Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?

[Felix Marcellus]

OK, well look at Roman Military History. THe Gauls sacked Rome long before Caesar conquered them. Where was the physical superiority there. Epirus managed to beat the Romans. THe Samnites even scored some victories against them. And need I even mention Hannibal? Surely such physically superior specimens would never lose a battle against such inferior humans.

 

It is the system that allowed the Romans to survive these defeats. The leaders learned from their mistakes. Adjustments were made. More importantly, the system allowed for legions to be stood up and ready for combat in a short amount of time because the Standard Operating Procedures were already in place. Whereas other nations would've conscripted peasants, handed them a spear (if they were lucky) and prayed they could get a victory with such a rabble. Not the Romans. They could field force after force of professional soldiers almost at will. That has nothing to do with physical superiority. That's all organizational and management skill.

 

The legion (not a Roman) extended the boundaries of the empire. I wouldn't doubt one bit that some later legions were entirely non-Roman. If not entirely non-Roman than largely non-Roman. Do you magically become physically superior when you join a Roman Legion? If so than I guess I agree with you. The Eastern Roman Empire certainly would've been mostly non-Roman. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted 1000 years beyond the western one. But the western one was physically superior. I don't get it.

 

Please tell me you're just playing devil's advocate. What about the British. Will we one day find out they carved out a world wide empire because they were also physically superior? Or maybe that the Mongols were physically superior? You can't tell me the French under Napolean were physically superior. They were too short.

[Virgil61]

...The Roman army I believe had a physical AND MENTAL advantage over its opponents due to training and discipline...

 

Gauls were large and very strong. They marched over long distances and endured hardship as did Roman soldiers. The descriptions of them would lead me to believe individually they were actually physically superior specimens over the Romans. I could be wrong, but that's just my perception based off what I've read about them and Romans. I believe training and discipline was the difference that made the Roman Army superior to other armies. I'd say the same discipline went into everything they did: navy, development, commerce and agriculture. Whatever endeavor Rome (as a nation) undertook, they did it as well or better than anyone.

 

...

 

The Roman Military System was superior to any other military system rather than the actual Roman was superior to any other race.

 

Training and discipline, spoken like a soldier. Nothing gives confidence more than to be able to conduct your tactical-skill at the small unit or individual level so it's almost second nature and to have the confidence that peers on the left and right can do the same.

 

I do remember a scene somewhere against the Germans--was it Bello Gallico?--where some of the Roman troops were visibly taken aback by their size at first sight but settled down when reminded of their own deeds and training.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Training and discipline, spoken like a soldier. Nothing gives confidence more than to be able to conduct your tactical-skill at the small unit or individual level so it's almost second nature and to have the confidence that peers on the left and right can do the same.

 

I do remember a scene somewhere against the Germans--was it Bello Gallico?--where some of the Roman troops were visibly taken aback by their size at first sight but settled down when reminded of their own deeds and training.

 

It was against Ariovistus when the Romans began to panick because the Aedui described the Germans like they were invincible and terrorizing which got spreaded among the soldiers and thus cowardice and fear ensued, but Caesar calmed them down by gathering the centurions and complimenting them about their past deeds against the Helvetii...et alia, which changed their minds.

Edited December 28, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Isn't there archeological evidence that the average height of the Roman legionary was 5'1 while the height of the average German was closer to 5'10? If my memory is right, isn't the whole physical explanation for Roman superiority based on a faulty premise?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I'm not sure about the Germans, but I remembered a documentarly long ago comparing the bones of Romans and Gauls. The Roman soldier average 5'1 to 5'3. The Gauls averaged 5'8. If the Germans were 5'10, there's really not much support in saying in size or genetics matters because the Romans easily beated the Gauls who were not much less bigger than the Germans.

[Tobias]

Superior training is certainly what tells, along with professionality. A thing i would also suggest; the Roman Work Ethic. They were used to strenuous physical activity, and it was bred into the people. I am not suggesting they were physically bigger etc., just that they had a physical history of hard labour matching if not overtaking most other peoples. This is shown in the long hard marches undertaken, the huge amounts of fortifications erected and their stamina in all areas. For example; Caesar's campaign in Gaul. He moved his legions so fast that Vercongetorix himself admitted that the Gauls could never hope to match the Romans in speed. The Roman Work Ethic, i believe, is part of what made the Romans better. I am not suggesting that other peoples did not work as hard or harder, however, just that the Romans possessed a strong work ethic that translated to stamina etc.

[Virgil61]

Isn't there archeological evidence that the average height of the Roman legionary was 5'1 while the height of the average German was closer to 5'10? If my memory is right, isn't the whole physical explanation for Roman superiority based on a faulty premise?

 

From a post I made this July based on a doc I found:

 

I did find this data that indicates the evidence points to Germans and East Europeans being, on average, 4 centimeters taller than Roman soldiers stationed in their region. Assuming the soldiers being taller and healthier than the average Roman and still being 4 cm shorter than an average German it points to a height diffential.

 

The Biological Standard of Living in Europe During the Last Two Millennia.

 

You'll have to dig into the doc to find the relevant data.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks, Virgil. According to these data, the Germanic height advantage was only 2 - 4 cm, depending on the century. Overall, human heights prior to widespread industrialization remained fairly stagnant, with the total range drifting between 168 - 172 cm. I pretend no military expertise, but a two-inch height difference doesn't sound like much of an advantage to anyone.

