You weren't, lee was, hence my additional underlining of the point. If you eat healthy and work out, you gonna have an edge, but a roman soldier was very trained in what he did and he ate enough to maintan efficency in the field.Originally posted by Ecthelion@Apr 13 2005, 05:22 AM
Umm... not sure where I tried to make the point that nutrition was the ONLY thing that mattered... :blink
You should have read what he wrote. "Dueling and swordfighting in combat" are not the same and he's right. Nowhere did he say that dueling has nothing to do with swordfighting.If dueling (which evolved from sword-fighting) is nothing like sword-fighting at all... then what is? I mean, what are you doing when you duel? Are you not "fighting" with "swords"?
Here's a statement about what Polyibius thinks of the Legions:The Roman cohorts are always vaunted as being these perfect, flexible fighting machines.* But the reality of the matter is that the scutum/gladius combo was only good against a few types of enemy, that being non-polearmed heavy infantry.* Against polearms the cohorts had to flank, which is more due to clever manuevring on part of the centurions than any genious of equipment.* If anything, having a big clunky shield makes it harder to run and flank.*
The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.
He wrote that while comparing the roman legion to the macedonian phalanx which he found superior on flat ground, but difficult to maintain and unflexible for a multitude of other operations.
It is actually not clear why they changed their equipment. What we know is that the spatha first appeared as a cavalry weapon as the horsemen needed the longer reach for their swords. Also the blurred distinction between roman legion and auxiliaries might have to do with equipment change as auxiliaries generally carried different equipment.Why were the scutum and the gladius abandonded? Simple: the Romans came against enemies who did not rely on non-polearmed heavy infantry.
Well, why don't you name some of these battles? Most of rome's worst defeats were due to incompetence on part of their leaders, not because of "equipment mismatches". With a good general, a roman army was almost unstoppable.Romans lost many, many times. And I doubt if not a few of those were due to equipment mismatches.