How poor were Roman Legions as Individual Fighters and Swordsmen

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Around the web, everyone is saying that one-on-one, a Roman would lose to a Spartan, Samurai, Celtic Warrior, etc. so easily and he would need to be in a group formation to even have a chance to defeat other warriors one-on-one.

In about every forum I lurk on throughout the web, there is a stigma that Roman Soldiers were way inferior to their opponents as individual fighters and swordsmen, and that the only way a Roman soldier won a fight is with team work.Take this thread:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvX5mhTeI.KBeFe2.paO_YcjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080328091407AAQ1Rsr

[quote name='Fenris Troll Ripper JPA RT ATL

Edited August 11, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[caldrail]

I'm not going to get drawn into comparisons of cultures that would never have met (that will get the thread thrown into Tartarus anyway)

 

Roman swordplay developed over the years. With the arrival of the polybian legion we see a strong motive to maintain a close order, thrusting style of combat. The Romans were very strict on this because it maximised their defense (and morale in combat, incidentially, which is correctly identified as a potential weakness of the Roman forces). The slightly lef-shaped gladius of this time had a wickedly long point designed for this scenario.

 

In the post-marian reform era these ideas were carried over and became standard practice for every infantryman. However, when the shape of the sword gradually becomes straight and less pointed, we also note that legionaries swung their swords as much as thrusted them. That requires space to achieve without harming your colleagues, indicating that despite the legendary formation and discipline of imperial legions, the men were likely to fight open order too.

 

This is an odd observation, because we note that according to Roman sources, republican legions of the post-marian era were sometimes in a poor state of readiness for battle, and the early battle of the Spartacus Rebellion would seem to confirm this. At the very same time the legions concentrated their forces in close order bypolicy, they were apparently less able to benefit from it.

 

Also we receive clues from Josephus in particular that tell us something about Roman capability. Certainly he's responsible for the quote "Their battles were bloody drills, amnd their drills were bloodless battles", yet he also describes how lazy, indifferent, and even careless the legionaries could be.

 

There are some interesting developments later. The gladius becomes shorter during the imperial period, and more suited to gladiatorial style fighting. It isn't clear who was influencing who, yet we do know that legionaries did sometimes receive instruction from gladiators concerning fighting tricks. In other words, the stern discipline and standard practice of old was gradually eroding as soldiers were taught a more fluid hybrid style of swordplay.

 

Eventually the gladius became too short for comfort. Obnce the standard of training witherd in the 4th century, an instinctual need to keep the enemy further away attracted the widespread use of the cavalry spatha, a longer bladed weapon, indicating that the old thrusting style of combat had all but disappeared, and Vegetius does tell of us that the legions of his day were no longer of the same substance as they had once been. We should also note the Roman expertise in raids and small scale warfare from that point on, requiring a more informal method of confrontations, and also the poor performance in set-piece battles of the late imperial period.

 

The significance of all of this is that we do see the legions benefitting from group combat. Their successes against informal units of gladiators at various times, whose fighters were trained to individual combat and had no unit discipline, make this very clear. The Romans themselves regarded their discipline and style as major contributors to their success against the barbarian.

 

What we have to realise is that unlike many other ethnic styles and eras, the Roman legionary was not trained as a duellist. That is a fundamental point. We see the Romans describe how a soldier than rushed forward by accident intent on fighting would quickly retreat back to his unit embarrased at the laughter of his colleagues. Everything about legionary policy had been for centuries a matter of presenting solid resoistance to the enemy, and although the Romans did encourage individual valour by the use of a kind of medal, it was more likely to be the centurion who won them, since he was the de facto primary warrior and leader of his warband.

[Lanista]

I think the simplest thing to say here is that you're comparing "warriors" to "soldiers." Samurai, Britons, Celts, Germans adhered to a "heroic" ideal, champion vs champion, honour for the victor... all that stuff. The Roman solider wasn't trained to be a duellist: the techniques used in massed, heavy infantry formation combat are totally unsuited to duelling one on one.

 

I'm sure there were some excellent legionary swordsmen - they practised day in and day out after all, but they were practising pretty basic techniques for use with with a shield (and a heavy one at that) and in concert with other men from their unit.

 

Gladiators, on the other hand, would probably hold their own in most circumstances - indeed, some gladiatorial styles were based on the techniques used by Rome's enemies... Samnite, Hoplomachus and Gaul for instance.

 

Of course, I often wonder why no one ever asks the question what would happen if a Spartan Phalanx met an early Roman Legion.... oh no, wait a minute...

[caldrail]

Some of them practised day in and day out. Others had things to do like move rocks from here to there, or write out another list of assets held in the fort. Some (up to half the legion if Vindolanda was typical) were away from the fort off-duty at any given time.

 

Gladiators, on the other hand, would probably hold their own in most circumstances - indeed, some gladiatorial styles were based on the techniques used by Rome's enemies... Samnite, Hoplomachus and Gaul for instance.

