From duel to fencing

[VELISARIOS]

Yes it is training, dissipling, fortune etc, but Roman armors and weapons origin were from other people they met(not all Pillum was their secret weapon).
For example one of the Roman sword was the short stabbing sword called a Gladius was the soldier's main weapon. Often called Gladius Hispaniensis "Spanish Sword" it is thought that this weapon was derived from swords Celtic warriors were using against the Romans in Spain.
The Roman ring mail origin were from Gauls ring mail.The helmets has many styles the Galic and the Italic were the most common.
Now they armory were not constand. Romans equipment change from era to era(Etruscian -republic - empire). So with this tactic, they design their superior armory.

I give you bibliografy to see:
-The complete Roman Army
A.Goldsworhty

- Roman Army from Caesar to Trajan
M. Simkins

- Roman Army from Hadrian to Constandine
M. Simkins

[Teme]

Aren't we venturing further and further off topic here

Roman success, I beleive, was due to logistics and perceverance.
The first meaning that unlike most of it's opponents, it had a standing army capable of reaching far and staying there. It was also standardized and homogenous, meaning any part of it was replaceable without much ado -- whether it was destroyed or required elsewhere in the Empire.
The latter meaning that the parts destroyed were replaced time and again until the Romans won. And to some extent it also means that a legion was willing to sustain extreme casualties rather than run (not that they always did so). Even victorious enemies suffered unheard of casualties, and within weeks or months another legion was coming forth...
In the age of mostly symbolic, ritualistic or highly restrained fighting the Roman legions were very brutal machines of war.

[RoninX]

Aren't we venturing further and further off topic here

Roman success, I beleive, was due to logistics and perceverance.
The first meaning that unlike most of it's opponents, it had a standing army capable of reaching far and staying there. It was also standardized and homogenous, meaning any part of it was replaceable without much ado -- whether it was destroyed or required elsewhere in the Empire.
The latter meaning that the parts destroyed were replaced time and again until the Romans won. And to some extent it also means that a legion was willing to sustain extreme casualties rather than run (not that they always did so). Even victorious enemies suffered unheard of casualties, and within weeks or months another legion was coming forth...
In the age of mostly symbolic, ritualistic or highly restrained fighting the Roman legions were very brutal machines of war.

OK, slow down we are way off but I cannot resist responding to this post. Sorry.

Whenever we speak of the Roman warring capability we must first define WHEN we are talking about. The Roman army underwent numerous eveolutions and revolution over the course of the republic and empire. Most people mean the time period of the early empire and late republic when they say "the legions of rome" so I will assume this is the time period meant.

The Roman fought all kinds of peoples, with all sorts of organizational and tactical proficiencies. However the warfare of europe and the mediterranean sea was NOT "mostly symbolic, ritualistic or highly restrained fighting". Certainly there was symbolism, and ritual involved but no student of the period would ever consider the warfare of the time to be "restrained". Could you please qualify this description?

"any part of it was replaceable without much ado": one of the greatest strains on the Roman Army was lack of men, one of the greatest strain on the public purse was how to pay the men they had in the field. Much of the politics of Rome centered around, fielding, provisioning, and maintaining the legions - quite an "ado" IMO. Sorry for the diversion, if we need to talk about this in depth I'll start a water cooler thread on the Romans.

[AllenJ]

yeah its a little off topic but there really isnt a good place to discuss historical fencing here so....
I havent made any formal additions to my responce of the article at the begining of the thread because I'm helping someone out with some research on another topic. Though the next addition will be a good one. Gary makes the statement that any use of the point prior to Italian rapier use was "accidental" and other such rubbish.

[VELISARIOS]

Yes better stop this.Lets consedrate to fencing.

[AllenJ]

I dont have the time right now to do a legnthy responce but I thought I'd address just the first sentence of this next section by Gary Worsfield. He says, "During this time cutting and slashing actions were more prevelant and the use of the point was more accidental than common until the Italians began to purposely develop techniques using the point." This is about as false a statement as can be made. There is no excuse for this kind of mistake. We know swords prior to the rapier had a point. We have manuals that show and descripe the point being used to great effectiveness. How can he make this bad of a mistake?
From Fiore 1410:
http://www.thearma.org/pdf/dlnew2.jpg
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/dlr5.JPG
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl10.jpg
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl15.jpg
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl23.jpg
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl25.jpg
From Vadi 1482:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiN...Untitled-4.jpg
From "Goliath":
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/76.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/80.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/83.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg
From Paulus Hector Mair 1540:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/36.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/51.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/54.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/55.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/68.jpg
From Talhoffer:
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0156.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0183.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0188.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0191.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0250.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0253.jpg

Only the most ignorant of researchers would suggest that these are all "accidental". And this is only the smallest sample of the mountains of images and references that show specific and deliberate use of the point prior to the Italian rapier. These people were not idiots. They had thousands of years of weapon use behind them. There is no way a logical mind can conclude that it was not until 17th century Italy that people figured out that thrusting was a good idea. What about some of the earliest weapons of mankind - the knife and the spear. These were not hacking and slashing weapons. I'm really at a loss as to how this can be a conclusion of anyone who is even the smallest student of the sword- much less a self- proclaimed "maitre des armes".

[Inquartata]

Roman armors and weapons origin were from other people they met

And the causal link between this and their success is...?

It's a nice hypothesis, but it wants demonstration. Going only on that logic, well, hoplologist David Nicolle thinks that almost every article of armour which came into use in medieval Europe originated somewhere in the East. Therefore the Crusaders as "borrowers" extraordinaire should have repeated the Roman Empire's successes...

Then there's the counterexample: the Mongols. Built an empire larger than that of the Romans and did it almost entirely with their native arms alone.

I just don't believe that military and political success can be boiled down to one factor like this.

[AllenJ]

I just don't believe that military and political success can be boiled down to one factor like this.

many dittos!

[AllenJ]

Just found someone has done some amazing research on the weapons and battle info in the Icelandic sagas. Clearly both cuts & thrusts were used prevelantly to both kill and wound. Really great stuff here!
http://www.hurstwic.org/library/arms...se_summary.htm