Romans: What Made Them Better Fighters ?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I'm pretty sure your considered a Neanderthal if your had a huge bulging forhead with a large nose built for more intake and warming of the air.

[rvmaximus]

Hmm, Gaius Marius seems to have had some Neanderthalic traits

 

Marius Bust

 

 

Heh, or Pompey:

 

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/489-502/Pompey.jpg

They didn`t look like the actors in the HBO'Rome' series but as you say looked like that belonged on the national geo channel. hmmm looking at Roman busts it seems that there is a huge diversity in appearances...very confusing.

[Pertinax]

What made Romans better fighters? one word,training.Celtic warrior castes would train from a very early age but the Celtic idea of warrior training was all about the individual soldier.The Romans would train as a unit and thats much more affective for Battles,200 Celts fighting as individuals wouldnt be able to beat 100 legionnaries fighting as a Century.

Allso, the Romans had the ability to recognise superior equipment,and would adapt there fighting styles to suit,they wore a Celtic style helmet ,the Gladius is Iberian and Chainmail is a Celtic invention.If a Roman enemy is using a good weapon,they will take it train with it then change there tactics to suit it.

totally correct and I add -each man had an allotted personal fighting space (depending on the formation appropriate to the situation)in which to acquire and confront a target, the short sword used with direct minimal thrust had an impact rate of over twice that of a long sword (in the same time frame) used to slash ( and thereby expose a vulnerable armpit). So the result-a killing potential not matched till the machine gun was invented.Tie this to unmatched "fire discipline" for pilum discharge, ballistae and offensive use of the scutum and you are walking into a meat grinder.Also careful casualty evacuation and medical care kept seasoned troops "recycled" with minimal waste in the field. Not only did Romans kill more effectivley they also didnt waste manpower.

 

note: pompey looks like the guy who has the stationery shop in our town centre! I know this sort of thing has happened before when Rowan Atkinson was identified as Scipio Africanus re-incarnate.

[Virgil61]

..."fire discipline" for pilum discharge, ballistae and offensive use of the scutum and you are walking into a meat grinder.Also careful casualty evacuation and medical care kept seasoned troops "recycled" with minimal waste in the field. Not only did Romans kill more effectivley they also didnt waste manpower.

 

Interesting. Fire discipline is a huge issue even today, poor discipline can ruin a carefully planned mission. What struck me is your casualty evac comment. I was the company 1st Sergeant in Iraq and I was a stickler on assigning and training a cas-evac team for combat operations to get wounded out of the line of fire and into a medic's hands or to the rear for treatment. It's not just to keep veteran's recycled, it's so the legionarre or today's soldier knows that if they're wounded they won't be left to die--they'll be taken care of. Studies were done after Vietnam that the knowledge that wounded would be a priority was a great consolation to the average soldier. Again, the Romans intuitively knew their stuff long before everyone else.

 

Although it can be overstated, some aspects of soldiering just never change.

[Primus Pilus]

My posting of a Marian bust was meant in jest. A counter to the idea that Romans were neanderthals if you will. The notion suggested in this threads opening post... that the discipline and training of the Roman legion was in fact a non factor and perhaps even historical myth in Rome's western world dominance, is in complete contrast to every known historical consensus opinion.

 

If you would like to refute these widely accepted truths, please do so, but do it in a manner that does not defy human genetics. Were Romans stronger than other ancient peoples? I wouldn't have a clue, but dietary habits, human remains and DNA findings may support this idea. Perhaps olympic or gladiator game results may provide some insight (though the Olympics of course were a much different affair at the time and the average 'barbarian' was not a welcome participant). This is the type of thing one should use to support his argument, rather than to simply announce that Romans may have been Neanderthals.

 

If you wish to challenge known history, you must be prepared to do so, rather than expect your theory to be disproven.

[Pertinax]

 

..."fire discipline" for pilum discharge, ballistae and offensive use of the scutum and you are walking into a meat grinder.Also careful casualty evacuation and medical care kept seasoned troops "recycled" with minimal waste in the field. Not only did Romans kill more effectivley they also didnt waste manpower.

