Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?

[Pantagathus]

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?

 

I don't know if I would rigidly say that Romans were X and Germans-Gauls were Y (as there was probably a bit of mesomorphs & ectomorphs on both sides) but in regards to the other points I would say it's dead on. From personal martial arts experience, if one keeps guarded, covered and prepared to take advantage of openings left by an opponents attack, one can endure quite a long struggle and will usually win no matter the size difference.

 

Large people swinging widely are easy to beat for exactly the reasons Pertinax stated: they will tire more quickly and leave their body open for counter attack in the process. A "round house" attack whether a punch, sword slash or kick is the easiest blocked. Conversely, it takes a lot of energy to block a thrust emanating from an attacker's forward side of their stance... (Less reaction time)

[Felix Marcellus]

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.

 

The Romans ability to move faster than the Gauls could be attributed to factors other than physical ability. If you take charge of 100,000 men and I take charge of 40,000 men and we race our armies to a certain point, I'm going to beat your very large and cumbersome force. THe Gauls had to move in huge numbers. Seems to me that not until Napolean came around was a commander able to lead such huge numbers quickly and efficiently to a given location.

 

Had Vercingetorix picked 40,000 of his best men he may well have been able to match the marching range and speed of the Romans. Who knows.

 

I'll never believe the Romans were physically superior to anyone though. THey lost more than enough battles to disprove that theory. Discipline and Training won the many battles. Likewise, it prevented complete disaster in defeat. BUt the Roman Empire conquered due to manpower, resources and unrivaled stubborness. Ask Hannibal about Roman stubbornness. He got schooled in it.

[P.Clodius]

Ever hear of the saying "There is no "I" in team"?

It was that simple. The romans placed emphasis on unit cohesion, the rest on individual glory. Except the greeks and carthaginians. With the carthaginians it was their propensity to hire mercenaries, against the roman system of allies and citizen millitia that caused them to fail. The greeks were already in their downward spiral when they seriously went against the romans. What we call "The Greeks" would have been unknown to them, as they considered themselves citizens of Athens, etc... Also, what was considered as a major engagement by the greeks ex. Himera, would have been considered a skirmish by the romans. The gauls and the germans fought as individuals mostly from what I gather.

[Pertinax]

Did I mention the Romans constant attention to roads as a strategic weapon? I think another thread went in a similar vein-on top of all the team work, killing efficiency and casevac excellence, troops were dispatched and delivered with alacrity.

[Pantagathus]

Ever hear of the saying "There is no "I" in team"?

 

Yes there is no "I" only an M and E :bag:

[rvmaximus]

Ever hear of the saying "There is no "I" in team"?

 

Yes there is no "I" only an M and E :bag:

 

Don`t know Italian but I heard their is an 'I' in the Italian word for team.lol.

[Pertinax]

squadra? theres a U

Edited January 5, 2006 by Pertinax

[Guest Nectaridus]

Regularly paid professional "regimental" army with high esprit de corps and confidence.

 

Constant and effective training and drill.

 

Healthy and well fed troops in clean, secure and defensible camps.

 

Highly organised logistics and supply arrangements.

 

Good personal armour as standard.

 

Excellent senior "nco" cadre (centurions).

 

Efficient and mobile tactical units (cohorts) which could act independently either in a major battle if necessary or as detached units.

 

Effective weaponry - use of scutum and gladius superior to hack and slash approach of heroic warriors. Somewhere on tv I heard an historian quote a Roman general who described the average battle as "simple butcher work". Fancy tactics rarely necessary unless against other Roman forces.

 

Field artillery and other missile units to engage enemy long before they came within pilum range.

 

Battle order in lines which could replace each other if necessary.

 

The use of reserves: this was essential, of major tactical importance and a concept rarely appreciated by barbarian foes. Even a battle that threatened to become a disaster for the Romans could be recovered by the effective use of reserves (Julian at Strasbourg/Argentoratum in 357 for instance, when the Primani plugged a very dangerous gap caused by an enemy breakthrough in the Roman centre)

 

How's that for starters?

 

Nectaridus

[Skarr]

The first episode of the "Rome" series shows a section of the battle, where the Centurion, Lucius Vorenus, blows a whistle to rotate fresh men to the front of the line where they stab at the rushing, disorganized enemy who throw themselves at the wall of shields again and again, to be stabbed and repulsed.

 

I guess the Romans fought in a mechanical fashion and their discipline, training helped them achieve their workman like precision during battle as they stabbed and thrust their way into the enemy. The History Channel had a recreation of one of their battles in Britain, where they defeated a superior force by using a wedge formation to drive their way in through the masses of enemy warriors and trapped them against their own cattle carts. The battle ended in a general massacre, as the enemy had nowhere to flee to and were butchered by the Romans.

[Pertinax]

This would be the defeat of the Icenii-who outnumbered the Romans (vastly) ,and brought everyone along to enjoy the show. Hubris.

