Legionary Fighting Techniques.

[Shane Petersen]

Salve,

For some time I have been curious about legionary fighting tactics, techniques, and training, particularly with the gladius (although I am also interested in all the weaponry available to the typical soldier of Rome). I do understand that there are a respectable number of reenactment groups in existence practicing their interpretation of these aspects of Roman soldiery. What I am curious about is how these techniques have been reconstructed. Is it all based on experiment and extrapolation? What are the primary references upon which legionary combat is based (in particular combat with the gladius)? Are representations in Roman art utilized at all? Unfortunately, as the pater familias of a young family I do not have the resources (especially time) to travel to any of the active reconstructed "legions" that I am aware of, so that I might ask. Can anybody set me on the road to enlightenment on these issues? Gratia ago vobis. Pax vobiscum.

[Barry Molloy]

The most directly relavant source that I am aware of is Vegetius, he wrote about the Dacian wars etc., and should be available in translation (in Loeb at least). Secondary sources, as always the ever useful "Greece and Rome at War" by Peter Connoly is fairly unsurpassed as a gentle but extremely informative introduction. I am sure one of the Romanists here can help out more, but you may also want to find one of those history books whcih is loaded with original references like Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold´s "Roman Civilization", oldish but primary references never go out of date .

To the group here in general, has anyone written a work specifically on the nuts and bolts of Roman military activities, like the couple available for Anglo-Saxon and Viking warfare etc.???

BM

[Graham Ashford]

Hello,

I don't specifically know about the legionary fighting techniques as the research I have conducted is into gladiatorial fighting techniques. There must have been some similarity between the two as in times of crisis gladiatorial trainers where used to help bring new recruits up to standard as quickly as possible. Below is a quick list I put up on the Roman Army Talk Forum

105BC - C Manilius & P Rutilius Rufus use gladiatorial trainers to train new recruits after the defeat at Arausio.

49BC Considerable concern over the 5,000 gladiators of Julius Caesar. Pompeys supporters were worried that Caesar might call upon them into his army.

21AD Sacrovir enlists gladiators into his rebellion against Rome.

69AD Gladiators used in the civil wars.
Defence of the River Po, Otho recruited 2000 gladiators to fight in the army, although many deserted.

Marcus Aurelius formed a bandit/gladiator army called the Obsequentes.

Historia Augusta - "... that when Romans went to war they had to look at fighting and wounds and weapons and unprotected men attacking one another, so that they would not be afraid of armed enemies in war or be frightened by wounds and blood."

... a roman orator could still tell the Ostrogothic king Theoderic how the Romans of old had looked to gladiators for their military training ... Wiedemann Emperors and Gladiators p39 - Panegyricus Theodorico 85.

There are a good number of times when gladiators are called upon in rebellion, riot and mischief but these seem to be more in individual fighting/brawling than actual squad tactics. I have not included Spartacus because I am unsure what percentage of his army could be considered gladiatorial.

You can read the study that we have started on the Roman gladiatorial fighting styles here: http://www.ludus.org.uk/r/essayclassicstance.html

These studies have been built up on looking at the primary evidence such as mosaics, statues and other things left us. It is taking a long time but we are getting there ... at least in our minds.

Some of teh above essay needs updating and refining but it will give the idea of our studies, we have some movies on the subject which we will be adding soon.

If I can help anymore don't heistate to contact me.

Yours

Graham.

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!
Vegetius is a latish source, and draws upon several earlier sources as well as adding his own wishful thinking. The problem is figuring out which parts are which... He says a little about training, that recruits are first trained against a heavy wooden post, using double-weight shield and practice sword, then they learn to spar against each other using wooden swords with a leather padded tip. He also says they are taught to rely on thrusting with the sword, rather than cutting, and lists a couple advantages.

This emphasis on thrusting has become a byword for Roman training and discipline, but it is frequently over-emphasized. Legionaries would clearly use point or edge as necessary. Trajan's Column and the Adamklissi monument both show soldiers cutting at opponents with their swords, as well as thrusting. And the longer gladius hispaniensis of the Republic was definitely a good swinger, since Polybius notes how it could lop off arms and heads.

That said, the usual stance of a soldier seen in artwork is upright, left leg forward, shield held close in and vertical, and the sword held horizontally about at the hip for a thrust. We know the shield could be used to push or smash an opponent, so it's pretty easy to see a one-two combination of shield smash and quick thrust. This keeps the body nicely covered, uses very little energy compared to swinging, and can be done in a tight crush if necessary. But if someone sticks his arm or nose out where you can swing at it, swing, by Jove!

Any further details of exact moves or methods are pretty much guesswork. I think it's generally a mistake to make up convoluted theories on what they did (much less why) based on later practices or what we think they should have done. We don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of ancient combat to have a firm grasp on what was going through their heads. Best just to stick with what we have decent evidence for.

There have been LONG discussions on this and related topics on the Roman Army Talk board,
http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk , so you might wander over there and look through the older threads. And post questions, of course!

That help some? Good luck, and Vale,
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/

[Hugh Fuller]

In the classical image of the Legionnary fighting system, the sword was only a part, if the most important part. It appears that the others who have posted have forgotten that therewas more to it than the sword.

