A Question on Roman man to man fighting.

[M Wallgren]

I just saw the six first episodes of the HBO series Rome, and wondered if, or how much, we know about the technics they used in man to man fighting during the first centurys of the first millenia here in Europe?

Is there anything out there one could look into?

Why one might ask. Well I pesonaly think that the influence Rome had (and has) on the western civilisation in general, Rome must have had it´s influence on the Martial Arts of The West too. And in this case it could be beneficial for a WMA fighter and scholar to learn as much as possible of the roots of his art, just as we try to learn the foundation of longswordplay going back as close as possible to the verses of Johannes Liechtenauer in order to understand the masters following him during the centuries.

Then again few Swords call to me like the Gladius do, so it might boil down to that I want to learn how to use one.

Keep up the good work all fellow brothers and sisters out ther!

Martin

[Matthew_Anderson]

Well I think the influence that earlier Western cultures such as the Greeks and Romans had on the later, post-Roman West is undeniable. The martial traditions of western Europe such those we see in 15th century Germany (Swabia, Saxony, etc.) seem to have developed from a combination of local tribal traditions and those of various external sources such as the Romans. Certainly, the organization, tactics, and weapons of the Romans had a big influence on later powers in the Western world such as the Franks, Carolignians, etc. It's really had to point to specific techniques of personal combat that can be traced directly back to the Romans or the way they fought or trained, but certainly much of the spirit and tradition of Western fighting arts have there roots there. I know Gene is very interested in this topic, perhaps he will jump in with some more specific insights <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> .

[Jaron Bernstein]

Roman history isn't my strong point, but I thought we did have pretty good account of their strategy, operatoinal art and small unit tactics (albeit not individual techniques like a fechtbuch) and their training methodology (i.e. train early and often).

[Robert Rolph]

I know that...without the Roman influence...western civilization wouldn't be as it is today. When they spread and conquered the other people in Europe, which they called Barbarians...the word derived from the way the Celtic talked...they bought with them technologies, science, the art of warfare, writing systems, literature, etc... This had given the Saxon the edge to later rise and become the dominant people on the British Isle and later a world power to be reckoned with. The Roman made many incredible advances way ahead of there time and was one of the few most impressive empire the world had ever seen. They weren't shy about burrowing technologies from other cultures and refined them. I heard they even performed surgery on the head. Unfortunately, after the collaspe of the Roman empire, a lot of what has been discovered were lost. Even during World War I, they had just seperately discovered some medical procedures that the Roman had used centuries before. Even the American Founding Fathers were very intriqued of the Roman governmental system. They even model the American government system and democracy after the Roman. This influence the way we make laws in this country and how we make laws, etc... We have a Senate just like the Romans did. It very interesting actually. People should read about it IMO. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

The Romans may have copied much of their Ars Martialis from the Barbarians such as the Celts. They certainly adopted the majority of their military kit from them: Mail armor was adopted from the celts, the original Gladius Hispaniensis which evolved into the forms used in Ceasars time was adapted from Celts in Hispania, the "Imperial Gallic" type helmet and the famous scutum infantry shield were also adopted from the Celts.

There is also direct evidence of the Romans adopting military tactics from enemies, such as their initial use of Heavy Cavalry in imitation of the Sassanids and some other Persian 'Cataphracts'.

For a good easy to absorb primer on a lot of that kind of stuff i reccomend the various Osprey military books, there are about 20 or so dealing with the Roman Military and her various enemies... I used to have about a dozen of these myself before Katrina hit. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

JR

P.S. I love that show too!

[david welch]

And the always popular:

The Military Institutions of the Romans
(De Re Militari)
By Flavius Vegetius Renatus

Translated from the Latin by Lieutenant John Clarke

Text written in 390 A.D. British translation published in 1767. Copyright Expired

Etext version by Mads Brevik (2001)

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/

[Rod-Thornton]

"...Certainly, the organization, tactics, and weapons of the Romans had a big influence on later powers in the Western world such as the Franks, Carolignians, etc. It's really had to point to specific techniques of personal combat that can be traced directly back to the Romans or the way they fought or trained, ...."

