Romans and peronal combat

[RayMcCullough]

I have heard folks say that certain people/groups/nations trained in group combat and some in personal combat. They use this as a way to say that a Roman soldier would not be good by his self. That is one example.

Does this not seem ridiculous? How can someone who has not trained in personal combat be usefull in group combat? Our militarys today teach you to use your weapon alone then in group combat.

Thoughts, comments?

[Stacy Clifford]

This sounds a lot like a quote I read once (I wish I could remember where) that, "One Celt could defeat seven Romans, but seven Romans could defeat a hundred Celts." I think it's wrong to use that to disparage the fighting skills of the individual Roman soldier, I'm sure the career soldiers were certainly nobody you wanted to mess with, but it seems fair to say that different societies put different emphasis on group cohesion vs. individual glory in battle. People always seem to want to make questions like that an either/or answer, not just a tip of the scales to give one side more weight as it usually is in real life.

[RayMcCullough]

"but it seems fair to say that different societies put different emphasis on group cohesion vs. individual glory in battle."

Very true, but does this mean that the ones that focused on group cohesion didn't train for and have individual skills. Folks seem to imply they didn't. I don't see how anyone in group combat can be very helpful if they have not develped personal skills 1st.

Does anyone know of Roman sources that talk about indivual skills of the soldiers?

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

but does this mean that the ones that focused on group cohesion didn't train for and have individual skills. Folks seem to imply they didn't. I don't see how anyone in group combat can be very helpful if they have not develped personal skills 1st.

There is a variety of skills involved that can be separated in three categories:

• Useful just for group combat (e.g. hold a formation)
• Useful just for one-on-one combat (I don't have a clear example in mind, but I guess some of the most refined skills of timing, distance management, tactile feeling belong to that one. Prolonged ground combat could be another example)
• Useful for both (general fitness, basic weapon use)

It makes sense to me that in a culture that values victory as individual (the Japanese did that for example in the early periods, perhaps Celts also), you'd train in the last two categories, but not much in the first one. In a culture that values victory as a group (Greeks and Roman soldiers for example) you could neglect point 2. Of course as Stacy points out it's never complete negligence but more a matter of emphasis...

It's not easy to make analogies with the military today, because skills in the second category are probably more limited. But they don't train everyone to be a sniper either...

Does anyone know of Roman sources that talk about indivual skills of the soldiers?

For starters you could look at Vegetius (see a translation here).

Regards,