How poor were Roman Legions as Individual Fighters and Swordsmen

[Melvadius]

Moderation:

 

Off-Topic postings have been removed. Please remember that we are not in the business of comparing fictional historical battles on this site.

[caldrail]

barbarian tactics to break that formation

That depends. Typically barbarian tribes in western europe used intimidation as a primary tactic, yelling, rushing forward swinging a sword with wild abandon, and melees tended toward masses of both sides standing apart with little actions going on here and there as the barbarians surged forward again when the braver souls decided to go for it. The Romans of course would try to maintain formation and silence.

 

As such, an intent to 'break' the enemy formation wasn't the point. Breaking his morale certainly was. The barbarians wanted you to run away for your lives. I doubt they actually preferred a slaughter - that wasn't the way they thought.

 

Eastern tribes, whether mounted or on foot, preferred to wither their opponent down to size before making any confrontation face to face. That is of course a general observation and you will find exceptions in behaviour.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

barbarian tactics to break that formation

That depends. Typically barbarian tribes in western europe used intimidation as a primary tactic, yelling, rushing forward swinging a sword with wild abandon, and melees tended toward masses of both sides standing apart with little actions going on here and there as the barbarians surged forward again when the braver souls decided to go for it. The Romans of course would try to maintain formation and silence.

 

As such, an intent to 'break' the enemy formation wasn't the point. Breaking his morale certainly was. The barbarians wanted you to run away for your lives. I doubt they actually preferred a slaughter - that wasn't the way they thought.

 

Eastern tribes, whether mounted or on foot, preferred to wither their opponent down to size before making any confrontation face to face. That is of course a general observation and you will find exceptions in behaviour.

How successful was this intimidation tactic?I assume it was more successful than ho wmovies portray.

 

This is how Movies portray the intimidation:

 

1)Barbarians yell, wear fierce clothes, etc.

2)It doesn't Work on Romans because of their "Iron Discipline"

3)Barbarians lose patience and decide to attack.

4)Barbarians get slaughtereed by "Disciplined" Roman units in formation

 

 

Of course we on UNRV know it probably didn't go that way as Romans were not as "Professional" and "Disciplined" as Modern Military tends to hype them out to be(trust me on many other forunms I got to poeple LITERALLY THINK Romans had Retirement benefits,great pay, basically stuff that would motivate a modern professional army to be disciplined) and the Barbarians were not as stupid and ill-disciplined as the way movie portray them,where they are always shown stupidly rushing at "Roman Perfect Formations" and getting slaughtered easily.Nor are they even remotely reckless enough to risk their lives(afterall Barbarians are just as human as we are even with their "Warrior Cultures" and fear death just as much as the Roman Legions did).

 

How did these intimidation tactics do in Real Life, not in Cinema and flawed and inaccurate General History Books and "Modernized" but very flawed and superficial Military History?Trust me, so many American Military Personnel go as far as stating that Modern Armies Directly Copy of the Roman Legions.

[caldrail]

Barbarian intimidation was not as ineffective as might be imagined. Caesar for instance likes to warble on about his victories but note he gives away clues about fear amongst his men. In particular he recalls having to force standard bearers back into the line, with one threatening him with sharp end of the pole, another simply pushing the standard into Caesars hands and scarpering.

 

The problem with barbarians was that in general they were less organised on the battlefield and prone to intimidation themselves. The fiercest of them must have been formidable men - but note the others only rushed forward behind them.

 

I'm well aware of the comparisons people make these days about ancient and modern - I've spoken against them many times previously and it's a hard ghost to lay to rest. On the one hand it's an odd desire to think of ourselves as somehow following in the empires footsteps and thus laying claim to some measure of military pride from it. On the other, people are reading into Roman organisation what they want and comparisons with contemporary forces have always occurred even when the armed forces fight in no way comparably.

 

There are people who even attempt to reinvent Roman orgnisation. There's a unique facet of male human psychology that likes order. The Romans have this image of being a 'military machine' (even our pages describe them as such in places) and ideas about strength, relentless glory, and supreme power resulting from it resonate with some of our deeper social instincts.

[Quintus Sertorius]

barbarian tactics to break that formation

That depends. Typically barbarian tribes in western europe used intimidation as a primary tactic, yelling, rushing forward swinging a sword with wild abandon, and melees tended toward masses of both sides standing apart with little actions going on here and there as the barbarians surged forward again when the braver souls decided to go for it. The Romans of course would try to maintain formation and silence.