True. I seem to recall reading in S. Anglo's book, "The Martial Arts of Ren. Europe" that a number of the Italian renaissance works were compared to the earlier Italian/Roman tradition in both their tactics, and emphasis on the "formation fight" of scientific combat as a unit versus the former "-group 'em together but fight like individuals-" method, so that certainly conveys the influence of Rome to later writers. However, in terms of individual man, there seems to be precious little beyond what I found in Veg. instructions to his legions to stab low under the enemy -not really what you could term a technique as more than an instruction.

[s_taillebois]

A bit of an obtuse source, but might look at the relief band on Trajan's column, and the various triumphal arches. Roman's knew the value of propaganda, and because of Roman attitudes about violence...were often quite willing to show the details.
Mosiacs and wall paintings about gladiators, probably not as useful, as a different form of fighting.
Also, on individual Roman fighting styles, could be a limited range of sources due to Roman attitudes. The Roman's, obviously, valued martial attributes, but their military culture was based on group tactics. So in that regard, the extreme individualism valued by say, the Gauls, would have been considered insubordinate or reckless. That's incidentally the primary reason Vorcingentrix lost, he couldn't control his units. So, looking for individual Roman tactics (like would be evident in later medieval champions, or housekarls), could be a long search.
As for lost Roman technologies...their problem was that their system was based on human exploitation (slavery and colonialism) and so the mindset was not to use technology in the same way the later Europeans might have. For example they had all the elements to make a steam engine, but never used them. That said, they did last as a military power until 1453. (depending on what you consider Roman, might look up Byzantine fighting tactics...heavily influenced by Persia and the Turks, but the Byzantine empire was essentially "Rome verse 2'

[Gene Tausk]

Thanx for the intro, Matt!

First, AFAIK, the best and most complete volume for Roman fighting tactics both on a micro and macro level is Vegetius' works, which have already been mentioned. To the best of my knowledge, the Romans left no fectbuchen, which is unfortunate. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

The best source I have found to replicate gladius techniques is I.33, although the weapons are obviously very different. At this stage, I would suggest getting a good replica gladius (easily available) and start using it. You will quickly find that it is both a formidable cutting as well as thrusting weapon. E-mail me or PM if you want to discuss comparing techniques. I have compiled some information.

As for the statement about Rome's influence on the West...well, Rome more or less is the west. Although the Greeks of the 5th century certainly deserve the credit as the innovators of Western society, it was the Romans that ultimately created that society. And, yeah, we can harp on the issues of slavery and degradation of women all we want, but Rome also gave the Western world the concept of a law which was not based on unchanging static religious laws from divine inspiration, but laws that were malleable, made for and by people and laws that were clear in their definition that no one was above the law. This, IMHO, more than anything else, is the foundation of Western individualism and humanism which marks the Western world. This is the foundation for the Napoleonic code of Europe and the common law of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

Sometimes, quite frankly, I really wonder if Rome ever really "fell" at all. Transplant a Roman citizen to 21st century America and he will feel right at home.

As for the excellent HBO miniseries - all I can say is Rome RULES!!! (pun intended)


-------------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[Ernest Brant]

There is little question the Romans took much from the Celts over the years. We tend to think of Rome and the Celts in terms of Caesar's conquest of the Gauls (Celts) when in fact Caesar's eight year campaign was the final series of battles in a conflict that had been going on for about 340 years. The Roman Republic, then a city state, first encountered the Celts in 387 BC after the Celts had defeated the Etruscans and occupied the Po valley in what is now northern Italy. The Romans had not intended to fight the Celts at that time and in fact feared them, but that is another story. The Celts marched on Rome in 387 BC and the Roman army formed up where the little river Allia flows into the Tiber eleven miles from Rome (probably the mouth of the modern Fosso della Bettina). The Celts figured out the Roman battle plan and attacked where least expected. The Romans were routed and fled back to Rome in panic, where they retreated to the fortifications on Capitol hill and left the gates to the city open. The Celts entered, sacked the city, and then attacked Capitol hill. The steep slopes of Capitol hill were a tactical nightmare for the Celts and they were thrown back by the defending Romans. The Celts understood they could not take Capitol hill by storm, so late one night sent a commando up the hill through a series of ravines for a suprise attack. The famous geese of the Capitol hill of Rome heard them coming and began cackling, which woke up the sentries (and the geese became the "sacred geese of Rome). The Celtic commando was defeated and the Celts withdrew from Rome since they lacked the logistical ability to remain any longer.