The Legionnary throughout most of the period after the Punic Wars carried at least two javelins with him, one light one and one heavy one, the famous pilum. The light javelin was pretty much the same as anybody else's javelin and was used at a distance to harass and disrupt the enemy's lines. It was the pilum that became the distinguishing feature of the Roman military. It had a wooden shaft varying from just under 5' about 4' with a socket at the top. Into the socket was fitted an iron tang helg by two rivets that then was forged into an iron rod tipped with a barbed point. Gaius Marius was credited with having one of the rivets replaced with a wooden plug so that it would shatter when the pilum hit something, thereby rendering it unable to be thrown back at its owners. Gaius Julius Caesar is then credited with leaving the shaft untempered below the barbed point so that it would bend easily. making it even less likely to be thrown back. The whole point of all of this was to allow the Legions to throw their pila at the enemy line or charge at a distance of about thirty feet. The pila were heavy enough to penetrate most shields, especially the wooden ones used by the Celts and Germanics. They would either wound or kill the warriors behind these shields, causing severe losses before the enemy ever reached contact with the Legions, or so encumbering the shields that most barbarians would discard them in their frenzy to get at the Romans. This, of course, was exactly the fatal error that the Romans wanted, as they would then draw their deadly shortswords and proceed as described by Matthew. In later years, the Legions even went to the point of discarding the lighter javeling for another pilum, giving each Legionnary two of them to hurl at the enemy. Try to imagine what several thousand of these deadly items flying toward you would do to your charge toward the steadily advancing Romans. They would pause, hurl one pilum, advance a few more paces, pause again and hurl the other one, and then, drawing their gladii, countercharge the last few yards into your front, already in confusion from the pila hitting them. The usual result was slaughter of the barbarians.

So, please remember that the Roman system included the sword, the shield, a large body sized one, and the pilum, all working together.

[Michael B.]

The Romans always liked to pick the field of battle. The ideal was to have the higher ground so they might descend on the enemy. But first was the Roman Garrison and each night they made the land their own and occupied in a symbolic manner the land. Train for war and fight a war as if in training.

The Legions marched forward and launched pilums. Think of the pilum as the 12 gauge rifled slug of it''s age. One wave was launched and then the second. The gladius was now drawn and it is a cutting and thrusting weapon. A thrust kills if it enters the body even two inchs. But the shields were weapons as the edge of the shield was used to break the teeth of the opponents and shields were used to de-stablize and knock an opponent down for a quick thrust.

[Anthony Toledo]

Originally posted by Michael B.
The Romans always liked to pick the field of battle. The ideal was to have the higher ground so they might descend on the enemy. But first was the Roman Garrison and each night they made the land their own and occupied in a symbolic manner the land. Train for war and fight a war as if in training.

The Legions marched forward and launched pilums. Think of the pilum as the 12 gauge rifled slug of it''s age. One wave was launched and then the second. The gladius was now drawn and it is a cutting and thrusting weapon. A thrust kills if it enters the body even two inchs. But the shields were weapons as the edge of the shield was used to break the teeth of the opponents and shields were used to de-stablize and knock an opponent down for a quick thrust.

A two inch thrust kills a man more often than not? Fascinating.

--Anthony

[John Maddox Roberts]

In those days, if a thrust pierced the abdominal or thoracic cavity it would kill him eventually, though it might take days. As late as the 19th century, British soldiers had a saying regarding the bayonet: "an inch will kill a man." It was infection that did it. In those pre-antibiotic days people who managed to survive infancy often had incredible recuperative powers but opening the body cavities usually resulted in fatal infection, which is why we still refer to amputating a limb as "minor" surgery while taking out an appendix is "major" surgery.

[Shane Petersen]

Originally posted by Barry Molloy
The most directly relavant source that I am aware of is Vegetius, he wrote about the Dacian wars etc., and should be available in translation (in Loeb at least). Secondary sources, as always the ever useful "Greece and Rome at War" by Peter Connoly is fairly unsurpassed as a gentle but extremely informative introduction. I am sure one of the Romanists here can help out more, but you may also want to find one of those history books whcih is loaded with original references like Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold´s "Roman Civilization", oldish but primary references never go out of date .

BM

Thanks for the reference to Vegetius. I was not aware of it. I have managed to find online the Latin text and an interesting (if dated) 19th century British translation. I also think you are right about beginning with some secondary sources and looking through the works cited or referenced. Thanks.

[Shane Petersen]

Originally posted by Graham Ashford
Hello,

I don't specifically know about the legionary fighting techniques as the research I have conducted is into gladiatorial fighting techniques. There must have been some similarity between the two as in times of crisis gladiatorial trainers where used to help bring new recruits up to standard as quickly as possible. Below is a quick list I put up on the Roman Army Talk Forum

105BC - C Manilius & P Rutilius Rufus use gladiatorial trainers to train new recruits after the defeat at Arausio.

49BC Considerable concern over the 5,000 gladiators of Julius Caesar. Pompeys supporters were worried that Caesar might call upon them into his army.

