Roman vs Barbarian How strong was the individual soldier?

[torongill]

To answer the OP, there are different kind of strong. Roman soldiers could do forced marches and could design fortified camps, they could build circumvalation lines and bridges, boats and ships, etc. They fought as a formation and their equipment showed - a big shield to protect them in their relatively stationary position, a short sword that would be deadly in the confines of the press of the lines. The barbarian equipment for close combat was a long sword. A long sword is difficult to operate when the enemy is practically spitting in your face and your buddies are pushing you in the back and your shield touches the one of your neighbour. On the other hand, a long sword is much better for single combat, where reach is much more important. A long sword can parry much better than a gladius, if you have the space for parrying, making it even better for single combat. So equipment alone gives advantage to the Roman soldier in group combat, whereas in single combat the "Barbarian" with a long sword would be better off. Now as long as individual strength is concerned and we talk dedicated military personel, not conscripts, the sworn warriors of the warlord would probably enjoy a higher protein intake diet than the average post-marian legionary. However the average roman legionary was subject to much more stressful training and toughening(courtesy of regular forced marches with 70 lb of gear, followed by building a fortified camp), thus making them really tough mean bastards.
So in closing, for a single combat I'd generally put my money on the longsworded "barbarian", whereas for combat 400 vs 400 pitched battle on open level ground I'd vote Legionary. The legionary was a better all-around member of an organised military force, shown of course by the areas conquered by the gladius, scutum and pilum. Waiting for my Maintz pattern to finally arrive. Goddamn customs office er sonofaes.

[Phalanx300]

Just go look K1, top fighters Dutch. Germanic individual slightly strenght advantage.

[Marcus Aemilius Longinus]

To be honest this whole ''Roman vs Barbarian'' topic is a bit too unspecific. Can we narrow it down down to a specific time period and tribe/people in the case of the barbarian and time period and branch of the army (auxilia/legio) in the case of the ''Roman''.

[torongill]

Well in this case it would be Hastati/Principes and Gallic tribes and post-marian legionnaries vs Cimbrian/Teutonic invaders, as well as Gallic, German and British warriors.

[Frostwulf]

I read a lot about this, from what I read some people seem to suggest that as an individual fighter the barbarian was much more capable being taller and stronger, but I think this is wrong. The Marian reforms required legions to be 5'10, and even without height requirements, from what I read the average barbarian was only 2-3 inches taller then a Roman soldier.

I'm under the assumption when referring to barbarians you mean Germani and Celts, so I will continue with that assumption in my reply.
You will find that the Roman soldiers who are to be 5'10'' is not a universal requirement, but for the first cohort:

Vegetius claimed that men in the first cohort ought to have chosen from taller recruits than the rest of the legion, which would reinforce its special status as an elite within the legion. pg.15

I have read elsewhere that this standard was not kept, as it was an ideal situation, not a reality(Lebhohec?).

Measurements taken on skeletal remains in cemeteries in southwestern Germany indicate that the average height for men was about five feet eight inches, statures well above those of late medieval and early modern times. Measurements taken on skeletons in other regions are comparable. In Denmark, for example, the average height for men was about five feet nine inches - just above those for southwestern Germany - and for women about five feet for inches. These average heights were not achieved again until the twentieth century. Compared with earlier and later populations in the same regions, these average measurements show that most people had adequate nutrition during most of their lives and their living conditions were generally good. Pg.140

To Romans, Germanic warrior stood frightfully tall and strong. Skeletons confirm this. No wonder, then, that Germanic club-men loom large on Trajan’s Column.

“hundreds of examinations of skeletons have shown that many Germans were tall, on average were 1 meter 74, about 5'8, so they frequently towered over the Romans by as much as a head.”

“The writers of antiquity’s observations that the Germanic peoples were much taller than the Romans were not make-believe but clearly reflected in reality.”

As mentioned above there were many writers who wrote of the Germani/Celt's being much taller then the Romans, such as Caesar,Vellius, Polybius, etc. etc.

As for strength, the Romans had a much better training regiment, it would ultimately depend on the individual for who's stronger, Roman or Barbarian. I think Romans were stronger due to their training and discipline, training with wooden swords and shield twice the weight of their standard weapons.

Allot of the elite's didn't just sit around, they also were out raiding and training, as with most martial peoples there were some cultural standards of "training" which was rarely above the level of the individual.

I know some barbarian units were just as armored as Roman Legion, in 1 on 1 combat a Legionnaire vs a Barbarian armored with chain mail and a Long sword, who would win? Would be logical to conclude that the Barbarian has an advantage with his Longer sword but does that make him stronger and a better fighter? No.

