[Otto Karl]

Which is, in your oppinion, the most appropiate hand held weapon to defeat a roman legionnaire? Note that it is very important not only to block the short sword attacks but dodge the large shield in order to win the fight. I was wondering if a spear or an A&A Hungarian Axe could be appropiate for such work, or if woud become too cumbersome at the moment of the strike .
Note: no missile, siege or fire arms allowed.

[Ryan Moody]

Aw, until I saw that note I was about to say a gun...

A Roman legionnaire is really no more dangerous than any other warrior in any time period. The real trouble with dealing with them comes when there's a legion of them. If you're just fighting one, it's merely a question of what weapons the opposing warrior is most comfortable with. Are we talking in-period, or warriors throughout history?

[Antal László]

Didn't you forget about the legionaires pillum?

[Martin Wallgren]

[Bill Tsafa]

Pirus had a good deal of success against Roman legions with his Macedonian Phalanx. Basically they had huge spears many rows deep that came all the way to the front. The army resembled a giant porcupine. Philip II, Alexander the Greats father, refined the tactics based on earlier Greek Phalanx. The Romans were only able to back Pirus down through attrition. The Romans were able to raise more men from their allies around Italy.

In the first Macedonian War Roman also nearly lost to the Macedonian "porcupine" phalanx. The advantage that the Romans had was that their armies were organized into smaller mannipole units. The Roman general was able to spot a place along the Macedonian Phalanx that had not formed up yet. He was able to then send a mannipole unit to attack that one spot. Macedonian Phanax's are less maneuverable and were not organized into small units that you could just break a section off and send in different directions.

The Romans went into the first Punic War without at navy. They did not have one up until that time and had no sea support. This is something that an enemy could take advantage. During the first Punic War they found a Carthaginian ship that was wrecked. The reversed engineered it and built a navy based on that model. Given that they had little experience in sea battles, they invented a huge boarding ramp with spikes at the end that would come down and lock two ships together. The Romans would then fight as they would on land. An opposing sea captain would do well to prevent that from happening and focused on ramming tactics. Such tactics require more skill at seamanship. The Roman's were so lacking in such skills at the time that they lost most of their fleet in a storm near their cost. Historians agree that this could have been prevented. This was no consequence to the Romans, their determination in war was such that the simply built more ships.

Romans by the Second Punic war were still not comfortable in fighting against Cavalry. Hanible's Nubian horsemen were able to defeat weaker Roman Cavalry and then attack ground troops from behind. Stirrups and heavy horse-charges were unknown to the Romans in this time. I do not believe the Carthaginians had stirrups, but they did exist further East. It is feasible in this time period to build an army based on heavy horse charges as seen in the 11th century. All the equipment, armor and weapon did exist or were within capability of the technology at the time.

War Elephants were also a big threat to Roman Legions. They lucked out at the Battle of Zama as the Elephants mostly charged down open corridors between the legions and out the back. I think if the Carthaginians had a chance to redo that battle the outcome would have been different.

[Doug Lester]

From what I understand, I'd say that any period hand weapon would be appropriate. What made the Romans so formidable was not their weaponry but their discipline and tactics. They were great at containing the unorganized mass onslaught of the opposing forces such as the Celts. Their stagger blocks of infantry tended to break up the solid lines of opponents which tended to fold in aroung them and ended up being attacked on three sides. They also overpowered the opposing wall of shields by throwing their pillums into them and making them too heavy and ackward for the opposing soldiers to handle.

[Bennison N]

If it's sword and shield on sword and shield, take an Iberian Falcata, and the Celtic shield.

I happen to know for a fact that Romans are scared of Falcata, because you can chop right through their shield, their helmet and their head with one big swing, provided you get the edge of the sword on the edge of the shield . So you'd get the psychological edge, as well as the serious chopping power. If the shield comes up, pull it down and chop the top of their helmet, or chop them at the knee, just above the greaves.

Dodge the javelins, chop the head off of the pilum, and hack away. The shield will split, the Roman too...

[Jean Thibodeau]

Not in any way period but the Romans might have found the great Danish axe or a later halberd very challenging.

[M. Eversberg II]

[Bill Tsafa]

Roman scutums were about 4 feet in length. Romans were about 5' 3". I don't think getting at their legs would be possible, especially in formation. You really have to out-flank them or crash into them with elephants. Spear thrusts to their open face helmets would work in a frontal attack. I also agree with the feasibility of throwing pilum into their scutums to render them unmaneuverable.

I do not agree with the idea of breaking through their shields with heavy axes and other weapons as a matter of overall strategy. Scutums weighed about 22 lbs according to one estimate. That is not a flimsy shield. I can accept that shields did break in the normal course of combat, but I don't think it is wise to approuch a Roman legion with the intention of axing through all their shields. The Romans also had a very well organized method of cycling their front lines for the purpose of rest and water. If the shield on the front line broke, I think all he would have to do is step back and be replaced by the man behind him. The Romans had that sort of stuff down to a science.

[Bennison N]

[Chuck Russell]

the falax while an awsome weapon didnt do much to stop the roman army... they completely whiped the dacians from existance. when attacking the roman legionaire's foot, his buddy will stab you thats right beside him. even elephants didnt do very good.


the one and ONLY thing that will stop the roman army is guerrilla warfare. attack them when they least expect it and are not ready. once they were in formation, it was really hard to go against the wall, wedge or tustudio.

[Luka Borscak]

Romans had the hardest time with cavalry armies. They never concquered Parthians. Their combination of horse archers and cataphract charges was to much for Roman legions.

[J.D. Crawford]

[Antal László]

[Steven H]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[M. Eversberg II]

[Bennison N]

[Bennison N]