 

It's too bad this paper doesn't discuss discrepancies between their own height estimates and those reported elsewhere.

[Pertinax]

I suggest a height difference would work against any non-Roman "slashing" attacker, ie:greater potential target area opened to gladius thrust, for a longer period of time the taller the assailant and the longer his sword.Whatever the height though the required short travel stab of the gladius can be accomplished with minimal mechanical motion,and little opening up of one's body as a target: slashing might look scarier but attack rate is reduced and far more surface area exposed.

Are we perhaps saying "Romans " are mesomorphs with a stocky body built for endurance and long range marching in various weather conditions ? whereas "Germans " are Ectomorphs given to more immediate spectacular dissipation of energy and less inclined to build stamina?And that training built on these charachteristics to the most efficient use of this body type?

How does that square with Virgil's experience of battalion training,sound plausible?

 

I left out the Endomorphs, theyd be providing logistical and tactical support.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Pertinax

[Jimbow]

At one point legionary applicants had to pass (generally) a medical examination by (usually) 3 physicians. After a tough and rigorous basic training the training continued every day for the rest of their careers (give or take). On top of this, they were made to march emulating a campaign march every few weeks. The combat and physical training never let up, and I doubt general regional physiques had too much to do with it even if applicable. The men themselves gathered courage from their training and experience when faced with a new and frightening enemy (guess who usually won). The Dacians were generally taller and fierce inflicting dreadful wounds with the falx, but they adapted their armour and carried on (we know who won there). Read Josephus for his comments on their stamina and relentless training, which he believed guaranteed them victory almost every time, rightly or wrongly.

 

Pertinax's comment on stabbing versus slashing is bolstered by the volley of pila which would incapacitate much of the enemy's shield defence, bearing in mind it is estimated by some that there were only four seconds between the pila volley and the Romans crashing into the stalled enemy. I doubt it matters how big they are, so long as you've softened them up first and given them no time to recover.

 

New tactics and methods were also adopted on the go, as seen with the formation of the cohortes equitates, thought up by a centurion who saw a need for foot troops to go in with the cavalry and soften up enemy cavalry that the Roman cavalry were having problems with up until then. Young and flighty troops were chosen and trained in dismounting from the back of a horse in no time at all (I think it was a siege scenario under Arrian). It worked and the centurion was commended. So even when they were bested they had the flexibility to come up with, and act on, a solution whilst in the thick of it.

 

Sorry, I don't have the actual source references to hand.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Jimbow

[Pertinax]

"an army thrives on hard work" ( somebody remind me who said it please!) and weve talked about pilae in the thread previously, in particular lethality against non-dispersed targets ( sorry to do that backwards but Im trying to emphasise that the "ancient " battlefield was very compact versus machine age ), and counter shock to an aggressing assault formation even if lethality is not great.

 

The falxe was fearsome ,but again the same "target availability " factor comes into play.Does anyone have any sources on wound locality for Legion casualties, I recall some debate about the tendency of Romans to suffer slash wounds to legs, hands and exposed face areas ( ie: an opponent was obliged to stab at the face where possible , in a melee,because of the excellent protection of the various helmet types).

 

We know that like the Japanese (medieval) the Romans learnt fast from enemies and assimilated ideas rapidly.

[Jimbow]

Does anyone have any sources on wound locality for Legion casualties, I recall some debate about the tendency of Romans to suffer slash wounds to legs, hands and exposed face areas ( ie: an opponent was obliged to stab at the face where possible , in a melee,because of the excellent protection of the various helmet types).

 

The almost overnight adoption (in historical terms) of greaves, a manica, and cross-bracing to the top of the helmet are the likeliest clues.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[Pertinax]

I was going to suggest that my remark about helmets did not extend to "late type" mass produced "cavalry" style

 

The manica are I think very important, they are of the same "nature" as kote in kendo, get a crack (or blade ) across that area and you have lost your weapon and possibly your life: in quick succesion. Not much use against a gladius though.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Pertinax

[Jimbow]

I was going to suggest that my remark about helmets did not extend to "late type" mass produced "cavalry" style

The helmets in the Dacian Wars were the usual Gallic and Italic types of the late 1st C. The crossbracing were simple iron rods riveted across the top, usually in the field I believe, and probably the crests discarded. They were not the later "cavalry types" (although just as feasibly they were legionary types).

The manica are I think very important, they are of the same "nature" as kote in kendo, get a crack (or blade ) across that area and you have lost your weapon and possibly your life: in quick succesion.

It seems the manica was felt unnecessary until they went to war with Dacia, and the Romans had done pretty well up until then. Greaves had fallen out of use for the common trooper as well a long time before, so their re-introduction is a definite indication leg injuries were a factor. I think the main problem was the reach around of the falx due to its shape, which enabled the Dacians to get one in around the scutum and over the back (with the top of the helmet in the way), combined with the height of the Dacians themselves.

Not much use against a gladius though.

Just as well they were fighting the Dacians then, and not each other.

[Pertinax]

Sorry, didnt make myself clear about the helmets, I meant the very late style towards the end of the Empire.

I wonder if the falx was also used like the Naginata, swipe towards the shins if no other target available?

Edited December 30, 2005 by Pertinax