Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?

[rvmaximus]

It seems the Roamn warrior had a physical advantage not theorized. Perhaps, just perhap they were so much stronger and quicker than other caucasians was their real strength. They were always outnumbered and their equipment was not superior(their bows especially) and the gladius being so short...this would require superior athletic skills to be sure. Their generals were not so brilliant compared to a Patton for example. It seems in hand to hand they were too effective regardless of training. In the ancient world all were trained to fight hand to hand at a very early age, so I feel Roman tactics were not the the answer. Looking at all their battles I have to conclude there was a physical advantage.... When they met superior archers or cavalry the Romans had much difficulty and perhaps their only real difficulty. Why? This nullified physical superiority. The Romans were not the tallest to be sure(5 ft 10 inch height rquirement) but either were neantherdals and modern humans wouldn`t last a minute against them without a weapon. I am just proposing a theory. Tear it apart if you will and I know the temptation will be great because it takes the Romance out of the legion.

[Lost_Warrior]

I'm sure they were stronger and faster, mostly because of training. They spent most of their time training, and were well cared for, giving them an advantage over a less well trained (and in some instances less healthy) army. There was, of course, the physical requirements to even be in the legion, which also gave them an edge.

 

I would not go as far to say that they were *always* outnumbered, I don't really know the battle figures...I do know that the Romans had recurve and composite bows which were incredibly powerful. A gladius is short, but anyone who know's how to use a short sword knows how to use it to advantage. Every weapon has a weakness and a strength, and in order to be effective the soldier must know his weapon's weaknesses and strengths. A short blade is actually ideal in close combat situations. A spear (which many of Rome's enemies used) is great for a distance, or for throwing, but once the opponent gets inside the range of the spear, it becomes useless. The shortsword rules on that battlefield.

 

Roman organization was supurb (in part due to extensive training) which is extremely effective on the battlefield when it can be maintained.

 

I don't really see the point of comparing Roman generals to Patton. Patton lived in a different time, fighting and leading men in very different situations than the Romans could ever face in their time. In my opinion, comparing a Roman to Patton is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Sextus Roscius]

I must agree with Lost Warrior, The Roman advantage lay in its superior training and military disipline which was the most advanced until boot camps in the 1900s.

 

The Roman Recruit was trained with materials far heavier than what they actually weilded, so when they got onto the battlefield, that about 100 pounds (roughly) of armor seemed surprisingly light, along with this, the Romans were subjected to constant physical upkeep unlike other armies of the time, becuase they were used to build the infastructure and when on the march they had to build a camp at night, which would require considerable effort.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Oh brother. But if they had Neanderthal blood would they not battle in tight formations of bear skin clad, bumpy club armed legions? LoL. This reminds me of the lead poisoning theories.

 

All I have to say is, if this was true of the origional Italian legions I guess they were pretty lucky the other regular humans that populated the legions for most of the life of the Empire could hack it.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

One major reason why the Romans were so disciplined was because the army life and training demanded it, mainly it was the "centurion" who made that possible. He made them train really hard like actual modern day bootcamp. He was responsible for everything they did, he should be given the credit in my views.

As Lost Warrior said, technolgy is another determining factor. Look at what the Romans did to the Gauls when the Romans had actual armor and the Gauls did not. Not to mention that the scutum provided major cover to halt the enemy.

About the Neanderthal thing, well I don't know where that theory came from. If it was true, then the anthropologists today wouldn't consider them extinct would they.

[rvmaximus]

I'm sure they were stronger and faster, mostly because of training. They spent most of their time training, and were well cared for, giving them an advantage over a less well trained (and in some instances less healthy) army. There was, of course, the physical requirements to even be in the legion, which also gave them an edge.

 

I would not go as far to say that they were *always* outnumbered, I don't really know the battle figures...I do know that the Romans had recurve and composite bows which were incredibly powerful. A gladius is short, but anyone who know's how to use a short sword knows how to use it to advantage. Every weapon has a weakness and a strength, and in order to be effective the soldier must know his weapon's weaknesses and strengths. A short blade is actually ideal in close combat situations. A spear (which many of Rome's enemies used) is great for a distance, or for throwing, but once the opponent gets inside the range of the spear, it becomes useless. The shortsword rules on that battlefield.

 

Roman organization was supurb (in part due to extensive training) which is extremely effective on the battlefield when it can be maintained.