 

Interesting. Fire discipline is a huge issue even today, poor discipline can ruin a carefully planned mission. What struck me is your casualty evac comment. I was the company 1st Sergeant in Iraq and I was a stickler on assigning and training a cas-evac team for combat operations to get wounded out of the line of fire and into a medic's hands or to the rear for treatment. It's not just to keep veteran's recycled, it's so the legionarre or today's soldier knows that if they're wounded they won't be left to die--they'll be taken care of. Studies were done after Vietnam that the knowledge that wounded would be a priority was a great consolation to the average soldier. Again, the Romans intuitively knew their stuff long before everyone else.

 

Although it can be overstated, some aspects of soldiering just never change.

Actually I should have emphasised the very thing you have said -it was knowing your ass was off the floor that was much more important than anything else-the Romans were unsurpassed in casevac (it is suggested ) until the Korean conflict-personally I bet it was later.Augustus made casualty retrieval and treatment main priorities-not that they wernt before but he beefed up the infrastructure and put doctoring into fully pro hands and divorced it from its "slaves only do hands on stuff" role.The "personal target space" that the Legionnaires occupied also made casevac a drillable and logical process, a less disciplined trooper would have been a bit apprehensive about operating in a small personal killing zone in a sort of target acquisition/elimination role but it was discipline first ,last and in between.

well spoken

Edited December 20, 2005 by Pertinax

[Pantagathus]

rather than to simply announce that Romans may have been Neanderthals.

 

Yes, don't do that because:

 

a) There have been many geneographic studies done recently that without a doubt indicate that the Y-chromosome & mtDNA haplogroups that made up the majority of ancient Romans weren't even remotely contempoary with Neanderthals

 

Based on forensic data from Neanderthal skeletal remains, it is abundantly clear that neanderthals were quite small in stature. Not some big brutish cave man as depicted in cartoons...

 

[Pertinax]

and another rejoinder to Virgil, what do you think of the concept of a century as a "crew served weapon" as opposed to individual fighting men? That has psycological implications as well I suggest.

 

I was also interested to discuss the relative merits of the range of roman body armour-but thats another thread I think-in relation to wound reduction, impact deflection and likely common wounds.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Pertinax

[Virgil61]

and another rejoinder to Virgil, what do you think of the concept of a century as a "crew served weapon" as opposed to individual fighting men? That has psycological implications as well I suggest.

 

I was also interested to discuss the relative merits of the range of roman body armour-but thats another thread I think-in relation to wound reduction, impact deflection and likely common wounds.

 

A century as a crew served weapon? Maybe I'm too literal minded on this one because I'd use the same definition the Army uses; a weapon manned by more than one soldier. I'd classify only weapons such as the ballista each century was issued as a crew-served weapon. A century I'd classify as the smallest self-contained 'maneuver unit' in a legion capable of applying the it's primary weapons systems to the enemy (gladius/pilum).

 

I'm not as up to speed on Roman armor as I'd like although in "The Battle that Stopped Rome", Peter Wells has an excellent chapter on wounds and carnage on the ancient battlefield.

[Pertinax]

I know I was overstepping the true definition of "crew served" , maneuver unit is strictly correct. May I add another factor in killing power,non-dispersal of the battlefield. Radicalisation of an armies ability to kill remotley or "area deny" lead to armies getting spread over the landscape,so even if you are efficient at killing you tend not to kill in "clusters". Fighting in Roman times was not dispersed, and where it was (guerilla action ) the Legions struggled: I suggest that facing a legion in any sort of compact body was increasing your chances of suffering fatality,given the efficiency of the "usual arms".

[Virgil61]

I know I was overstepping the true definition of "crew served" , maneuver unit is strictly correct. May I add another factor in killing power,non-dispersal of the battlefield. Radicalisation of an armies ability to kill remotley or "area deny" lead to armies getting spread over the landscape,so even if you are efficient at killing you tend not to kill in "clusters". Fighting in Roman times was not dispersed, and where it was (guerilla action ) the Legions struggled: I suggest that facing a legion in any sort of compact body was increasing your chances of suffering fatality,given the efficiency of the "usual arms".

 

More meat for the meat grinder. I think if you faced anyone with any missile capabilities from archers to ballista to slingers, you'd best make sure you spread your men out a bit to lessen the chance of casualities. That's probably the secret of the pilum's success, being lobed seconds before contact when groups are attacking in masse on to the Roman lines.