 

As such, an intent to 'break' the enemy formation wasn't the point. Breaking his morale certainly was. The barbarians wanted you to run away for your lives. I doubt they actually preferred a slaughter - that wasn't the way they thought.

 

Eastern tribes, whether mounted or on foot, preferred to wither their opponent down to size before making any confrontation face to face. That is of course a general observation and you will find exceptions in behaviour.

How successful was this intimidation tactic?I assume it was more successful than ho wmovies portray.

 

This is how Movies portray the intimidation:

 

1)Barbarians yell, wear fierce clothes, etc.

2)It doesn't Work on Romans because of their "Iron Discipline"

3)Barbarians lose patience and decide to attack.

4)Barbarians get slaughtereed by "Disciplined" Roman units in formation

 

 

Of course we on UNRV know it probably didn't go that way as Romans were not as "Professional" and "Disciplined" as Modern Military tends to hype them out to be(trust me on many other forunms I got to poeple LITERALLY THINK Romans had Retirement benefits,great pay, basically stuff that would motivate a modern professional army to be disciplined) and the Barbarians were not as stupid and ill-disciplined as the way movie portray them,where they are always shown stupidly rushing at "Roman Perfect Formations" and getting slaughtered easily.Nor are they even remotely reckless enough to risk their lives(afterall Barbarians are just as human as we are even with their "Warrior Cultures" and fear death just as much as the Roman Legions did).

 

How did these intimidation tactics do in Real Life, not in Cinema and flawed and inaccurate General History Books and "Modernized" but very flawed and superficial Military History?Trust me, so many American Military Personnel go as far as stating that Modern Armies Directly Copy of the Roman Legions.

 

I must say, the Roman's iron discipline only stretched as far as a general could inspire it (Roman Soldiers DID get pensions: Examples: Pompey's Eastern Settlement and Marius's Numidian Settlement: Indeed, Suetonius does mention that Caesar's father was involved in settling veterans in Numidia. Many of the Roman territories had Roman Veteran Colonies.) For example, men like Caesar and Marius could inspire their soldiers to great bravery, but men like Titus (the Emperor) were less talented and could exploit bravery only in some men: An entire legion routed according to Josephus at the siege of Jerusalem. The imperator was extremely important.

 

In addition, I am shocked by claims of people here that Roman soldiers were "pretty naff" at hand-to-hand combat; especially claims that hoplites were better (???). I mean look at casualty figures from Pydna and Cynoscephalae (spelling?). In addition, at the Siege of New Carthage and other Sieges, one could see that they were plainly good at hand-to-hand in narrow places. Moreover, city-stormings, very dangerous occasions in the ancient world due to the narrow streets. However, the Romans were very successful at city combat. In the streets, one could not form heavy infantry formations and so had to rely on skills of individual infantry.

 

Also, Roman soldiers (Post-Marian) were habitually submitted to gladiator training. Marius's army sent to confront the Cimbri and Teutones had received Gladiator training both to build up strength and be skillful with weapons.

 

[/rant]

[Quintus Sertorius]

Barbarian intimidation was not as ineffective as might be imagined. Caesar for instance likes to warble on about his victories but note he gives away clues about fear amongst his men. In particular he recalls having to force standard bearers back into the line, with one threatening him with sharp end of the pole, another simply pushing the standard into Caesars hands and scarpering.

 

The problem with barbarians was that in general they were less organised on the battlefield and prone to intimidation themselves. The fiercest of them must have been formidable men - but note the others only rushed forward behind them.

 

I'm well aware of the comparisons people make these days about ancient and modern - I've spoken against them many times previously and it's a hard ghost to lay to rest. On the one hand it's an odd desire to think of ourselves as somehow following in the empires footsteps and thus laying claim to some measure of military pride from it. On the other, people are reading into Roman organisation what they want and comparisons with contemporary forces have always occurred even when the armed forces fight in no way comparably.

 

There are people who even attempt to reinvent Roman orgnisation. There's a unique facet of male human psychology that likes order. The Romans have this image of being a 'military machine' (even our pages describe them as such in places) and ideas about strength, relentless glory, and supreme power resulting from it resonate with some of our deeper social instincts.

