without shields........... Is this claim so common among HEMA and other historical sword recontructionists a massive hyperbole?

Question where do speccialist position goes? I remember reading somehwere that certain units were far more skilled than a typical grunt in the Legions. There's posts on reddit about how scouts would have been far more skilled in single combat because of the nature of their job disallowed using formations much of the time (on top of being far tooooo fewwwwww anyway for formations to matter). To the point they even had to learn how to be effective with a single weapon like a club (even small knives in some mission) in hand alone without any shields because they would travel through narrow mountain passages and thick forests on foot and caves and other places where shields were to bulky to carry around. Some scouts even dropped Gladius for lighter weapons like pointed darts for the sake of silence and light baggage and they'd master footwork and dodging movements and aiming at weak points and other individual skills to kill armored enemies with longer superior weapons. Also is there any truth that cavalry in general would be more skilled with swordplay than the average grunt? A few videos by Youtuber Metatron stated something about cavalry practising hitting dummies while riding out alone and these sword cosntructionits online all emphasize the nature of cavalry meant the skill minimal to operate with a unit is far higher. So Equistes and other cavalry would have had much more practise as individual swordsmen than most recruits in the sword and shield rectangular blocks. A History CHannel documentary even stated Praetorians all would have been amstere swordsman superior than most professional gladiators. So is there sorta a specrtrum of solo skill level depending on unit a recruit was assigned to?

This scene from Alex Kingston's Role As Boudicca in an old movie aired on iTV from the 2000s explains it all. https://forcedcinema.net/video/emily-blunt-and-leanne-rowe-gang-raped-in-boudica/ I had chills just typing it and no readily available image on Google Search of the Bed Device that was used from the movie is available. So that horrifying scene is best as it shows as I couldn't type a description of the whole scene and almost vomited as I was typing. NSFW its extremely brutal so be prepped if you choose to watch it. That said did horrific devices like this actually exist irl? Did the Roman Legions actually employed it as stock equipment in their camp as part of SOP?

Very late response and I hope you still lurk here to read my response. But yes its one of the downfall of the Roman Empire but paradoxically one of the reasons the Roman Empire survived so long. A great introductory book is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Its not specifically on the Roman Empire but he does note some universal factors that led to the downfall of civilizations among which he quotes events in the Roman Empire. I'll try to look for quotes. But I hope you are here to see my post. Go read The True Believer and you will see how much education and the elitist intellectuals both destroyed and ensured the survival of the Roman Empire.

Well I have read stuff in Medieval Hagiography saying the Church had succeeded in civilizing warlike backward pagan savages like the Scots which is where the Roman Empire most definitely failed in. I'm not siding with the Church at all as I'm a heretic who personally has apostasized but I can see their point considering Germany started becoming civilized and the country began to develop real infrastructures like bridges, roads, farming communities, etc after the country was converted due to the efforts of various saints. Even in the uninhabitable north full of wilderness. I mean Church influenced converted Sweden and Northern Europe as well as Ireland and Poland and so many places the Romans never got conquered territory and the histories of those places esp Ireland and Poland credits the morals and social order the Church has created in those places as the whole reason they turned from mostly uninhabitable places into civilized kingdoms (I'm not talking about hagiography either but actual history written down and put in school textbooks by the now mostly secular governments of those places). As an example, Romans absolutely failed to spread their architecture, economic model, court system, etc into Scotland but the Church not only converted the whole region but Scottish culture basically became a Roman Catholic one using architecture and so on that was often originating in Italy (and based on some Roman concepts just as the Empire was falling) is what the Church historians and Medievalists meant when they claim the Church succeeded in many areas where the Roman Empire completely failed in. Even the Scandinavians failed to leave a touching mark on Scotland when they attempted colonization and raids and they even stopped going there out of fear due to Scots being so violent and savage even by VIking standards............. Yet the Church was able to convert the whole country and instill Catholic civilization in it and Scotland would be a Roman Catholic country at the core until the Protestant Reformation. Lets not forget the Catholic influence has far expanded further than the Roman Empire ever did outside of Europe........... South America? Brazil alone is as large as the USA which is in the same ballpark as Europe's total landmass even discounting Russia and we are not counting the rest of the world where every nation has a diocese as well as colonies elsewhere like Catholic majority countries today in Africa. But Latin America is proof of how further Church influence has surpassed Rome at its peak on the world. I'm not pro-Church in fact I truly hate Catholic teachings But reading Hagiography that Medievalists have recommended seems to bring me into Saints and Church authority emphasizing how barbarians who Rome failed to civilized were converted into Catholicism and not even by invading armies but by missionaries who roamed far across Europe including famous Saints like Patrick of Ireland. They make a good argument about barbarians refusing to adopt Roman culture yet were successfully convinced to convert to Western Roman Christianity.