I agree with this statement, there are plenty of examples of individual duels in which the Romans defeated the Gallic/Germanic opponent.

Also remember reading before the average Roman soldier was 5'6 while the average barbarian was 5'9.

I have read that they were 5'4" to 5'6", problem is none of these numbers were from professionals. I cannot find what the average height of the Roman soldier is for the varying time periods.

With all things being equal a taller man will have more "absolute" strength and weight, which helps with the type of warfare of those days. How much did it affect the situation, I'm not sure. I do believe the biggest advantage of the bigger "barbarian" was the psychological effect it had, which is documented by Caesar, Polybius and others. The Romans were at times intimidated by the larger Celts/Germani they faced.

[AqD]

I read a lot about this, from what I read some people seem to suggest that as an individual fighter the barbarian was much more capable being taller and stronger, but I think this is wrong. The Marian reforms required legions to be 5'10, and even without height requirements, from what I read the average barbarian was only 2-3 inches taller then a Roman soldier. As for strength, the Romans had a much better training regiment, it would ultimately depend on the individual for who's stronger, Roman or Barbarian. I think Romans were stronger due to their training and discipline, training with wooden swords and shield twice the weight of their standard weapons.

1.There are many different types of barbarians - they're not the same, and some barbarians are actually shorter.....
2.The individual training for legionaries wouldn't be needed in the first place if Romans are born fighters like the celtic warriors class. You cannot seriously expect those guys to use complex weapons such as two-handed swords or bows, or fight without large protective shield or out of the formation

[torongill]

1.There are many different types of barbarians - they're not the same, and some barbarians are actually shorter.....
2.The individual training for legionaries wouldn't be needed in the first place if Romans are born fighters like the celtic warriors class. You cannot seriously expect those guys to use complex weapons such as two-handed swords or bows, or fight without large protective shield or out of the formation

No such thing as a born fighter. True, some people posess traits that are valuable for a soldier/warrior, but the usual case is that they learn to be fighters. Almost nobody comes with an innane sense of the proper way to beat someone to death(I'm sure there are some cases, the exception that enforces the rule).

Two handed swords aren't complex weapons by themselves. What is complex is the way you have to learn to use them to compensate for the lack of passive defence. With a two handed sword you either need two other guys with big shields to protect you from the enemy missiles, or enough armor to be reasonably protected from those projectiles. Furthermore you need space to wield such a sword, meaning that friendlies cannot immediately help you and also that you're probably facing two-three enemies.
As for bows being too complex a weapon, you know that legions actually had archers, don't you? As well as light artillery, which was served by those same legionnaries that you dubbed incapable of anything more complicated than holding their big shields and pointing with their swords.

Like I said, the Roman equipment is uncompromisingly for group combat. As such a legionnary wouldn't be expected to fight outside the formation and would generally be at disadvantage in single combat.

P.S.

[Marcus Aemilius Longinus]

As for bows being too complex a weapon, you know that legions actually had archers, don't you? As well as light artillery, which was served by those same legionnaries that you dubbed incapable of anything more complicated than holding their big shields and pointing with their swords.

Like I said, the Roman equipment is uncompromisingly for group combat. As such a legionnary wouldn't be expected to fight outside the formation and would generally be at disadvantage in single combat.

While it is true that legionaries were given some basic trainig in acrchery, riding and the sling they would have been used in any of these roles only when there was no suitable alternative as a bow requires a lot of training to use effectively, which is why the romans had dedicated auxilia cohorts of archers.
This same principal goes for artillery for while the artillery was manned by legionaries, they would have been specialists.
I also have to completely disagree with your statement that the equipment of a legionary/auxilia infantry man was ''uncompromisingly for group combat''. A big shield is useful both when on your own and in massed ranks as is a short sword, certainly more than a dedicated spearman with a spear and shield, although that said they could undoubtedly fight on their own if they knew what they were doing.

Another example of how the Roman was reasonablhy well suited for individual combat is the sheer ammount of armour that they wore. On average a legionary could be said to be as well armoured as most Gallic Kings. Armour is in any case more suited to individual rather than group combat, For example In the later Byzantine army of the 9th century massed infantry rarely wore more personal protection than a quilted garment and a thick turban while their skirmishers were generally far better equipped.

[torongill]

While it is true that legionaries were given some basic trainig in acrchery, riding and the sling they would have been used in any of these roles only when there was no suitable alternative as a bow requires a lot of training to use effectively, which is why the romans had dedicated auxilia cohorts of archers.
This same principal goes for artillery for while the artillery was manned by legionaries, they would have been specialists.
I also have to completely disagree with your statement that the equipment of a legionary/auxilia infantry man was ''uncompromisingly for group combat''. A big shield is useful both when on your own and in massed ranks as is a short sword, certainly more than a dedicated spearman with a spear and shield, although that said they could undoubtedly fight on their own if they knew what they were doing.