 

About the man who was trying to spear Caesar, it was at Dyracchium (Spelling) whilst fighting against Pompeian legions. Although the standard bearer anecdotes are quite accurate. But this WAS at the Battle of the Sambre, where they were caught unawares by an unusually well-organised group of "The Bravest of the Gauls" with a relatively newly levied legion from Cisapline Gaul.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Quintus Sertorius

[caldrail]

I think it's generally conceded that Roman soldiers varied in individual capability. I must stress however that stronger discipline and rigorous training was more prevalent during times of conflict. We can see some shocking laziness in peacetime, which was the primary motive for keeping troops busy on civil engineering as much as sword practice or drills.

 

There's no statistical breakdown that I know of concerning the employment of gladiators as trainers. It did happen, but there's no convenient data, and in all probability most gladiators in the camp were nothing more than personal bodyguards and training from them was bound to be more informal and lacklustre.

[Quintus Sertorius]

I think it's generally conceded that Roman soldiers varied in individual capability. I must stress however that stronger discipline and rigorous training was more prevalent during times of conflict. We can see some shocking laziness in peacetime, which was the primary motive for keeping troops busy on civil engineering as much as sword practice or drills.

 

There's no statistical breakdown that I know of concerning the employment of gladiators as trainers. It did happen, but there's no convenient data, and in all probability most gladiators in the camp were nothing more than personal bodyguards and training from them was bound to be more informal and lacklustre.

 

Yes. I do agree. We can see this with Corbulo and other imperial Legates. Also, the legions had no gladiators, from the sources I know of, they simply received similar training. However, one must agree that when in a high state of readiness and with a good imperator, the Roman Legionary was a pretty good melee fighter.

[caldrail]

Partly due to psychology rather than simply better discipline, arms, armour, or other factors the pundits usually suggest when they play Top Trumps: Ancient Armies. I notice the 'effectiveness' in settlement assaults was also down to released anger.

[Quintus Sertorius]

Yes, again you are quite right. The anger part would have played a factor. However, the very fact Roman Soldiers can still be kept under reasonable control (there are exceptions : Caesar's Sack of Gomphi) despite them being significantly angry, having probably suffered a high percentage of casualties due to the nature of assault.

[Medusa]

There's no statistical breakdown that I know of concerning the employment of gladiators as trainers. It did happen, but there's no convenient data, and in all probability most gladiators in the camp were nothing more than personal bodyguards and training from them was bound to be more informal and lacklustre.

 

For an article I hope which will be published in Ancient Warfare sooner or later I had done some research on the topic of gladiators as soldiers (which Maty already read) and I could answer as follows:

 

The gladiatorial trainers in an army camp are attested under Marius in 105 BC when the Cimbri and Teutones invaded Italy. The reason for including gladiatorial training was that Marius saw the danger that the formation might be broken up when fighting these fierce Germanic tribes.

 

You are right that gladiators were used as bodyguards e.g. under Caesar who owned his own gladiators. But also in AD 14 general Blaesus had a bodyguard consisting of gladiators as is attested by Tacitus in his Annals.

 

But as I have posted previously gladiators where used as regular auxiliary units in times of crisis such as in the Year of the Four Emperors by Otho. This unit lost against the Germanic units of Vitellius. Also Marcus Aurelius recruited gladiators for his Marcomannic wars as is attested by the Historia Augusta.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Roman Soldiers DID get pensions: Examples: Pompey's Eastern Settlement and Marius's Numidian Settlement: Indeed, Suetonius does mention that Caesar's father was involved in settling veterans in Numidia. Many of the Roman territories had Roman Veteran Colonies.)

 

Iam FULLY aware that retired Roman Legionnaires did were rewarded for their services.What I am concerned with is how people assume that just because Roman soldiers got what seemed like "pension" in modern times, that Roman soldiers received it in the modern sense such as loans for home and of course enough pension benefit for retired Roman soldiers to live comfortably without a job-which wasn't necessarily true as how great the benefits were depended on multiple factors like who the general was(unlike today where retirement benefits for veteran soldiers are standardized an organized);also to keep in mind was the the retirement benefit of Roman Veterans(and even their pay when they were still in the modern sense in "Active Duty") was pretty poor in comparison to what veterans received today.However just because they seem to be the closest thing to "pension in the classical world",people assume it was as practically the same as pension in the modern sense.Particularly people believe it was as beneficial for Roman soldiers as it is for todays veterans and practally works the same wasy such as offering modern benefits as house loans and having the government willing to take care of its veteran soldiers.Thats what Iam saying when people are errorenous assumption in Romans receiving pension-they modernized it today like how pension work for today's veterans.

