Roman body armor and fighting techniques.

[Benjamin Parker]

There was a topic on another where they were discussing a show on tv where they fired a ballista bolt at a watermelon and it was shredded then they fired a bolt at a strip off a lorica segmenata and it only made a small dent becase the armor worked like a suspension system is that true?

Also can anyone tell me anything about roman fighting techniques? hoiw did they fight without armor or with it? how did they fight unarmed or armed? etc. did they use pankration? and how effective would these techniques be today?

[Gene Tausk]

There was a topic on another where they were discussing a show on tv where they fired a ballista bolt at a watermelon and it was shredded then they fired a bolt at a strip off a lorica segmenata and it only made a small dent becase the armor worked like a suspension system is that true?

Also can anyone tell me anything about roman fighting techniques? hoiw did they fight without armor or with it? how did they fight unarmed or armed? etc. did they use pankration? and how effective would these techniques be today?

You've asked a lot of questions and I'm not really sure about what you are asking for some of this, but here goes:

1. Let me get this straight - a BALLISTA bolt was fired at a strip of lorica and only made a small dent? A BALLISTA? This thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista

Call me skeptical.

2. To what "Roman Fighting Techniques" are you referring? Gladiatorial? Military? Naval?

3. The Roman soldiers fought with armor on their bodies. They were not stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army

4. The Roman soldiers were well armed and thoroughly trained in the use of the weapons. Once again, these were not stupid people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army

5. Did they use pankration? For what? If you mean, did they use pankration on the battlefield, I am reasonably certain this would not be there first choice, any more than a modern U.S. Army Ranger would willingly away his rifle to use jujutsu in a firefight. Gladiatorial combat? Pankration fighters are not listed as gladiators by the sources.

6. How effective would these techniques be today? To which techniques are you referring? As much as a admire and respect the Roman military machine from BCE 100 to CE 200, my money is still on the U.S. Rangers or Marines.

[Benjamin Parker]

Yes a ballista I kid you not

A roman soldier could be out of his armor and unarmed if he was off duty I'm not talking about a battle nescasrily

I'm talking about the battle tachniques that a roman soldier would have used

What I mean is would they have used pankration on the battle field along with their wepaon or if they lost their weapon or to throw down an enemy and the kill him?

As to effective they would be today I'm talking about as in a street fight scenairo or a fight involving eged weapons

[Anthony Pendleton]

As to the ballista comment, I'd be curious to see know they performed their "test" - firing it at sections of the armor removed or the whole thing, where they shot it (front/side), and how the armor was held for the test (on a dummy, strapped hard to something, etc.).

Lorica is definitely tough in certain circumstances, but with its design has problems protecting against certain attacks - piercing between the layered strips being one of them. Seeing as how ballistas can throw down some serious momentum behind massive bolts, I'd be a bit wary as those strips could potentially buckle easily under those circumstances. Tough to say one way or another without knowing how they tested, but I'm wary at this point.

A really interesting test would have been to see what the bolt did to a body-equivalent if the armor did actually manage to stop it (somehow).

The other questions I can't speak to with any reference.

[Benjamin Parker]

If I remember correctly the lorica was by itself with a support and it was a scorpio ballista firing a bolt at one of the lorcia's strips from the front

[LafayetteCCurtis]

A roman soldier could be out of his armor and unarmed if he was off duty I'm not talking about a battle nescasrily

Sure, and we still don't know much about the techniques involved in these situations either. Lately I've been poking around with the idea that Roman skirmishers and expediti (legionaries in light gear) might have used I.33-like sword-and-buckler techniques for the gladius-and-parma combination.

What I mean is would they have used pankration on the battle field along with their wepaon or if they lost their weapon or to throw down an enemy and the kill him?

Probably yes--grappling was almost universally recognized in the ancient world as a back-up method that soldiers must know for situations when their weapons had been rendered ineffective.

[Robert Bertram]

The Gladius be something really fun to study and to fence with.

I'm guessing the Roman gladius would have been similar to messer? It seems like it to me anyways.

[Benjamin Parker]

The Gladius be something really fun to study and to fence with.

I'm guessing the Roman gladius would have been similar to messer? It seems like it to me anyways.

No the gladius is a short thrusting thrusting weapon whereas the messer is a one edged greatsword used for cutting

[LafayetteCCurtis]

The Gladius be something really fun to study and to fence with.

I'm guessing the Roman gladius would have been similar to messer? It seems like it to me anyways.