Another example of how the Roman was reasonablhy well suited for individual combat is the sheer ammount of armour that they wore. On average a legionary could be said to be as well armoured as most Gallic Kings. Armour is in any case more suited to individual rather than group combat, For example In the later Byzantine army of the 9th century massed infantry rarely wore more personal protection than a quilted garment and a thick turban while their skirmishers were generally far better equipped.

Please do not confuse heavy infantry and "optimised for individual combat". True, legionnaries were better armored than the enemy, especially after the marian reforms, but in individual combat weapon reach and skill with said weapon are much more important.
Please don't use medieval Bysantine army with its decisive heavy cavalry as evidence for the proficiency of the Roman legionnary infantryman that lived 7-9 centuries before that.
The scutum was a very good shield, but it wasn't optimised for single combat. In single combat you'd want a shield that's sturdy, yet light enough to employ it effectively as an active defence. In single combat you don't need a shield that covers your whole body, you need a shield that enables you to move it to defend yourself(and attack of course).
The short sword is a terrible weapon to have if you face an armored enemy with a long sword in single combat. the one foot more of blade makes a world of difference. You can parry with a short sword, but it's much more difficult than with a long one(not to mention more dangerous, since you have to extend your arm, making it a juicy target).

BTW, there's an ongoing dispute whether the artillerists of the legion were specialised, dedicated troops or were fighting men with additional skills. I tend to think the latter. For it seems(at least to me) to believe that dedicated cooks, carpenters, logisticians, liasons and other kind of REMF scum belong to the elite of a fighting unit is utter rejection of reality. It would be much more explicable if these were fighting men, who had additional skills, thus making them more worthy, more valuable and special than the average Gaius in the ranks.

[Hackworthy]

Well since the Romans were never able to truly subdue the Germans I'm going to say the Germans were stronger, they just lacked the unity of the Romans. Not that the Romans had all that much unity anyways.

[Marcus Aemilius Longinus]

I never said that the equipment was optimised for individual combat over massed ranks. I was simply disputing you use of the word ''uncompromisingly''. I understood that you meant that they were at a disadvantage as far as equipment is concerned, not that their equipment was specialised for 1 on 1.

As for artillery, Yes I am aware of the possibilty of immunes being artillerymen however they would nevertheless be specialists as they simply had to undergo some sort of training with their artillery if they were to be half decent shots with it, not to mention being able to maintain their weapons etc. I think we can also agree that such men, although trained to fight in the battle would have been kept out of harms way as they would have been valuable as experts in their trade.

You say that the scutum's problem's in sigle combat lie in it's weight due to the need to manouver it around when in sigle combat. Having actually fought with a scutum (The joys of historical reenactment) I say that this is simply not true. While it is rather heavy, one does not need to manouver it around due to its large size. When someone tries to go around you all you need to do is bring your whole body around to face the opponent in order to counter him. All the movement one really needs to do is to simplyraise and lower the shield to counter strikes to the head and feet. This would be a measue that is necessary in both massed and individual combat.

[conon394]

The short sword is a terrible weapon to have if you face an armored enemy with a long sword in single combat. the one foot more of blade makes a world of difference. You can parry with a short sword, but it's much more difficult than with a long one(not to mention more dangerous, since you have to extend your arm, making it a juicy target).

That of course assumes your metallurgy will support a long sword able to sustain the rigors of extended combat and on balance the evidence does not really show that for much of the period of Roman ascendancy.

The scutum was a very good shield, but it wasn't optimised for single combat. In single combat you'd want a shield that's sturdy, yet light enough to employ it effectively as an active defence. In single combat you don't need a shield that covers your whole body, you need a shield that enables you to move it to defend yourself(and attack of course).

You have ignored a whole host of factors in that statement - you seem to imaging a fairly idealized single combat of long duration with nobody else around - that all good in the area but that rarely covers any kind of classical combat.

Please do not confuse heavy infantry and "optimised for individual combat"

But confusing a long sword some kind of expertise in close combat is just the same mistake. After all one prime users of long swords favored a shield just as large has the Roman ones so I find your logic flawed.


Still haven't gotten used to the new location of EDIT vs QUOTE. I accidently made my post below in your post. I edited it back to the way it was. Sorry bout that.

-Ciabhan

[Ciabhán]

That of course assumes your metallurgy will support a long sword able to sustain the rigors of extended combat and on balance the evidence does not really show that for much of the period of Roman ascendancy.

