Sinister Romans

[Formosus Viriustus]

Well, that in a close battle formation everybody has to fight right-handed seems self evident.

In theory you could have completely left-handed units. That might even have made some sense in order to cover your right flank, but I think there is no evidence at all that such a thing ever existed.

There was little tactical advantage to that, and no, no-one bothered to gather left handed soldiers together.

 

I did think that the information about left-handed gladiators was a a bit surprising at first. It would indeed give a left-hander a serious advantage, since he would be used to fighting in this way, while a right-hander was not. But then some right-handers might have particularly trained against left-handers and that would even things out again.

I think I can conclude from what you say that left-handed gladiators were a kind of novelty, introduced at some point to spice things up a bit and that it was an unconventional way of handling your weapons. So those left-handers would probably have been bi-dextrous in practice and able to fight both ways.

Left vs right matches are equal. Neither has an advantage over the other. Nor was training against such an opponent fighting with the other hand readily available to the majority of gladiators. I suppose there may have been a 'suprise' element to a gladiator matched against a left handed fighter for the first time but that would have been the point of the combat in the first place, to heighten the drama and provide spectacle.

 

It seems to me that if you start practicing something from the very start with either your left hand or your right hand, it doesn't make much difference whether that is with or against your natural tendency. The more so if it is actually a two-handed activity. The best example thereof is perhaps right-hand and left-hand drive cars. It doesn't matter whether you are left-handed or right-handed. The kind you are used to feels natural and the kind you are not used to feels akward.

Up to a point (no pun intended). I don't have any first hand experience of training with swords so I can't answer that.

 

Fighting with sword and shield is also very much a two handed business. I don't see why a left-hander should be at a disadvantage if he learns to fight right-handed from the start. There's no reason that he couldn't become just as good at it as a natural right-hander. It certainly won't be the deciding factor in who actually becomes the better fighter.

Clearly the Romans thought otherwise.

 

A little advantage is a little advantage. And yes, I said that there is no evidence for any left-handed units as far as I know.

 

Well, in tennis and some other sports all commentators and players seem to agree that left-handedness is a slight advantage precisely for the reason I have given.

 

How do you mean the Romans thought otherwise ? Do you have any evidence that the Romans considered left-handed people inferior soldiers or what ?

 

If my argument about left-hand drive and right-hand drive cars isn't convincing enough, I am not sure what is.

 

But I do have some limited experience with handling swords

[Fulvia]

The Greeks used to bind the left arms of their male babies to ensure the development of right-handedness and so their ability to join the ranks of the phalanx. Is there any evidence of this type of behaviour in Rome?

I have read some analogous commentaries on the Romans, but I haven't been able so far to find any Classical source for such statements.

In fact, can you provide us your source(s) on your previous statement about the Greeks?

 

Lecture notes only.

[Medusa]

Some gladiators fought left handed - a rare and interesting style because of the 'mirror' fighting it produced. The emperor Commodus was apparently left handed too and was said to have been proud of mastering left hand technique for the arena.

 

It was very remarkable when a gladiator fought as a south-paw that it was stated e.g. in graffitis on the walls of Pompeii or in other type of inscriptions. Even on some frescoes or mosaics you see left-handed gladiators.

 

As mentioned by caldrail Commodus was left-handed, he fought as a secutor scaeva, i.e. left-handed standard opponent of the retiarius (net-fighter).

 

A left-handed fighter might have the advantage of being used to fight right-handed opponents because most of his training comrades must have been right-handed while a right-handed fighter might be surprised when suddenly being paired against a south-paw.

[Formosus Viriustus]

Thanks for that information, Medusa. Since there is evidence from Pompeii, it can't have been a new fad, introduced by Commodus. For a retiarius I think it would hardly make any difference if he fought a left-hander or a right-hander. Fighting against someone who is also armed with sword an shield, it could be a slight advantage to be left-handed, I think, depending also on how used your adversary is to it.