21AD Sacrovir enlists gladiators into his rebellion against Rome.

69AD Gladiators used in the civil wars.
Defence of the River Po, Otho recruited 2000 gladiators to fight in the army, although many deserted.

Marcus Aurelius formed a bandit/gladiator army called the Obsequentes.

Historia Augusta - "... that when Romans went to war they had to look at fighting and wounds and weapons and unprotected men attacking one another, so that they would not be afraid of armed enemies in war or be frightened by wounds and blood."

... a roman orator could still tell the Ostrogothic king Theoderic how the Romans of old had looked to gladiators for their military training ... Wiedemann Emperors and Gladiators p39 - Panegyricus Theodorico 85.

There are a good number of times when gladiators are called upon in rebellion, riot and mischief but these seem to be more in individual fighting/brawling than actual squad tactics. I have not included Spartacus because I am unsure what percentage of his army could be considered gladiatorial.

You can read the study that we have started on the Roman gladiatorial fighting styles here: http://www.ludus.org.uk/r/essayclassicstance.html

These studies have been built up on looking at the primary evidence such as mosaics, statues and other things left us. It is taking a long time but we are getting there ... at least in our minds.

Thanks for the information. Your outline of Roman military History with regards to gladiators is very interesting. I have always been under the impression that there is a fundamental difference between gladiatorial combat and warfare, in that one is composed of individual fights (even in numbers) and the the other engagements of massed troops fighting as a unit. However, despite these and other differences, I find it very interesting, and plausable that there are military applications for those trainned for gladiatorial combat. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that gladiators might make better soldiers than soldiers would gladiators (despite Russel Crowe's brilliant performance to the contrary ). At least that's my thought right now. In any case, your approach to reconstructing gladiatorial performance appears to be very much like what I believe might be necessary for an experimental approach to legionary combat. Thanks.

Vale.

[Shane Petersen]

Originally posted by Matthew Amt
Avete!
Vegetius is a latish source, and draws upon several earlier sources as well as adding his own wishful thinking. The problem is figuring out which parts are which... He says a little about training, that recruits are first trained against a heavy wooden post, using double-weight shield and practice sword, then they learn to spar against each other using wooden swords with a leather padded tip. He also says they are taught to rely on thrusting with the sword, rather than cutting, and lists a couple advantages.

This emphasis on thrusting has become a byword for Roman training and discipline, but it is frequently over-emphasized. Legionaries would clearly use point or edge as necessary. Trajan's Column and the Adamklissi monument both show soldiers cutting at opponents with their swords, as well as thrusting. And the longer gladius hispaniensis of the Republic was definitely a good swinger, since Polybius notes how it could lop off arms and heads.

That said, the usual stance of a soldier seen in artwork is upright, left leg forward, shield held close in and vertical, and the sword held horizontally about at the hip for a thrust. We know the shield could be used to push or smash an opponent, so it's pretty easy to see a one-two combination of shield smash and quick thrust. This keeps the body nicely covered, uses very little energy compared to swinging, and can be done in a tight crush if necessary. But if someone sticks his arm or nose out where you can swing at it, swing, by Jove!

Any further details of exact moves or methods are pretty much guesswork. I think it's generally a mistake to make up convoluted theories on what they did (much less why) based on later practices or what we think they should have done. We don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of ancient combat to have a firm grasp on what was going through their heads. Best just to stick with what we have decent evidence for.

There have been LONG discussions on this and related topics on the Roman Army Talk board,
http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk , so you might wander over there and look through the older threads. And post questions, of course!

That help some? Good luck, and Vale,
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/

Excellent. This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Tibi gratias ago. Vale.

[Graham Ashford]

Hello again

Gladiators and legionaries might have used similar basic principles. Some gladiators (after removing the helmet) where armed in a similar manner to most Legionaries. Gladii and scuta.

I woud imagine that the most basic principles of fighting like this would have been similar to both legionary and gladiator. However I would think that the direct application in their different theatres of combat would be different. After all, a gladiator fights on his own and a legionary in an army ... although I am sure that personal fighting capability would have been highly praised and desired. Many republican and some later graves have ability in single combat listed as something of virtus, ahead of building projects, leadership of armies etc ... so it must have meant something to them.

In the odd occasion I have heard of gladiator armies, they do not seem to have done to well in a battle, probably more attuned to discipline than skill with a blade. The army, I suspect, spent a lot of time and effort in disciplining men to fight as a unit, gladiators, it appears, did not do so well. I will look up the reference for you at a later date, I am busy decorating at the moment and I fear I will have to use my single armed combat skills to defend myself against my wife if I don't get back to work!!

Hope this helps a little more.

Graham

[Gabriel C.]

I would only add to the sources quoted so far Polybius' "Histories". Polybius was a Greek general and historian of who lived between 203-121 b.C. Taken as a hostage to Rome, he became a friend of Scipio Aemilianus, the grandson of Scipio Africanus and final conqueror of Carthago. His histories, written in Greek for a Greek audience, is very detailed with reference to tactics and weapons of the Roman Republican army in his days


And, yes, Roman art is an important reference: just think to Trajan's column

Gabriel