I mean if you see a map of religion in Europe the places that are mostly Protestant today are the same exact places the Roman Empire could never subdue into a permanent territory. The same cities that are Protestant majority in Netherlands are in the North, the same places the Romans could never develop colonies under their sovereignty as an example. While the predominantly Catholic places of Europe today almost the entire places Rome successfully held as colonies until the decay around the 300s and its fall in the 400s. Just look at Southern Germany which was the north most that the empire was able to expand into and you will see the regions that Roman administration ruled over are the same exact Catholic arts of Germany while the Protestant parts are all in the north. In particular the strongest Protestant places of Germany are in the Northwest which would contain the location the defeat at Teutoburg would have taken place in.. England can even qualify because England became a Roman colony and than was abandoned but remain Roman influences for a while until Germanic invaders took over and Germanize the country. Yet the Germanic people of England would be the most Roman-like barbarians of Europe who weren't directly into the sphere of the Roman Empire. To put a parallel with religion England was one fo the most religious kingdoms of Europe, so devout into Catholicism was England that they sent some of the most volunteers after France and Germany to fight into the Middle East several English kings were the head leaders of several Crusades. England was so fanatical that when Henry VIII tried to reform English Christianity after cutting England's diocese from Rome, riots broke out and the loyalty of English Catholics would be one of the prime issues that went close to destroying the newly Protestant English kingdom until Cromwell expelled all Catholics from the country during the English Civil War. And even than after becoming Protestant the Church of England was a bizarre hybrid of Catholic and Protestant doctrines, being considered the "most Catholic" of the dominant Protestant denominations, even much more than the Lutherans, esp in Church art and buildings and religious practises (creating their own unique takes on Catholic stuff like the rosary replaced with Prayer Beads) while also blending in Protestant doctrines like predestination as part of the newly formed "Anglican" Church's teaching. Thus making very eerie parallels to Rome's status as a place that was colonized by Rome but quickly fell to Barbarians shortly afterwards including a complete invasion by a Germanic tribe that altered the DNA and culture of the pre-Roman Celtic Britons-yet also keeping elements of Roman culture like architecture despite apparent Germanization of the whole country. Once we get into the map of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries........ To start off go see the most Eastern countries that are still Catholic today before you start reaching the Orthodox majority parts of Europe. They are islands in Greece........ The same islands the Western Roman Empire continued holding after the Empire was divided into two despite being so far away in Greece! Prractically every major domain of modern Orthodox Christianity were all territory of the Eastern Roman Empire. While the Catholic countries near the Orhtodox nations like Hungary were part of the Western Roman Empire. If we want to go into another parallel, the Western Empire never had any significant contact with people from modern day Russia but the Eastern Empire began to develop trade routes after the division and onto the Middle Ages the contact of the Byzantine Civilization with pre-Christian Russians was so great that they not only had solid trade routes but frequent cultural exchange and direct interventions with each other like sending soldiers over to one another for help, sending priests into Russia, etc and as we now know Russia is now culturally and Orthodox Christian country. Not just that but Russia would become the most fanatical follower of Eastern Orthodoxy, waging wars against the Catholic Europe and various Muslim civilizations esp the Ottomans in an attempt to prevent the fall of Eastern Orthodoxy and defend remaining free nations but even waging offensives into Ottoman territory in an attempt to free Ukraine and other places conquered by the Turks. If there's one more very scary pattern I noticed........ All the countries that would become white European superpowers during the Age of Colonialism.......... France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, and Germany are either Catholic or have a roughly equal Catholic-Protestant plurality. Were all important colonies of the Roman Empire. In particular Spain, Portugal, and esp France were the three most important hubs of the Roman Empire outside of Italy and of utmost essential commercial territorial, and military holdings of the Empire. Spain would conquer an entire continent and create the first white Colonial Empire while Portugal would later separate from a union and hold a large chunk of South America in what is now one of the largest countries in the world. A nation so large its as big as the USA, Brazil.And Portugal would conquer a modern nation in Africa and various bits of land in Asia. While France would become a global superpower that would conquer many places in Africa and Asia as well as once holding a large part of North America. Even England qualifies because of the bizarre hybrid nature of Anglicanism and would create the largest empire I ever seen. So I have to ask why are the places the Western Roman empire hold as permanent territory until the decay near the start of the Dark Ages all so Catholic today? With its three most important colonies Portugal, Spain, and France once being the most fanatical strongholds of Catholicism in the Medieval Ages and Renaissance period (even being more devout than Italy as a whole would often be across history)? Is it a simple coincidence that after England, the three most important and largest colonial powers were both once the most Catholic kingdoms of Europe and the most important territories of the Roman Empire? In addition despite the rise of Byzantium, why did regions the Western Roman Empire held East of Italy remained Catholic all the way today despite the 1054 schism? It doesn't make sense that the few Catholic islands in Greece were able to survive with allegiance to Rome considering how the Byzantines would do reprisal towards Catholicism! Esp if you see Romania which uses a Romance Language and was very near Italy and important colony and later given to the East would become Orthodox Christian despite the heavy influence of Roman culture into it esp Latin on modern Romanian! What is the reason why the division between Catholics and Orthodox is almost exactly the same today as the division of the West and East empires? Why is the Protestant and Catholic regions of Europe pretty much exactly the same as the divide between Roman territory and unconquered Germanic barbarian lands?