But since gladiators often fought adversaries that had completely different arms from themselves, it can not really have made such a fight more uneven than some other matches.

 

I have been trying to find some information about left-handedness in general and more specifically in history on the net. (Just googling 'left-handed' gives 21 000 000 returns.)

From what I have found so far, I'm beginning to suspect that there has hardly been a serious word written on the subject yet. Plenty of nonsense though.

 

Here is one of the sillier ones.

http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/lefty_history.html

 

Has anyone any idea where they might have gotten it from that Julius Caesar was left-handed ?

Another site also lists him ( without a question mark behind his name.)

http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/left.html

 

Formosus

[sylla]

Thanks for that information, Medusa. Since there is evidence from Pompeii, it can't have been a new fad, introduced by Commodus. For a retiarius I think it would hardly make any difference if he fought a left-hander or a right-hander. Fighting against someone who is also armed with sword an shield, it could be a slight advantage to be left-handed, I think, depending also on how used your adversary is to it.

But since gladiators often fought adversaries that had completely different arms from themselves, it can not really have made such a fight more uneven than some other matches.

Looking for an approximate modern equivalent, left-handedness is regularly considered a well established advantage for fencers; Azemar reported that one third of the elite fencers were left-handed. The most elloquent case is probably Edoardo Mangiarotti, who has won more fencing Olympic titles and World championships than anyone else; he is a natural right-hander who was deliberately converted into a left-hander by his father (and trainer).

[Formosus Viriustus]

Looking for an approximate modern equivalent, left-handedness is regularly considered a well established advantage for fencers; Azemar reported that one third of the elite fencers were left-handed. The most elloquent case is probably Edoardo Mangiarotti, who has won more fencing Olympic titles and World championships than anyone else; he is a natural right-hander who was deliberately converted into a left-hander by his father (and trainer).

 

Thanks for that information. I did have a look at modern fencing. I couldn't find anything about the rules concerning that but then I saw a picture of a left-hander fighting a right-hander. I was a bit surprised at that since it seems to be a much bigger advantage than in tennis for example. I did have 2 or 3 'lessons' in modern fencing at school some 40 years ago. I seem to remember that I had to use my right hand there, but my memory is a bit vague about that.

 

So, now I wonder if it has always been the case that you were free to use whichever hand you liked. Western fencing has a long tradition that certainly goes back to times when right-handedness in pretty much everything was still 'de rigeur'; could it be that they relaxed the rules somewhere in the last 40 years to comply with the modern concept that everybody should be free to use whichever hand he or she prefers ?

 

I do find that story about Edoardo Mangiarotti quite amusing. He is the first case I hear of, of a right-hander 'converting'. And being extremely succesful too ! But it subscribes my thesis that switching hands isn't actually all that difficult. And Western fencing is truly a one-handed activity, as opposed to japanese swordfighting which is two-handed, although the left hand is the control hand.

 

Formosus

[Lost_Warrior]

A left-handed fighter might have the advantage of being used to fight right-handed opponents because most of his training comrades must have been right-handed while a right-handed fighter might be surprised when suddenly being paired against a south-paw.

 

Agreed 110% with that- anyone who has been in any form of combat can probably understand why. In one-to-one combat, left handedness would be a distinct advantage (in formation, not so much.) True, a left hander has the exact same difficulty fighting a right handed fighter, as the right handed fighter has with the lefty. The difference is in the training.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Lost_Warrior

[sylla]

A left-handed fighter might have the advantage of being used to fight right-handed opponents because most of his training comrades must have been right-handed while a right-handed fighter might be surprised when suddenly being paired against a south-paw.

 

Agreed 110% with that- anyone who has been in any form of combat can probably understand why. In one-to-one combat, left handedness would be a distinct advantage (in formation, not so much.) True, a left hander has the exact same difficulty fighting a right handed fighter, as the right handed fighter has with the lefty. The difference is in the training.

Advantage is basically in raw numbers (especially for fast sports); lefties are perfectly used to playing right-handers but for right-handers, a left-handed opponent is a very tricky exception.