[Pertinax]

What about the "swine array" assault formation ( I show my Barbarian roots naming it so ) as a "nutcracker" unit , does anyone have any thoughts about this in relation to effectivnes versus non-Roman units?

 

The armour query I posted was an attempt to hint at the possibility that to wound/kill a Roman the target zone for a fatal blow was massivley reduced ,firstly by action as a unit and secondly by maximised defence of the body . We know no one wants a lung wound in any circumstances (or a gut wound ) ,I suggest the Romans minimised the likelihood of this with the disposition of armour.

 

The "relentless machine " heading on HBOs site is a quick populist ,but by no means dumb, take on the army as 1.the soul of Rome 2. the sine qua non of organised killing power

 

http://www.hbo.com/rome/behind/rome_revealed/rome.html

 

try that!

[Viggen]

I'm pretty sure your considered a Neanderthal if your had a huge bulging forhead with a large nose built for more intake and warming of the air.

 

I can assure you, Romans had no concept or idea what a neanderthal was or even looked like...

 

regards

 

viggen

[Felix Marcellus]

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.

 

 

I may be reading into this one too much, but I believe rvmaximus is going into genetics here. I base that assumption off the above quote, specifically where he mentions "other caucasians". The Roman army I believe had a physical AND MENTAL advantage over its opponents due to training and discipline. The actual Roman as a race I would say didn't.

 

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.

 

(But back to the Military)

I don't know the demographics of the Roman Army during any period. I would assume it was more highly populated with actual Romans in its earlier history, but as the empire expanded it would've been filled more and more with foreigners.

 

It seems to me the Roman Army fought just as well in the 1st century AD (where I'd imagine Gauls and Germans heavily populated the ranks) as it did when Scipio was fighting Hannibal in the 3rd century BC.

 

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

Edited December 28, 2005 by Felix Marcellus

[rvmaximus]

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.

 

 

I may be reading into this one too much, but I believe rvmaximus is going into genetics here. I base that assumption off the above quote, specifically where he mentions "other caucasians". The Roman army I believe had a physical AND MENTAL advantage over its opponents due to training and discipline. The actual Roman as a race I would say didn't.

 

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.

 

(But back to the Military)

I don't know the demographics of the Roman Army during any period. I would assume it was more highly populated with actual Romans in its earlier history, but as the empire expanded it would've been filled more and more with foreigners.

 

It seems to me the Roman Army fought just as well in the 1st century AD (where I'd imagine Gauls and Germans heavily populated the ranks) as it did when Scipio was fighting Hannibal in the 3rd century BC.

 

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

 

I am still skeptical and am breaking the ranks with 'experts'. Frequently the obvious is overlooked because it is more 'Romantic' to say that the military was the key because of their strategy,disicipline..etc. First ,I think Roman military leaders were just polticians and did not move up the ranks proving their abilties.. This cannot have a postive effect (expect perhaps with Julius Caesar)..Romans marched many times into battleright into traps and being outnumberd. A true general would not let that happen. Romans battled Romans many times with huge losses...polticians again.

Second, yes I think genitics will prove my point soon. Technology now has develpoed a process of finding out much moe details in the bones. Everything I have read seems to point out a people physically superior not mentally as some think. Gauls may have been taller..debateble since Roman writers always propped up their adversaries all the while the Roamn infantry cut them to pieces while being so outnumberd..in a trap. Other accounts seem that Gauls/Germanics were not thought of by others such as Caesar ' they look impressive at first sight(heavy furs,mail..etc) then they seemingly have little fight and endurance' Other accounts shoe battles were the 'barbarians' were not much of an obsatcle in battles except in a huge ambush. Roman confidence was strong so many times regardless of the numbers.. Using such dependence on infantry can also suggest a people of physical confidence otherwise they would have attempted to copy the Parthain style of fighting...hit and run' or horseback. Think many experts fear that if gentics proves this it will take so much away from the Roman system...that is the real fear here. The more I read the more I conclude that this hand to hand style needs a soldier who is physically superior in strength and quickness. (I would not be comfortable using a gladius unless I knew of my physical superiority) Maybe I should go to war game site and propose a roamn army against Zulu warriors. I feel that the physical superiority of the Zulus would prevail for example. Genetics.