Its a common thing echoed around religious universities and scholars, and not just Roman Catholics but even education centers by pre-American Protestant Denominations concede the same thing. Hell Islamic universities and colleges as well as those in the Arab World often describe the Catholic Church as the Heathen Empire of the Frankish invaders and historical texts of the Ottoman Empire often states the conquest of Rome as the ultimate ambition because it will be the apocalypse when God's prophecy has finally been fulfilled. Even contemporary Jewish Medieval texts that speaks about anti-Semitism often blames the Church for all the crimes. In Italy the Church is often treated as the successor to the Roman Empire in history texts and Poland emphasizes how without Catholicism Polish civilization would never come to be. Hell despite the brutal colonization, much of the Latin American population actually believes the Spain and Portugal coming in and colonizing the country was needed because it civilized people from backwards paganism by teaching them the true faith and some historians in Latin America at the time even points out the Iberian Empires show how the Vatican have far surpassed the Roman Emprie's territory and wealth and in turn is superior to Ancient Rome at its peak. What are your thoughts on this? It seems the fall of the Roman Empire is not taken as badly among the very conservative religious but proof of a great thing and in particular the Vatican sees it as the triumph of the true Church. Hell I even seen some Church historians even say the Vatican succeeded where the Roman empire absolutely failed in, which is penetrating its influence deep into Northern Germany and beyond and civilizing entire warlike backward savage clans the Romans can never subdue like the Scots and the Saxons and even colonizing places the Romans never touched like Sweden and Poland thus clamoring that the Catholic Church by the Middle Ages have far surpassed the Roman Empire.

I can't tell you how many times popular portrayals of shieldwall formations by disciplined armies were so well coordinated that they did not have any holes or gaps in them that no arrows can possibly hit a single soldiers in the ranks. In fact disciplined armies such as the Normans are often portrayed as being so interconnected in their wall formations that there is no way for even an opposing army without a shieldwall to inflict casualties. So long as you remain in the wall formation your shield will protact you from any direct blow and the enemy soldiers would have to either break the formation by overwhelming with sheer numbers or hit with weapons strong enough to pierce or smash the shields of individual soldiers.If they can't do that and if they fight otuside a shield formation, you're guaranteed to win with minimal or even no casualties. Pop media portrayals of the Greeks and Romans take this up to eleven in specific film portrayals where the Greek Phalanx and (especially) Roman Tetsudo are done with such coordination and discipline that they LITERALLY CONNECT like Lego pieces! The opening scene from Gladiators where Roman legions battle Germaic barbarians exemplifies just how "perfectly" connecting the Roman Tetsudo is portrayed in movies and shieldwalls are in mass media in general. Not a single gap enemy arrows could penetrate and despite the terrains Romans were able to hold a near perfect front wall shield row while on the march. However I was watching a historical reenactment the other day and I was absolutely shocked at just how much gaps there were int he Tetsudo formation just as practised by re-enactorrs. There was so much obvious holes that it looked like even a harpoon could enter the formation without a shield getting int he way and in the reenactment many participants admitted they were hit by arrows despite being in shieldwall. In addition not counting the gaps, the shields did not look like they could connect perfectly like lego toys that is often portrayed in movies. Even when they stop marching and assume defensive position awaiting the barbarian rush the front row don't even look like a wall of shields more like individuals holding their shield outs. Despite attempting to interconnect their shields together as they awaited the Barbarian rush, they looked less like the wall in movies and more like barbarian hordes they were supposed to fight in the re-enactment. Even the shields they wielded looked too bulky to ever "connect perfectly like lego pieces". I actually went and talk to some of the enactors to help me do an experiment in an attempt to imitate the Tetsudo in movies and when I tried to connect my shield to enacters side by side me, it was so damn difficult to literally make them touch each other and in fact the shields were of various sizes it was impossible to keep a symmetrical front row that looked perfect like in films. Even when we did come close to copying placing the shields close together side by side, it was so skimpy trying to copy movie style shieldwalls that we could barely move forward in a march let alone swing our sword or thrust our spear. In fact in some attempts we were even literally touching each other should by shoulder and nd some of us got scratches and scrapes by our weapons and armor parts. We ultimately had to put some distance between our shields to effectively simulate swinging weapons. I know we were just re-enacting but this event made me curious if the Shieldwall was not as fancy looking and perfect protection movies portray. The fact trying to connect it like lego pieces in the front row alone made it so tight we couldn't even march nevermind throw a spear. We even had difficulties getting out of the wall.

