Unarmed Combat Training

[Legionnaire]

Hello,

 

I am a new "recruit" to this website, having recently joined because of my great interest in Roman history, particularly in relation to the military.

 

My concise personal biography aside, I have always wondered: did the legionnaires of the Roman military receive any distinct unarmed combat training, or was practise in such fighting techniques limited to combative sports, similar to those at the gymnasiums or public bath houses? Personally, I believe that, as they were highly trained soldiers in a professional army that was needed by the Roman government to conquer and occupy the known Western world, the Roman legionnaires were undoubtedly highly capable in unarmed combat skills.

 

In order for you to fully understand the question, I think some things need to be clarified or defined, particularly the phrase "unarmed combat skills" - by this, I am not referring only to wrestling or boxing, but also disarm techniques or principles that could be used to effectively neutralize an armed enemy. Before, however, you assume perhaps that this applies only to the battlefield (on which an unarmed, isolated Roman soldier would be quickly slaughtered), consider the known historical fact that Rome had well-established secret service organizations (the Frumentarii, founded by Emperor Hadrian, for instance). Additionally, it is highly possible that the Roman military included units that specialized in guerilla warfare, as a means of disabling the enemy before engaging them with the legions.

 

Overall, I think it would be interesting to read both historical evidence of Roman "special forces" units and the unarmed combats training they received as well as some of your opinions about whether or not these contingents and these martial arts existed.

 

Sincerely,

 

Legionnaire

[pompeius magnus]

The Roman legionnaires were among the most disciplined soldiers in history, being rivaled only by the Spartan soldiers. The Spartan soldiers were trained to fight from age 7 to about 20 and were also taught the art of unarmed combat, as well as how to defeat Phobos- panic or fear. Since the Romans did adopt many things from Greek culture, some of their miltiary discipline may very well have been brought in from the Spartan model by Gaius Marius when he reformed the Roman military system. How ever this is just assumptions and can not be proven.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Focusing on disarming a single enemy in a battle with a possible 30,000 more is a horrible idea. Its a tough thing that could leave you open to the enemy. The legion did not rely on the individual but on the group. If they did they would have been toast. They infatry was not so strong. Especially considering the size of Gallic warriors, whom did rely on the individual. The legion was a wall. The huge tower shield never allowed the person to pearce in while the quick thrusts of the gladius would not let the enemy, who often had a heavy sword or ax in their hand, even react. Here is an example. After the pilla's were thrown before the soldier's ran into the enemy they clasped their shields together. What would happen now is a giant wall was made and now the legion would move. When they hit the power alone would knock out enemies. The legion was never supposed to run into lone combat. IF they did, something went wrong in the generals tactic. Later on however after the Marius reforms I would imagine the legion become more able to combat. However they were still little compared to fighters like the Germans.

[diegis]

Antiq greeks have a sort of martial art fight style,<pancrateon>,a combination betwen box and wrestling,with many permited hits and tactics.It was an olimpic discipline too,and many warriors of Alexander the Great,for example,was familiar with this unarmed fight style.It is posible that romans adopt this <pancrateon>,or some of fight tactics from this,after conqer the greek world.

[Skarr]

The average legionnaire was small as the average height was around 5' 4" compared to the giant Germans / Gallic warriors. The soldier was toughened by constant drills, marching with 100 lb packs and a tough diet (mainly bread - meat and vegetables were more or less added as supplements).

 

Discipline, fighting in formation and the smart use of the gladius for stabbing the enemy (who mainly fought in the phalanx type of formation) were the keys to Roman victories, something the barbarians never understood. The javelins (especially after Marius's reforms) were also soft at the joint (between the head and the shaft) so that they would bend and could not be easily retrieved or thrown back at the Romans once they penetrated the shield. In many battles, the opposing armies were so frustrated at being unable to remove the javelins from their shields that they threw away their entire shield and left themselves completely defenseless to the attacks of the Roman legionnaires.

 

The use of Roman cavalry (especially by Caesar) was often a decisive force in many battles and they would usually rout the enemy, once the Roman infantry broke their line. The use of certain formations, like a triangular wedge also helped the Romans overcome superior numbers and penetrate enemy lines easily.

 

Romans were not usually defeated and even when they succumbed, they fought to the last man, often in an orbis formation, a circular formation that they used as a last resort. Or, sometimes, rather than be tortured or disfigured by the enemy, the survivors would enter into a suicide pact and take their own lives.