You have ignored a whole host of factors in that statement - you seem to imaging a fairly idealized single combat of long duration with nobody else around - that all good in the area but that rarely covers any kind of classical combat.

You're kind of falling into your own trap here. The long sword wouldn't have had to be of superior quality as combat at the time would have lasted only a few passes at most. No extensive parrying or blocking to damage the blade in single combat.

After all one prime users of long swords favored a shield just as large has the Roman ones so I find your logic flawed.

Who? I'm curious.

[Entropy Judge]

European knights, I assume, who tended to use kite-shields and longer arming swords as their side-arms.

[Ciabhán]

European knights, I assume, who tended to use kite-shields and longer arming swords as their side-arms.

Pretty different in size and weight.

A scuta was a meter by .6 meters and could weigh up to 18 pounds.

A kite shield could be a meter long but was far less wide and weighed in at most around 12 pounds.

[Scipio Afracanis]

I think while the avg. "barbarian" might be physically stronger I think the avg. legionnaire would be more skilled in warfare.(marches, tactics, skill with there multiple weapons ect.....) Taller and stronger or Shorter and Skilled?

Obviously the roman solider wasn't weak and the "barbarian" wasn't some big clumsy oaf who just came off the farm and picked up a pitch fork. But I would think that strength wise I would give the edge to the avg. "barb" but overall skill and abilities in warfare I would go with the roman.

[conon394]

Who? I'm curious.

In the classical period - the Celts for example used a long sword and a large shield (and significantly are noted for suffering for that fact since their swords were not up to even a short fight compared to Roman weapons) - I can think of no army anywhere in the period that used both a long sword and a small/fencing shield as a part of army kit - can you?

More later on you fist point...

[torongill]

I believe he refers to the Gallic warriors, who also had big shields, mostly of the oval type. The problem is that those shields were used mainly by the lower rank warriors, who lacked armor(and often used a spear as their primary weapon) and were in fact smaller(and lighter) than the scutum. The richer warriors, who could afford body armor(and often would ride into battle) used even smaller shields, which were useful both on foot and on horseback with their long swords. True, one might argue that they used smaller shields for convinience on horseback, but the fact remains.

[conon394]

and were in fact smaller(and lighter) than the scutum. The richer warriors, who could afford body armor(and often would ride into battle) used even smaller shields, which were useful both on foot and on horseback with their long swords. True, one might argue that they used smaller shields for convinience on horseback, but the fact remains.

I doubt that clean difference care to source it?

[Ciabhán]

In the classical period - the Celts for example used a long sword and a large shield (and significantly are noted for suffering for that fact since their swords were not up to even a short fight compared to Roman weapons) - I can think of no army anywhere in the period that used both a long sword and a small/fencing shield as a part of army kit - can you?

More later on you fist point...

Actually all the information I can find estimates common Celtic shields at between 6-10 pounds. Significantly lighter and more mobile than a scuta.

The thing about swords is by no means a surety. Many examples are thought to be due to Celtic religious rites wherein they ritually 'killed' a sword by bending it. In fact Rome used Celtic Noric steel and Celtic smiths to make their own weapons in some/many cases at least early on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Polybius (2.33) reports that the Gauls at the Battle of Telamon (224 BC) had inferior iron swords which bent at the first stroke and had to be straightened with the foot against the ground. Plutarch, in his life of Marcus Furius Camillus, likewise reports on the inferiority of Gaulish iron, making the same claim that their swords bent easily. These reports have puzzled some historians, since by that time the Celts had a centuries long tradition of iron workmanship.[2] In 1906 a scholar suggested that the Greek observers misunderstood ritual acts of sword-bending, which may have served to "decommission" the weapon.[3] Such bent swords have been found among deposits of objects presumably dedicated for sacred purposes. The speculation has been repeated since.[2] Radomir Pleiner, however, argues that "the metallographic evidence shows that Polybius was right up to a point. To judge from the swords examined in this survey, only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."[3] Nevertheless he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely.[3] Pleiner also notes that metallurgical analysis performed on Celtic swords suggests that they were only work hardened and only very few were quench hardened, even though they frequently contain enough carbon to be hardened (in particular the swords made from Noric steel). Quench hardening takes the full advantage of the potential hardness of the steel, but leaves it brittle, prone to breaking. Quite probably this is because tempering wasn't known. Tempering is heating the steel after quenching at a lower temperature to remove the brittleness, while keeping most of the hardness.

On top of this you have the Celtiberians who also were more geared towards single combat and who definately had good steel. They would bury steel plates in the ground for long periods so that the weak metal would be eaten away by rust and it would leave only the hardest steel. They would then work that. Accounts by Romans of the time indicate that Celtiberian blades were quite high in quality.