 

I don't really see the point of comparing Roman generals to Patton. Patton lived in a different time, fighting and leading men in very different situations than the Romans could ever face in their time. In my opinion, comparing a Roman to Patton is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Lost_Warrior]

Um...do you mean to add anything to my post or simply repeat it?

[rvmaximus]

Neanderthal was meant for humor, geneticists say there is not any trace in modern humans. Just wanted to create a theory..beacuse I just do not believe in superior training idea. In those times all peoples were trained to kill at a very early age and fight in groups. Just feel that the stronger and quicker wins here and yes the Romans were outnumbered by extreme numbers fighting in Europe.(somtimes 10 to one against the celts or Germans) Not so in Asia where the Romans had serious trouble. Parthians had the bow that originated in China that went strong for 400 meters. That plus their cavalry proved most fatal to the Romans. Just think that hand to hand is just that,plus there ability to win against great odds...albiet except against archers or cavalry just makes me wonder.

[Virgil61]

...beacuse I just do not believe in superior training idea...

 

Apparently you've never been in the military. Systematic organized training is everything in an army and the Romans were superior to a large extent because their system trained at the individual, small-unit and large-unit level. While other cultures might have trained individuals there's no evidence they entered into any systematic organized training regime dealing with medium or larger groups.

 

The Parthian argument has been debunked a long time ago, see my answer to your thread on this. As for Neanderthals, I don't know what to tell you.

[Germanicus]

rvmaximus, the Neanderthal thing is a bit much. You yourself have already debunked the arguement. I've edited the thread so as to indicate a discussion on what it was that made the Legions superior.

 

Neanderthal was meant for humor, geneticists say there is not any trace in modern humans. Just wanted to create a theory..beacuse I just do not believe in superior training idea.

 

Perhaps if you just wanted to create a theory - get something to back it up, and make it one you believe in.

 

I myself am with the training. There's a vast difference between being "trained to kill at a very early age and fight in groups", and Roman discipline, formation fighting and complex manouvers. You also have to remember that most "barbarian" nations, didn't have a standing army.

[Tobias]

beacuse I just do not believe in superior training idea.

 

Look at it this way old chap; if you're a soldier who has been drilled night and day and night and day for months and years on end in techniques, you'll have it down to a fine science. You will barely think when you execute these long honed actions. Long physical and mental training makes soldiers far more endurant and able to work as a cohesive unit. That's what the Romans had; they were able to work together as an efficient military machine. This was of infinite advantage to, say, the Celtic Warriors Caesar fought, who were not a constantly established or necessarily cohesive unit. They merely went to war a few days at a time, and when it was over they returned to their homes. The legions were constantly training, and would not stop training themselves just because the war was over.

Discipline is a very important thing; If soldiers will quickly and efficiently carry out orders without question (which the romans were trained to do), battles and wars are won.

Superior training is certainly one of the telling factors in what made the Romans "better", because it entailed strong discipline and the other factors that make an efficient, cohesive military machine the most dangerous weapon to wield.

 

Their generals were not so brilliant compared to a Patton for example.

 

You can't compare Roman generals, with completly different methods of warfare and technology available, to a 20th century general with rifles, machine guns, tanks and bombs at his command.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Tobias

[Primus Pilus]

Hmm, Gaius Marius seems to have had some Neanderthalic traits

 

Marius Bust

[longbow]

What made Romans better fighters? one word,training.Celtic warrior castes would train from a very early age but the Celtic idea of warrior training was all about the individual soldier.The Romans would train as a unit and thats much more affective for Battles,200 Celts fighting as individuals wouldnt be able to beat 100 legionnaries fighting as a Century.

Allso, the Romans had the ability to recognise superior equipment,and would adapt there fighting styles to suit,they wore a Celtic style helmet ,the Gladius is Iberian and Chainmail is a Celtic invention.If a Roman enemy is using a good weapon,they will take it train with it then change there tactics to suit it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

They were always outnumbered and their equipment was not superior(their bows especially) and the gladius being so short...this would require superior athletic skills to be sure.

 

Unless you're on a horse, what good is all that extra sword? Just to wave it about for the girls?

[Favonius Cornelius]

Hmm, Gaius Marius seems to have had some Neanderthalic traits

 

Marius Bust

 

 

Heh, or Pompey:

 

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/489-502/Pompey.jpg