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

It seems pretty logical that the Romans would have some sort of unarmed fighting style. If you look at it from a historical perspective it is almost assured. During the Middle Ages, there were many manuals of unarmed fighting skills floating around Europe. Most knights and foot-soldiers were trained in how to fend off an attacker if caught without the usual arming sword. Kampfringen is a good example of a medieval German martial art. One could assume that the apparent neccesity of medieval germans learning a form of unarmed combat didn't spring up in this time period alone. Even today in Army basic training you are taught the rudiments of hand to hand combat and pugilism. Granted that what you learn is enough to get yourself in a world of hurt, and that the chances of having to use it in modern warfare is remote at best, it is still considered important enough to spend time teaching. Naturally, if you are a Roman legionary fighting at close range all the time the value of unarmed fighting skills is much greater. Maybe somewhere out there there is a manual for a Roman version of Kung Fu.

[Legate of XVPrimigenia]

The Roman infantry defeated Phobos knowing that the penalties were very harsh, Execution, Disbandment or even Decimation. Also they held because they knew that they were protected on both sides by other leigionaries wheras other tribes just ran as an onslaught leaving gaps or constricting each others movements

[Favonius Cornelius]

Hey I have an interesting discussion going on at Roma Victor about a soldier's combat training. Is it known exactly what sort of training dummy a soldier might typically use? For instance would it be a stuffed dummy, a pole, a log with arms etc?

Edited January 25, 2006 by Favonius Cornelius

[Arvioustus]

The average legionnaire was small as the average height was around 5' 4" compared to the giant Germans / Gallic warriors. The soldier was toughened by constant drills, marching with 100 lb packs and a tough diet (mainly bread - meat and vegetables were more or less added as supplements).

 

Discipline, fighting in formation and the smart use of the gladius for stabbing the enemy (who mainly fought in the phalanx type of formation) were the keys to Roman victories, something the barbarians never understood. The javelins (especially after Marius's reforms) were also soft at the joint (between the head and the shaft) so that they would bend and could not be easily retrieved or thrown back at the Romans once they penetrated the shield. In many battles, the opposing armies were so frustrated at being unable to remove the javelins from their shields that they threw away their entire shield and left themselves completely defenseless to the attacks of the Roman legionnaires.

 

The use of Roman cavalry (especially by Caesar) was often a decisive force in many battles and they would usually rout the enemy, once the Roman infantry broke their line. The use of certain formations, like a triangular wedge also helped the Romans overcome superior numbers and penetrate enemy lines easily.

 

Romans were not usually defeated and even when they succumbed, they fought to the last man, often in an orbis formation, a circular formation that they used as a last resort. Or, sometimes, rather than be tortured or disfigured by the enemy, the survivors would enter into a suicide pact and take their own lives.

 

Average height is unkown but there was a 5 ft. 10.0 in minimum, same height as Mike Tyson. Quickness and stregnth are very effective tools in which the Roamn soldiers surely had.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Arvioustus

[jermus22]

I would be interested to seem sources for the height information. Here's a passage from Theodore Ayrault Dodge's book "Hannibal" written in 1891 concerning Roman recruits (chapter IV, page 41):

 

"Those physically wanting--generally not many among this plain and hearty people--were exempt. Small stature was not a grave objection. The burly Gauls laughed at the little Romans until they got to close quarters with them. The height was usually from five feet to five feet three inches. Men exceeding this height were not considered strong. Men under five feet were sooner accepted. . . . The following was the man wanted, according to Vegetius, and a pretty good man he was though the description belongs to a later period. 'The recruit must have sharp eyes, a head carried erect, broad breast, stout shoulders, big fists, long hands, not a big belly, of well proportioned growth, feet and soles less fleshy than muscular. If he has all this, no stress need be laid on the height, for it is far more important that the soldier should be strongly built than tall.'"

 

I'm not sure how accurate Dodge is about the 5'0"-5'3" stature. Also wondering about the claims regarding 5'4" and 5'10".

[M. Porcius Cato]

Average height is unkown but there was a 5 ft. 10.0 in minimum, same height as Mike Tyson. Quickness and stregnth are very effective tools in which the Roamn soldiers surely had.

 

What's your source on that?

[Primus Pilus]

Average height is unkown but there was a 5 ft. 10.0 in minimum, same height as Mike Tyson. Quickness and stregnth are very effective tools in which the Roamn soldiers surely had.

 

What's your source on that?