They had no record of success outside of the arena except as bodyguards perhaps, but then, it was largely confidence and reputation that prevented violence against their owners. To be more accurate, gladiators have absolutely no record of military sucess whatsoever. Those of you have immediately thought of Spartacus might like to realise that the gladiators among them (actually a small proportion after the initial brigandage from Vesuvius) failed to make any noteworthy impression on the Roman writers, and indeed, ended up dead.

 

Also, I would like to poimnt out that the connection with real-world tribes and fighting styles wasn't put in the arena without a measure of theatre thrown in. Look at martial arts films today. Real fights of that nature just don't resemble film and television recreations at all. The Romans were no different. Arms, armour, and styles were based on originals, not replicating them.

[Lanista]

The original question was why do people always say the legionary was crap in a mano-a-mano - so I'm not sure that the military effectiveness of gladiators is an issue?

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear - what I'm, saying is that if you're stacking up a gladiator against an individual warrior culture representative then I think he'd do ok - because he was trained to fight one on one.

 

As a martial artist who's done gladiatorial re-enactment, I'd probably take issue with the kung fu movie analogy. Gladiators were trying to hurt each other, actors clearly aren't. Experimental archaeology shows us that gladiatorial fights weren't like they were in the movies either - to a modern audience, they'd probably look a bit shit to be honest, as expectations would be let down.

 

There's only so much theatricality involved in a fight with sharp weapons, and I think this "fact" is probably a bit of a red herring. Maybe their sword arm movements were bigger than they had to be to make it easier to see the moves from the seats, but I think that would be more than compensated for by the shield - even if it was the case they used bigger movements.

 

But we can't see how they fought, only rely on ancient testimony, which, in the case of gladiators, was often hyperbolic or overly derogatory.

 

It'd be interesting to see one of those hard core nutters who run the gladiator school in eastern europe against a kendo expert - that might make a fair approximation. But at the end of the day - it ain't the style, its the fighter.

[GhostOfClayton]

The murmillo fought mano-a-mano using the legionary scutum and gladius. He would be the man to look at. In theory, his fighting stile (one on one gladitorial) should have been at odds with his equipment, which was designed for the close order, push-with-scutum-stab-with-gladius fighting from behind the shield wall.

 

Perhaps the key question is 'How much actual training (and I'm talking post-Marius, now) would an infantry soldier have in single combat?' Probably not much, if any. Any training time not close-order drilling would no doubt be deemed as time wasted by the man with the vine stick who was motivated to keep them all in a line when the going got shouty.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

although the Romans did encourage individual valour by the use of a kind of medal, it was more likely to be the centurion who won them, since he was the de facto primary warrior and leader of his warband.

So if I'm not wrong, its the Centurions who were the equivalents of Persian Immortals, Samurais, Spartan Hoplites, etc. in the Roman Legions.

 

Of course no douhbt a Roman Legionnaire would be average(as would a typical Japanese spearman, Persian infantry, Germanic soldier,Greek Hoplite, etc.) but I would assume their Centurions were probably superior to the typical individual warrior of warrior cultures such as the Germanic tribe in swordplay and one-on-one fighting.Doesn't surprise me. I mean its absolutely ludicrous even if we assume Romans were poorly trained as individual fighters that all Roman soldier sucked at one-on-one fighting. I mean higher ranks got be superior to the typical Gaullish footman,etc.

[Lanista]

I'm not sure - the Centurion would have the same training as his men. They were promoted to the centurionate after serving as an optio (think corporal to sergeant, though the apprenticeship would have been much longer than in a modern day army) and had to have a decent length of service and have shown competence in battle, leadership and so forth. I guess if you were going for archetype, it would be "grizzled veteran." But I don't think that they'd be marked out because they were stunning individual warriors (I think that this sort of mano-a-mano stuff was frowned on by centurions in fact).

 

As I said - we're really comparing cultural differences. The Romans didn't place value on that sort of combat and didn't think it was cowardly to fight in such a manner. Similarly, these same Romans thought the Parthians were cowards because they wouldn't stand and fight, but would rather shoot arrows at them and ride off quickly. The "barbarians" thought the Romans were cowards because they ganged up and wouldn't fight "properly" and (I'm no expert) I think the Samurai thought the same of the Monguls when they invaded. The Samurai warrior would ride out to face a champion and get butchered by laughing Koreans.

 

I don't think we can generalise here: as I say, I'm sure some Romans were pretty tasty with a sword, others not so. But they just didn't have the same ethos as the cultures you mention here.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

I think the Samurai thought the same of the Monguls when they invaded. The Samurai warrior would ride out to face a champion and get butchered by laughing Koreans.