[Quintus Sertorius]

Roman Soldiers DID get pensions: Examples: Pompey's Eastern Settlement and Marius's Numidian Settlement: Indeed, Suetonius does mention that Caesar's father was involved in settling veterans in Numidia. Many of the Roman territories had Roman Veteran Colonies.)

 

Iam FULLY aware that retired Roman Legionnaires did were rewarded for their services.What I am concerned with is how people assume that just because Roman soldiers got what seemed like "pension" in modern times, that Roman soldiers received it in the modern sense such as loans for home and of course enough pension benefit for retired Roman soldiers to live comfortably without a job-which wasn't necessarily true as how great the benefits were depended on multiple factors like who the general was(unlike today where retirement benefits for veteran soldiers are standardized an organized);also to keep in mind was the the retirement benefit of Roman Veterans(and even their pay when they were still in the modern sense in "Active Duty") was pretty poor in comparison to what veterans received today.However just because they seem to be the closest thing to "pension in the classical world",people assume it was as practically the same as pension in the modern sense.Particularly people believe it was as beneficial for Roman soldiers as it is for todays veterans and practally works the same wasy such as offering modern benefits as house loans and having the government willing to take care of its veteran soldiers.Thats what Iam saying when people are errorenous assumption in Romans receiving pension-they modernized it today like how pension work for today's veterans.

 

Sorry. I didn't mean to patronise or cause offence. Please forgive me...

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Roman Soldiers DID get pensions: Examples: Pompey's Eastern Settlement and Marius's Numidian Settlement: Indeed, Suetonius does mention that Caesar's father was involved in settling veterans in Numidia. Many of the Roman territories had Roman Veteran Colonies.)

 

Iam FULLY aware that retired Roman Legionnaires did were rewarded for their services.What I am concerned with is how people assume that just because Roman soldiers got what seemed like "pension" in modern times, that Roman soldiers received it in the modern sense such as loans for home and of course enough pension benefit for retired Roman soldiers to live comfortably without a job-which wasn't necessarily true as how great the benefits were depended on multiple factors like who the general was(unlike today where retirement benefits for veteran soldiers are standardized an organized);also to keep in mind was the the retirement benefit of Roman Veterans(and even their pay when they were still in the modern sense in "Active Duty") was pretty poor in comparison to what veterans received today.However just because they seem to be the closest thing to "pension in the classical world",people assume it was as practically the same as pension in the modern sense.Particularly people believe it was as beneficial for Roman soldiers as it is for todays veterans and practally works the same wasy such as offering modern benefits as house loans and having the government willing to take care of its veteran soldiers.Thats what Iam saying when people are errorenous assumption in Romans receiving pension-they modernized it today like how pension work for today's veterans.

 

Sorry. I didn't mean to patronise or cause offence. Please forgive me...

 

No offense taken at all .I apoligize if I sounded a bit rude.I tend to be overenthusiastic in debatess.Just my nature in online discussion. Don't take offense if I get a bit to roudy.I don't mean any harm.

[caldrail]

But as I have posted previously gladiators where used as regular auxiliary units in times of crisis such as in the Year of the Four Emperors by Otho. This unit lost against the Germanic units of Vitellius.

 

I do note however that the gladiator unit in ad64 was probably betrayed by its own officers, who disappeared before the planned attack and that the gladiators were soundly ambushed. My point being they didn't so much lose as got betrayed and slaughtered.

 

It seems being in charge of a unit of slaves was too much of an insult which is conformant to slave units such as those raised by Augustus, who had them made freedmen but not allowed legionary weaponry nor to associate with legionaries. It would seem unlikely that Otho would raise troops as 'regular' auxillaries from the ranks of gladiators but rather as allies under Roman control. Although the effect is more or less the same in the context of an emergency measure to find troops for defense, the Roman class system was not to be ignored, and I'm not aware of any mention of gladiators being sworn in for a term of service with the phrase 'regular' would require.