 

Its from Vegetius, but the problem is the translation. In English...

We find the ancients very fond of procuring the tallest men they could for the service, since the standard for the cavalry of the wings and for the infantry of the first legionary cohorts was fixed at six feet, or at least five feet ten inches. These requirements might easily be kept up in those times when such numbers followed the profession of arms and before it was the fashion for the flower of Roman youth to devote themselves to the civil offices of state. But when necessity requires it, the height of a man is not to be regarded so much as his strength; and for this we have the authority of Homer, who tells us that the deficiency of stature in Tydeus was amply compensated by his vigor and courage.

 

In Latin

V. Proceritatem tironum ad incommam scio semper exactam, ita ut VI pedum uel certe V et X unciarum inter alares equites uel in primis legionum cohortibus probarentur. Sed tunc erat amplior multitudo, et plures militiam sequebantur aramatam; necdum enim ciuilis pars florentiorem abducebat iuuentutem. Si ergo necessitas exigit, non tam staturae rationem conuenit habere quam uirium. (Et ipso Homero teste non fallitur, qui Tydeum minorem quidem corpore sed fortiroem armis fuisse significat.)

 

In Roman measurements... VI pedum (6 feet) is considerably smaller than 6 modern imperial feet. Obviously the same can be said for V et X unciarum (5 and 10 parts of twelve). As I understand it, a Roman foot or 12 inches (uncia) is the equivelant of about 11 1/2 modern inches. Taking off 1/2 inch for each of the 6 Roman feet described by Vegetius (1/2 inch x 6 feet would be a total of 3 inches) we would get a measurement that was roughly equal to 5 feet 9 inches rather than the 6 feet described. This is rather tall for the time as the average Roman height is considered to be about 5 1/2 feet, but its certainly within the realm of normal human development. Of course this is all dependent upon believing Vegetius in the first place. He is often criticized for a lack of military experience and knowledge, but it seems odd that he would need military experience to know the general height of recruits.

 

I got the average height statistic from here.

[caldrail]

Hello,

 

I am a new "recruit" to this website, having recently joined because of my great interest in Roman history, particularly in relation to the military.

 

My concise personal biography aside, I have always wondered: did the legionnaires of the Roman military receive any distinct unarmed combat training, or was practise in such fighting techniques limited to combative sports, similar to those at the gymnasiums or public bath houses? Personally, I believe that, as they were highly trained soldiers in a professional army that was needed by the Roman government to conquer and occupy the known Western world, the Roman legionnaires were undoubtedly highly capable in unarmed combat skills.

 

In order for you to fully understand the question, I think some things need to be clarified or defined, particularly the phrase "unarmed combat skills" - by this, I am not referring only to wrestling or boxing, but also disarm techniques or principles that could be used to effectively neutralize an armed enemy. Before, however, you assume perhaps that this applies only to the battlefield (on which an unarmed, isolated Roman soldier would be quickly slaughtered), consider the known historical fact that Rome had well-established secret service organizations (the Frumentarii, founded by Emperor Hadrian, for instance). Additionally, it is highly possible that the Roman military included units that specialized in guerilla warfare, as a means of disabling the enemy before engaging them with the legions.

 

Overall, I think it would be interesting to read both historical evidence of Roman "special forces" units and the unarmed combats training they received as well as some of your opinions about whether or not these contingents and these martial arts existed.

 

Sincerely,

 

Legionnaire

 

A small degree of unarmed combat training took place but this was more like rough-house brawling than Jackie Chan. The soldiers would have have gotten plenty of practice after drinking hours anyway! Training concentrated on weaponry for combat.

 

Special forces? Yes, on rare occaision. Small troupes of gladiators were used in this manner, and we know that roman soldiers went on raids and reconnaisance missions into germanian areas. But it wasn't exactly the SAS!

[Centurion Legioneer]

The Roman soldiers were very disciplined. Roman soldiers did receive hand to hand combat training, in case of the lose of weaponry during a battle. This training insured that the Roman soldiers were the best.

[caldrail]

The Roman soldiers were very disciplined. Roman soldiers did receive hand to hand combat training, in case of the lose of weaponry during a battle. This training insured that the Roman soldiers were the best.

 

Disciplined? Oh yes. But that has a side effect of causing frustration. We're talking about men who are at some periods denied wives (or even sex), who are trained to be aggressive, and to kill when ordered. Get them drunk, they fight. All armies are like that right through to today.