 

Thats something of a misconception. While the initial battle was a Mongol victory,the Japanese later beaten the Mongols so badly at a small town during the first invasion.If anything, it the Mongol defeat at that town that caused them to call of the invasion, not the so called "Divine Winds".The Samurais were not as individualistic as we think and indeed by the time of the second invasion, they were fighting with nasty tricks and formations-to put as an example. A group of Samruai surrendered to the Mongols and as soon as they got onto the Mongol ships, they slaughterered the Mongolian sailors.

 

In fact by the time of Imjin War, formations similar to those the Romans and Greeks usesd such as the Phalanx were basic aspects of Japanese Warfare.

[Lanista]

As I say, I'm no expert on that, thanks for the clarification.

[Ursus]

Of course, I often wonder why no one ever asks the question what would happen if a Spartan Phalanx met an early Roman Legion.... oh no, wait a minute...

 

 

I honestly think Viggen should host an international scholarly conference on this with all the Roman military historians. We'll have the world's best minds settle this question once and for all!!

[Medusa]

I had done some research for an article on gladiators as soldiers. In times of crisis they were indeed recruited as auxiliary troops e.g. by Marcus Aurelius for his Marcomannic Wars but also earlier during the year of the four emperors. Unfortunately they failed as soldiers although at least the murmillo, secutor and provocator resemble the closest a Roman legionary with scutum and gladius. That is because they were trained as individual fighters and time in such situations was too short to train them in line fighting so good that they would succeed.

 

What I always wondered is, if Roman legionaries were trained in individual fight as well because there was always the possibility that the formation gets broken up during battle. Marius had introduced gladiator trainers to the army after the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones. They could only train individual fighting style so I assume that each legionary at least in the Republic had basic knowledge of individual fighting.

[GhostOfClayton]

I would assume their Centurions were probably superior to the typical individual warrior of warrior cultures such as the Germanic tribe in swordplay and one-on-one fighting.

 

As Lanista mentioned, the main difference between the Centurion and his infantry would be experience - he got the same training. The equestrian classes (tribunes, etc) would be more likely to have had one-on-one training in swordplay as part of their all-round family education.

[caldrail]

As a martial artist who's done gladiatorial re-enactment, I'd probably take issue with the kung fu movie analogy. Gladiators were trying to hurt each other, actors clearly aren't. Experimental archaeology shows us that gladiatorial fights weren't like they were in the movies either - to a modern audience, they'd probably look a bit shit to be honest, as expectations would be let down.

I did wonder if that point was going to come up. I agree our modern virtual violence is essentially reconstructed, rather like some choreographed ballet, and I also agree that gladiators fought for real with sharp pointy things, and that monuments do list a number od deceased gladiators who found that out. However, let's make clear a distinction here. They weren't trying to hurt each other per se, but fighting to please their master and achioeve that elusive victory. It wasn't warfare, it was competition.

 

Admittedly it could get pretty deadly out there but bear in ind the rules they fought by, the close attebntion of the referee, and the demands of the audience. These are things that don't apply to warfare.

[Lanista]

Sure, but we're not talking about warfare: "everyone is saying that one-on-one, a Roman would lose to a Spartan, Samurai, Celtic Warrior, etc. so easily and he would need to be in a group formation to even have a chance to defeat other warriors one-on-one."

 

I agree that gladiators would be not much good in pitched battle - there's even evidence to support it. (begs the question though - army of gladiators vs army of rampaging barbarians? Hmmm...there's a book in there somewhere...)

 

I do think they'd hold their own against the above in a 1-2-1 match. In the Spartan/Celtic example they were even trained to do so as I pointed out in the earlier fighting style example. Against a samurai - I don't know, it'd be interesting: the katana is a pretty tasty weapon after all, but the gladiator has his shield.

 

Lierelou will know more about this than me, but I'm not sure if the ancient/medieval Japanese warriors used or had any experience of fighting against individuals (or indeed formations) that used shields. If this IS the case, then I'd say - in our "Ultimate Warrior" test, the Murmillo (given that he's one of our legionary clones) wins.

 

Isn't there some sort of loony UFC-style sword tournament that takes place where you get all sorts of styles facing off - there maybe an example of an equivalent match there. I saw a documentary about it on the history channel, but I can't remember much more about it. It was a two-parter called "The Sword."

 

But, the original point/question has been answered. Most Roman soldiers couldn't stack up to a trained warrior in a 1-2-1 stand off. They weren't trained for it... or really equipped for it - the gladiatorial shields in MOST cases were smaller (I forget the one that actually used the scutum - provocator I think) and lighter. If you've lugged around a scutum for any length of time, they get very unwieldy and heavy for our 21st century muscles. Indeed, our gladiatorial expert Medusa points out that a good tactic for the gladiator carrying the big shield was to rest it on your greave to give your forearm and shoulder a break).

 

We're kind of preaching to the converted - we know that Roman tactics were to stay in formation, barbarian tactics to break that formation - if the machine breaks down... we break down and all that. Getting in amongst the Romans was the best way to defeat them because in that scenario, the barbarians held the advantage.