No the gladius is a short thrusting thrusting weapon whereas the messer is a one edged greatsword used for cutting

That's too fine a distinction, I think. The messer had a serviceable thrusting point, and the gladius was definitely broad and sharp enough to inflict serious cutting wounds. In fact, I recall a passage in Livy mentioning that Macedonian soldiers were terrified of the cutting wounds inflicted by Roman swords in a prior skirmish. So there might have been broad similarities between the use of the gladius and Messerfechten--though there's no way to be sure of it with the pitifully small amount of primary information we have about Roman gladiation techniques.

[Benjamin Parker]

Yes I remeber reading that the greeks were horrified by the wounds the gladius gave but according to vegetius they were suppossed to be used as a thrusting weapon

[LafayetteCCurtis]

And it's good to remember that Vegetius shouldn't be seen as the be-all and end-all source for Roman fighting techniques--just look at the factual errors and conflations he made in his description of the antiqua legio (the "old legion"--the standard that he wished the legions of his days to emulate). Personally I can't believe that a blade as broad and as handy as the gladius was never deliberately used to cut except if the Romans always kept the edges dull by purpose.

[Benjamin Parker]

Yes but the reliefs of roman legionaries (or at least the ones I've seen) show legionaries using it to thrust

[Anthony Pendleton]

Yes but the reliefs of roman legionaries (or at least the ones I've seen) show legionaries using it to thrust

Using this kind of logic for determining how things must have been done can be faulty and a slippery slope to boot. The gladius may have been (and likely was) primarily a thrusting weapon, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't used in a cutting fashion as well.

Quick edit:
As a side note, looking back through your recent posts it seems as though you're reaching (or have already reached) a conclusion based on limited information and source material, and then holding to that as fact. Since the available information from the time is not comprehensive, I'd recommend being a bit more open before setting yourself to certain beliefs. Just a thought, things can get frustrating for you in the long run, otherwise.

[Benjamin Parker]

Yes but the reliefs of roman legionaries (or at least the ones I've seen) show legionaries using it to thrust

Using this kind of logic for determining how things must have been done can be faulty and a slippery slope to boot. The gladius may have been (and likely was) primarily a thrusting weapon, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't used in a cutting fashion as well.

Quick edit:
As a side note, looking back through your recent posts it seems as though you're reaching (or have already reached) a conclusion based on limited information and source material, and then holding to that as fact. Since the available information from the time is not comprehensive, I'd recommend being a bit more open before setting yourself to certain beliefs. Just a thought, things can get frustrating for you in the long run, otherwise.

Don't worry I've done (and am doing) lots of research, I'm not saying that the gladius couldn't be used to cut however the broad blade and narrow point can be used fro devestating thrusts the same way it can be used to cut and like I said all the evidance seems to say that is was primaryly a thruster and of course it depends on what type gladius your talking about

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Ben,

The gladius was more than capable of executing an effective cut, but it is indeed primarily a thrusting weapon. Roman tactics necessitated this. Remember the Battle of Watling Street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

The Iceni and their confederates were packed in so close to the Roman lines
that there was no room to brandish swords, only stab frantically (though methodically). And this is EXACTLY the way the Romans wanted it, and the way the mighty Greeks from whom they learned their art of war would have fought that battle. Of course the Gladius could cut, but its real strength lay in the well-placed, calculated thrust.

I'm not trying to be a pain, here, but I can't simply let it slide: first we are told by Mr. Curtis that there are precious few sources on Roman martial technique, and then he proceeds to tell us that Vegetius' text is riddled with inaccuracies. Well, if Vegetius' work is full of mistakes, and we have so little apart from Vegetius to compare his work with, then how can it be said that anyone knows that any part of Vegetius' treatise is falacious? It doesn't make any sense.

You're on the right track. Go straight to the sources. Who are you gonna trust? Vegetius, or a modern student or academic? I don't know about you, but I'm gonna go with the guy who was actually around back in the day (and Vegetius was a hell of a lot closer to his subject than anyone, degree or not, living today).

Keep it up.

-B.

http://www.collectie.legermuseum.nl/sit ... ius300.jpg

"Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it...
... However, they are given that double-weight shield frame and foil, so
that when the recruit takes up real, lighter weapons, as if freed from the
heavier weight, he will fight in greater safety and faster. But when field
training was ended through negligence and laxity, the equipment (which the soldiers seldom put on) began to be seen as heavy."

- Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)