The wedge re-appears as the a-Viking "swine array" -the best counter technique is said to be another "sows head" to break the momentum

 

gallery note:I have a swine array monument photo in my Eboracvm album

 

casualty rates for both this battle and mons graupius were in both cases -Rome :nominal (if one can say such a thing) Locals :vast. The decisive action in both battles seems to be fire discipline and the pilum discharge into attackers lured into making an attack, then having lost momentum being penned in and being mercilessley cut down by the gladius-and auxiliary cavalry. At mons graupius even the "beserkers" (though that was not then the appropriate name) of the Caledonii were pushed off the battlefield.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Pertinax

[Arvioustus]

It looks like your analysis of Germanic fighters were similar to the Viking? What I have read there was a huge variation between most, some heavy cavalry, some light and they fought with a great deal of strategy. They always new the Roman strength because they had much information from Celtic and Belgic (probably Germanic) on the size of the legions. The Romans had spies of course but it seems like the Geramnic forces alwys engaged the Romans with an amazing amount of troops. Who has the better strategy? True the Romans won most of the battles but this cannot be because of their strategy. Perhaps because the Romans were led by policians and the Germans were led by leaders who came up from the ranks. I feel the Romans biggest advanatge was the individual foot soldier, his abilty to overcome many odds is legendary. Just many researches do not dwell on this because it leads nowhere and just simplifies what is the Roman machine to them. However, the machine did work but its abilty was based on a superior physical specimens I am sure besides training. Hand to hand they must have suffered many wounds being so outnumberd and I still cannot understand their success given the odds.

 

Marcus Aurelius was an interesting figure against the Germanic tribes:

Eutropius:

Compendium of Roman History, VIII.12-14

 

Marcus Aurelius was trained in philosophy by Apollonius of Chalcedon: in the Greek language by Sextus of Chaeronea, the grandson of Plutarch, while the eminent orator Fronto instructed him in Latin literature. He conducted himself towards all men at Rome, as if he had been their equal, being moved by no arrogance by his elevation to the Empire. He exercised prompt liberality, and managed the provinceswith the utmost kindness and indulgence.

 

Under his rule affairs were successfully conducted against the Germans. He himself carried on a war with the Marcomanni, which was greater than any in the memory of man (in the way of wars with the Germans)---so that it was compared to the Punic Wars, for it was exceedingly formidable, and in it whole armies were lost; especially as in this reign, after the victory over the Parthians there occurred a great pestilence so that at Rome, and throughout Italy and the provinces a large fraction of the population, and actually the bulk of the regular troops perished from the plague.

 

With the greatest labor and patience he persevered for three whole years at Carnutum [a strategically located fortress town in Pannonia], and brought the Marcomannic war to an end; a war in which the Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Suevi and all the barbarians in that region, had joined the outbreak of the Marcomanni. He slew several thousand men, and having delivered the Pannonians from bondage held a triumph at Rome. As the treasury was drained by the war, and he had no money to give his soldiers; and as he would not lay any extra tax on the provinces or Senate, he sold off all his imperial furniture and decorations by an auction held in the Forum of Trajan, consisting of gold and cups of crystal and precious stone, silk garments belonging to his wife and to himself, embroidered---as they were---with gold, and numbers of jeweled ornaments. This sale was kept up through two successive months and a great deal of money was raised by it. After his victory, however, he refunded the money to such purchasers as were willing to restore what they had bought, but was by no means troublesome to those who wished to keep their purchase.

 

After his victory he was so magnificent in his display of games he is said to have exhibited in the arena one hundred lions at once. Having then at last rendered the state happy by his excellent management and gentleness of character, he died in the eighteenth year of his reign, in the sixty-first of his life. He was enrolled among the gods, all the Senate voting unanimously that he should have such honor.

[Centurion Legioneer]

Well the Roman War machine was a very well organized and trained army. The roman army also had some of the best military weapons and leaders. The roman soldiers were also very well conditioned too, therefore they were able to fight on longer, and couple that with the roman military tactics and their very good training and equipment. One army could not beat a roman army, with even numbers, head to head, without a tactical error, by the roman commander.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Centurion Legioneer

[Centurion Legioneer]

The roman army also was a professional army. Some armies back in roman times, the soldiers were enslaved and forces to fight, the Roman soldiers, were not and subsequently fought harder.

[caldrail]

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.

 

Romans did not have a physical advantage. Far from it, their celtic adversaries were bigger. The Romans had training, discipline, and tactical advantages which compensated. When well led, they were highly capable.

 

Most Roman soldiers came from poor families. They would have enlisted having been used to some physical labour, and apart from useful artisan skills, this fitness was something recruiters looked for. Training was done with heavier practice weapons to build muscles, and lets not forget, soldiers were employed as manual labourers wherever possible. I don't think the camps were holiday homes!

 

As a legionary, you would be expected to carry around 60lbs of gear for 20 or 25 miles, then build a camp to stay overnight (and you might be required to go on guard duty overnight too if you hadn't paid off the centurion). These route marches were common.

 

I see the average legionary as a very hardened and brutalised person. It was a tough regime that produced tough men.

[Centurion Legioneer]

Very good point, the Roman adversaries in many cases were bigger, but the roman soldiers were the best trained, along with the best weapons and tactics. Roman training was rigerous, and with the training, they became the best soldiers of their age.