 

There are plenty of additional neurological and/or psychological explanations for such advantage; my personal impression is that for now most if not all of them are just educated guesses at best.

Edited June 22, 2009 by sylla

[Lost_Warrior]

Advantage is basically in raw numbers (especially for fast sports); lefties are perfectly used to playing right-handers but for right-handers, a left-handed opponent is a very tricky exception.

 

Yep. And when you're fighting, if both opponents are right handed and one guy throws a punch (for example) with his right hand, your left hand is on the same side for an effective block while still leaving your right hand free for a counter attack.

 

If one is a righty and one is a lefty? Both are attacking on the same side- making blocks and counterattacks awkward if you're not used to fighting someone who's "opposite handed".

[sylla]

Advantage is basically in raw numbers (especially for fast sports); lefties are perfectly used to playing right-handers but for right-handers, a left-handed opponent is a very tricky exception.

 

Yep. And when you're fighting, if both opponents are right handed and one guy throws a punch (for example) with his right hand, your left hand is on the same side for an effective block while still leaving your right hand free for a counter attack.

 

If one is a righty and one is a lefty? Both are attacking on the same side- making blocks and counterattacks awkward if you're not used to fighting someone who's "opposite handed".

I suppose you mean we agree; in general terms, lefties are used to fight "opposite handed" opponents and righties aren't, from a purely statistical effect.

[The Augusta]

As far as modern examples of training a lefty to be a righty goes - may I mention violinists?

 

Now think about it. Imagine a left-handed chap in the first violins in an orchestra - ouch, my eye!

 

As for antiquity - Ingsoc beat me to it about Tiberius. We do have Suetonius' 'evidence' for that. He must have thought it worth mentioning.

Edited June 23, 2009 by The Augusta

[Lost_Warrior]

I suppose you mean we agree; in general terms, lefties are used to fight "opposite handed" opponents and righties aren't, from a purely statistical effect.

 

Something like that.

 

As far as modern examples of training a lefty to be a righty goes - may I mention violinists?

 

Now think about it. Imagine a left-handed chap in the first violins in an orchestra - ouch, my eye!

 

LOL I never thought of that!

[Formosus Viriustus]

As far as modern examples of training a lefty to be a righty goes - may I mention violinists?

 

Now think about it. Imagine a left-handed chap in the first violins in an orchestra - ouch, my eye!

 

As for antiquity - Ingsoc beat me to it about Tiberius. We do have Suetonius' 'evidence' for that. He must have thought it worth mentioning.

Thanks, Augusta ! You've won a free violin lesson !

 

I imagine that playing the violin against your hand is slightly more difficult than handling a weapon that way. Or are they all naturally right-handed ? I doubt that. Do left-handed violins exist ? I've never payed any attention to that. Are all the real virtuoso soloists left-handed ? (They are far more artistically gifted, left-handers, it is generally accepted .... I mean, look at me )

 

I did come across an old quote somewhere about a row of mowers that also made sense.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[Lost_Warrior]

As for the handshake, I had actually heard the opposite: that the right-hand handshake was adopted specifically because it required one to lay down their weapons.

[Maty]

This may be relevant - its from Livy 24.15 and involves Gracchus' slave soldiers fighting Hannibal. They have been offered a bounty for every enemy head they produce. (I've not had time to check the Latin to see if the 'right hand' is accurately translated.)

 

'Nothing hampered the Romans more than this setting a price upon the heads of their foes, the price of liberty, for no sooner had any one made a furious attack upon an enemy and killed him than he lost time in cutting off his head-a difficult matter in the tumult and turmoil of the battle-and then, as their right hands were occupied in holding the heads, all the best soldiers were no longer able to fight, and the battle was left to the slow and the timid. The military tribunes reported to their general that not a man of the enemy was being wounded as he stood, whilst those who had fallen were being butchered and the soldiers were carrying human heads in their right hands instead of swords.'