I had this chat with Caldrail by PM last year. I will quote some things I stated on an internet chat room. In addition another chat is happening right now on reddit and someone brought this up. What do you guys think? Its common to see on the internet lately esp in religious forums the claim that the Roman Empire never fell but transformed into the Vatican. They point out the same thing as the quotes above-that not only was it aspects of Roman civilization that brought order into Western Europe but a number of people point out the divisions between Protestant and Catholic Europe are eerily similar and the same places where Roman Catholic majority domain ends before entering Orthodox Eastern Europe are the same exact places that the Western Roman Empire held before the divided line with the Eastern Roman Empire was located! I mean look at a map of the Netherlands and Germany and see just how the Catholic majority places are shaped almost exactly the same as locations the Roman Empire could never colonize when they were barbarian pagans! See the Catholic majority islands of Greece-note that they were the same places that the Western Roman Empire still held in the East after Diocletian divided the Empire in two? Is it just an eerie coincidence? Honestly this leads me to believe the Catholic Church took over the Roman government and made the Empire survive not just unto the Middle Ages but even onto today! The Vatican is the 3rd Rome! Actually I'd argue the Medieval Byzantium was never the successor to Rome but was simply a continuation of the Western and Eastern Roman divide this time with the Catholic Church until it fell to the Ottoman Empire! Now that the Western Roman Church is the only church of the 5 original Holy Sees that still survives, it shows how Rome survives as a superpower, arguably even greater than ever before since the Roman Catholic Church is over tenfold larger than the Roman Empire's largest population count at its peak! Caldrail begs to differ and believes the empire permanently fell. But he states that it should not be a surprise that much of the provinces that were the most vital territories outside Italy before the Empire was divided are mostly Catholic today because Roman Catholicism was basically a cult created by a Roman emperor and Catholicism is simply a Roman take on Christianity. So whats your take on this? Yay or nay?

I'm quite skeptical of this claim considering plenty of soldiers came from manual commoner background esp manual labor, agricultural, and poverty backgrounds. Sure the aristocrats, educated (esp intellectuals), and richer Romans probably look down on it (just like upper class Americans today look down on even baseball). But commoners? I mean you do have poor people working as Gladiators before joining army out of need for cash and some gladiator champions did come from military backgrounds. So I don't buy it esp Rome's machismo toxic masculine culture. And the fact so many soldiers (since much of them came from peasant background) grew up adoring not just gladiators but various athletes of different stripes including boxers and chariot racers. Not to mention military culture historically had fighting sports as the norm. I mean every culture from the Aztecs to the Egyptian and Mongols had some form of wrestling, boxing, or even MMA bout as something to kill time esp when left in an isolated fortress. So I doubt the Roman legion wouldn't have formal competition with rules based on wrestling or boxing or even MMA. Esp since Greece's influence on Rome was so damn strong and the Greek loved not just fighting sports but sports as a whole I don't buy it. You mean to tell me Roman culture even looked down on military men having running contests, arm wrestling games, gymnastics, and other athletics? It doesn't make sense considering commoner Romans often went to gyms and practised gymnastics, acrobatics, and other Greek sports to keep in physical conditioning. Hell several emperors such as Commodus even partook in wrestling and other athletic games! So it doesn't make sense!

Just because swords were the primary weapon doesn't mean that they didn't know about stuff like elbow thrusts, stepping on an enemy's foot, and punching. It may be a move and the setting takes place centuries after the fall of Rome but the specific choreographer in this movie not only has experience in ancient warfare stuff but the style he specifically used for the movie was primarily early dark ages from the Irish and Brittanic Isles. Which not only was an iron culture but plenty of tribes in the region still had plenty of Celtic roots in their lifestyle despite Roman colonialism. This is not counting the fact experts agree that the Irish from this time fought similar to the Gauls and other Celtic peoples albeit more organized but at least the swordplay was almost the same and the experts also specialized in Scottish and Welsh historical styles which have some lineages that surprisingly survive to day and both Scots and Welsh are of Celtic origins. So this should be an apt comparison to how Gaullic swordsmanship would have been (esp since Gauls were a Celtic culture) and as you see stomp kicks and such were used in the sword duels. Nevermind the fact elbow thrusting attacks, soccer kicks, knee strikes, etc are common sense anyway and you don't need training to do them. They esp become completely fluid when you are holding a weapon, not even a sword but an improvised one like a heavy tree branch and brook stick since they are often the only way you can attack when both your hand are occupied by an object in fighting.