-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Most indications are that people in roman times had poorer nutrition, healthcare, and physical training, so modern soliders are almost certainly bigger, stronger, and more athletic than roman legionaries.
Absolutely.
Even in WW1 times, people were noticeably shorter than they are now. Add to this that post Marius, they were urban poor, and you are taking about the worst fed segment of the population, with all the developments that brings (stunted growth, etc).
Contrast this with the martial elite of medieval society. Meat at every meal, if you felt like it!
Depends what you call "techniques". For large battles, drills/formations >>>>> personal combat skill. You can be as trained as heroic as possible, a pike wall will still win.
The romans were unique in that they emphasised the more important parts of a military: discipline, command&control, logistics.
Roman weapon training was focused on how to fight in formation. Melee combat is far more complicated than just swining at each other, romans would train how to attack pretty much every part of the body while also protecting themself and their comrades. The piké like everything else is about techniques and the best pikemen was very well drilled.
Modern soldiers generally have very basic training in melee and really no training how to use formations in melee combat. They would be defeated very badly against ancient foes in melee with melee weapons.
Modern soldiers generally have very basic training in melee and really no training how to use formations in melee combat. They would be defeated very badly against ancient foes in melee with melee weapons.
Roman legionaries was not average people as there was minimum requirements. Furhermore you can become really fit by training like the romans did so Im not sure modern soldiers would be all that fitter than legionaries.
Last edited:
Assuming this is true, what kind of insight do we gain from it? Should we train modern soldiers better in melee combat and use of battle formations so that they are better prepared to engage long dead warriors from 2000 years ago in case they end up facing them with nothing but melee weapons on hand?
Of course not, they would be borderline helpless if they face a Tercio.
Really what makes you all think that an army of modern soldiers can not win against an army of roman legionaires? Did you all forgot that the Roman legions lost against Spartacus an couple of times who besides an small core of gladiators most of his army where slaves and yet they still beat those legionaries?
Are you all gonna tell me now that slaves where trained in martial arts?
Are you all gonna tell me now that slaves where trained in martial arts?
Obviously not because role of melee combat is minimal on the modern battlefield and the roman way of fighting in formations even more so. I think the British had an idea to train longbowmen in the 1700s but quickly figured out that longbows was obsolete at the time.
On the other hand it do tell us that if modern soldiers would most likely lose against ancient soldiers in a melee fight, untrained people would most certainly lose.
Roman losses against Spartacus seems to be quite low and the romans was outnumbered but still managed to defeated the slaves without that much trouble. Obviously the slaves was atleast trained to some part given that it lasted for a few years.
Boudica rebellion is another case in which the Romans defeated a significant numerical superior foe.
There is really nothing that really say that modern soldiers would have done well against any of the above given just roman equipment. You would have to give them quite some time to train before they could achieve similar success as the romans.
Last edited:
1. Current armies also have requirements, drawing fitter people from a much healthier, larger, stronger population.
2. We have much better knowledge of exercise and nutrition and so modern people can be in much better shape than people in older times.
2. We have much better knowledge of exercise and nutrition and so modern people can be in much better shape than people in older times.
Of course. We need to be prepared for the day when the dead start rising from their graves and we have to fight in melee combat against reanimated skeleton armies that are immune to bullets!
They'll be too busy in Catalonia and Portugal, what would we care?
Were gladiators trained in martial arts? Yes.
Could that core of gladiators train the other slaves they freed? Yes.
It is also important to note that the legions beaten by Spartacus were newly conscripted and not comparable to the professional legionaries of the Imperial period.
In addition, the legions were very badly led. The fact that Crassus (of Carrhae fame) was able to beat the slaves with the legions that had already routed twice should give some indication of how badly led they were.
Yeah underestimate Crassus as before he came in actions others tried also and lost badly. Also Crassus got beaten by the Parthians come on now there the freaking Parthians.
This is the longest living empire that was in constant war these are hardened warriors. Not like romans with their 100 years of peace and prosperity.
Modern soldiers are trained in modern fighting techniques, but most of them have zero application in ancient melee combat. Being able to march in a parade is the first step in fighting in formation, but the modern soldiers are never trained to the next level, it's simply not relevant to their intended roles, and even parade marching is an anachronism with no modern purpose outside of public displays (which is actually not all that different from marching past a reviewing stand to demonstrate that the army that you're being paid to build and maintain isn't just some rabble gathered off the street and handed uniforms because you pocketed the pay of the 2000 men you were supposed to have under your command during the other 11 months of the year).
The Roman average male was taller (a little)at 10 AD than the average European male in 1920. Europeans surpased the average Romans of this time roughly in the 1940-50s.
The Average size for men found in Pompeji was 1,69. You can assume that the average soldier is a bit taller.
People been in general much taller in antiquitiy in Europe/Mediteranen than in the middle ages.
Last edited:
Pompeii was a rich city in the richest part of the Empire though. It's like taking Beverly hills as a representative sample of the population of California.