The Romans and the Celts fought with great frequency thereafter, though the Romans feared and dreaded the wild, ferocious, vicious Celt warriors. The first meaningful Roman victory was in 285 BC near the site of the first battle in 387 BC. It was not until 225 BC, however, that the Romans decisively defeated the Celts, after which the Celts were no longer the feared enemy they had previously been.

The above history sets the background for the point of this post. The Roman historian Polybius, an Arcadian Greek born in 202 BC who died in 120 BC, wrote in his "History" the following regarding the reasons for the Romans winning the battle of Cape Telmon in 225 BC. 'The shields of the Romans are better for protection and their swords are better suited to battle, because the shield covers their whole body while the Gauls' one is shorter; and the Roman sword is good for thrusting, though it can also cut, while the Gauls' one can only cut.' Polybius goes on to say that the Gauls' swords have no point and are made of poor material. He continues, 'They (the Gauls' swords) are effective only at the first blow, thereafter they are blunt and bend such that if the warrior has no time to wedge it against the ground and straighten it with his foot, the second blow is quite ineffective.'

40,000 Gauls are said to have been killed at Cape Telamon, possibly an exaggeration by the Romans. Nonetheless, the Gauls, who fought in groups but as individuals (mélée), came up against Roman formations at Telamon that had developed effective tactics after years of experience to defeat the Gauls. The Gauls were never again a serious threat to Rome.

The Romans borrowed liberally from everyone they could, to include weaponry from the Celts. It appears from Polybius' writings that the Romans probably did not borrow much in the way of weaponry from the Celts of this period, however.

The Roman legionnaire was trained to fight in formation, and trained well. The better question probably is how would a medieval warrior stand up to a well trained Gladiator.

The above comes from a book by German historian Gerhard Herm, "The Celts". Herm also studied and lived in the U.S. and his English is good.

[JeanryChandler]

he Roman sword is good for thrusting, though it can also cut, while the Gauls' one can only cut.' Polybius goes on to say that the Gauls' swords have no point and are made of poor material. He continues, 'They (the Gauls' swords) are effective only at the first blow, thereafter they are blunt and bend such that if the warrior has no time to wedge it against the ground and straighten it with his foot, the second blow is quite ineffective.'

This famous quote of Polybius would seem to be rather wild Roman propaganda.

Since the shorter 'Roman', sword (copied from Celts encountered earlier in Spain) was supposedly so superior to the longer Celtic sword, it seems odd that the Romans actually adopted this longer type, which they called the Spatha, originally for Cavalry and eventually for their entire armed forces, by the last few centuries of the Imperial Period in the West.

Also, the claims of inferior metalurgy of Celtic swords compared to Roman has not been borne out by modern archeology, to the contrary. Several thousand La Tene era Celtic swords have been recovered and the vast majority of those which have been tested seem to be of quite good quality for this period, being of fairly high carbon 'steely iron' often better than that of the equivalent Roman weapons. The Celts also appear to have pioneered the use of pattern welding in Europe, which the Romans may have copied,

Most incidentally had points and diamond cross sections making them eminently suitible for thrusting, though a few have also been found with spatulate, rounded, or even flat tips.

It is the Celtic sword incidentally, and it's Roman copy the Spatha, which seems to have evolved into the Migration Era Germanic (esp. Frankish) swords, the Viking Swords, and eventually the Arming Sword of Europe, and the first weapons types in the Oakeshotte Typology.

JR

[JeanryChandler]

I'm a huge fan of the Rome show specifically, and of Roman history in general, but I also think you have to be realistic about who the Romans were in order to understand them, and ultimately their influence on who we ourselves are.

Because as Gene points out, we do indeed owe a huge degree of our social strucuture to the Romans, our law is essentially Roman law. They had a lot of the same problems we have today; gang violence, drunk driving (of chariots), foreign wars in the Middle East, immigration...

I think we have to realise though, that the greatest achievements of Rome were essentially their organization, particularly miltiary, and their tenacity and adaptability in the face of adversity. The social values of the Roman Republic, and especialy the Empire, were not what most Americans would want to think of as anything we could really relate to.

