[Alain D.]

I've heard that Romans generally used gladii to thrust, but could cut whenever necessary. This form of combat makes sense in large, tight formations, but it seems like short gladii would be incredibly impractical in one-on-one combat or against anything longer than 30 inches. Are there any accounts of small skirmishes or one-on-one Roman fighting or fighting techniques that would be used for small-scale encounters?

I'm just speculating here, I have no experience with Roman weapons.

Thanks

-Alain

[Luka Borscak]

I read somewhere that Roman officers forbidd their soldiers to respond on a single combat calls by Gauls before the main battle begun because they often lost such fights. It might be because of their equipment that favoured fighting in formations. Gauls were more focused on individual skill and bravery AND had longer swords.

[Allen Jones]

The power of the Roman army was their group formation. They were unstoppable when they fought together as one. The way to stop the Roman army was to force them to break formation.

I remember watching a show on the Discovery Channel about a famous battle between the Roman army and Germanic forces were the Germans won by forcing the Romans out of formation and fighting them one on one. I am sorry I can't remember more specifics but I am sure someone here can fill in the gaps that I have left.

I think the reasons the Romans lost when fighting one on one is not because of the short comings of the gladii (pun intended). A short weapon can be very good in a one on one fight. If you can close the distance between you and the other guy a long weapon becomes just as useless. I think the problem is more that the Romans focused so heavily on group work that when fighting one on one they don't have the refined skill and experience to win.

[Bartek Strojek]

As far as I can say, gladius could be indeed impractical, but fighting was done with big shield as a cover, so getting close to stab was in fact much easier and in result deadly for anyone forced to fight with longer weapon in very close range.

And roman soldiers usually had at least decent mail and helmet.

So while they certainly were lossing a bit of "shine" outside of formation, I don't think they were particullary bad at single ecounters.

[Alain D.]

Thanks for the responses. I've heard of longer spada being used at times. Were these only for cavalry?

[Ben P.]

It's known as a Spatha and yes they were reserved for cavalry.

BTW I remeber coming across an account where a roman officer took out huge germanic champion on his own

[Sylvain L.]

To Allen Jones :

You certainly speak about the battle of the Teutoburg forest, where 10.000 to 15.000 Germans destroy 20.000 to 25.000 Roman soldiers... This ambush take place in a forest, and don't give to the Romans the possibility to fight in combat formation.

Here a link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

S.L.

[Alain D.]

Yes, thank you Ben, I meant a Spatha.

[Dan Howard]

[Jared Smith]

[Ben P.]

[Carl W.]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

After reading J. E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts, I'm convinced the discipline of Roman soldiers has been greatly exaggerated. Rather like their German enemies and later European aristocrats, Romans loved to demonstrate individual prowess in battle. Lendon goes so far as to suggest their famous manipular formation came as compromise between the need for order and the need to allow soldiers to distinguish themselves.

[Bill Tsafa]

That is very interesting Benjamin. I knew that the Roman lost a few battles because of the self interest of the generals, I did not think it extended to the lower ranks. Could you add some more details.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I'd suggest reading Soldiers and Ghosts for yourself if you can. It's possibly the most stimulating book on historical warfare I've so far encountered. According Lendon, soldiers regularly insisted on quick battle even if the general disagreed. I remember one example involved Fabius Maximus and Minucius against Hannibal.

[Alain D.]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Matthew Amt]

[Ben P.]

Well I personally think it would have been a mix of individualist fighting and displine remember formations like repel horse would have to require a ton of disipline. Basically whichever one worked for the situation.

[M. Eversberg II]

The HBO series "Rome" introduced an interesting method you don't normally see in Hollywood -- going low to hamstring your opponent while covering from above with the shield.

Don't know if it was done in reality, but it's certainly a different perspective.

M.