Generally speaking, on the one hand, they may have lacked some of our hangups with skin color, but they believed that wealthier classes were better than the poorer classes, they believed women were inferior to men, they believed slavery was good, and they believed in the rights of conquest, they believed in authority and discipline, and in the subordination of the individual to the group and to the higher authority of his betters.

Much of their fame in general was due to the fact, as in the case of Polybus, that they or their stooges wrote so much of the history which remains to us. As technical innovators their fame was to some extent undeserved. They got most of their engineering ideas (the arch, the aquaduct) from the Etruscans. As I pointed out they stole most of their metalurgy and miltary kit from the Celts, as well as some other things like soap and wooden barrels, and they borrowed the bulk of thier culture, their religion, their art, their science, wholesale from the Greeks.

A lot of the individualism and libertarianism which still exists in Western Culture, which in many ways makes it unique and what informs Western Martial Arts and differentiates it so much from those in many other parts of the world, come from the Barbarians who resisted Roman dominance and prevented Rome from making Europe into another vast slave Empire, and to some extent to the original culture of the old Roman tribe before it became a slave state with more in common with Persia than the typical neighbboring tribes.

in my humble opinion <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

JR

[JeanryChandler]

but laws that were malleable, made for and by people and laws that were clear in their definition that no one was above the law.

Actually I belive this concept was quite prevalent among the "barbarians", the Romans were critical of it (eg. Caesar, Tacitus and others) whereas among the Romans, it's hard to argue that the Patricians werent above the lower classes, the Emperor above anyone... certainly Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Commodus and the like considered themselves quite above the law...as did Julius Caeasr for that matter...

Sometimes, quite frankly, I really wonder if Rome ever really "fell" at all. Transplant a Roman citizen to 21st century America and he will feel right at home.

On that, in many respects, we agree. When indeed did the Western Empire actually fall?

JR

[Robert Rolph]

Well, the Roman Gladiators were basically slaves for the soul purpose of entertainment. ( Sounds kindda barbaric! ) On the other hand, the women went crazy over them! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> They're like today's athletes. Even the wealthy wanted to have intercourse with these guys! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> To be a Roman gladiator, you must had to be physically very strong, athletic and the training I guess was as hard as the way they train their soldiers. Basically, the trained in full gear to build up endurance and to get use to wearing them in a fight. Not only that, there were many styles of fighting that they used, dependent upon which part of the world them came from. But really, I still don't know who would win...a Medieval fighter or a Roman gladiator! IMO, the gladiators...because they were very skillful and were specifically trained to fight...nothing else!

But if you compared the way the Roman fought and the way Medieval Europeans fought, i would have the say the Roman would win! They devide their armies into smaller units called leogen ( spelling ). Each one had its own field commander, which we see today in modern warfare, called the centurian. The centurian coordinated their attacks with the rest of the armies and could make military tactical dicisions on the spot if they saw the enemies vulnerbilities, instead of having to relay back the message to the head general. The fighting troops this way therefore were more manuverable than fighting in one big formation like Medieval Europeans and the Greek Macedonians. And, this way, the can get their troops in and out of the battlefields quickly. They could very easily out flank their enemies this way! This happened when they fought the Macedonians, who were using the Philex formation. Remember! At this time, the noone had ever defeated the Philex before! At first they seemed to be beating the Roman because their pikes were so long the Roman couldn't get close enough to use there swords. But a Roman commander saw an opening and moved his unit around the enemies formation and attacked them from the flank. The pikes could only be used in one direction, and when the Roman started to cut them down from behind they were helpless and were forced to flee. So instead, it turned into a massacre! They were killed or sold into slavery!

[Jaron Bernstein]

There are other ways to beat a phalanx, be it macedonian or swiss. The spanish did it with sword and buckler men. Missile weapons worked as well. As to your larger point, I think what you are talking about is the higher levels of military organization and not individual combat. The romans (and byzantium after them BTW) retained a very sophisticed understanding of the strategic and operational levels of war in ways that the western euros lost from the dark ages to the renaissance. That is not to say a Frankish cataphract wasn't as impressive as a Byzantine one. Maybe the individual knights were as good, but in terms of organization, the romans had the medieval western europeons beaten hands down. Which explains why there was a roman empire for so long, why Byzantium stood off so many foes for so long and why western europe was a bunch of fragmented petty states for centuries.

That said, the individual knight was damned effective in individual personal combat, and some of his art got captured in the manuals we study.