View Full Version : Physical Fitness: Ancient vs. Modern
Theodotos I
05-20-2008, 16:44
That’s the question to all the EB historians and any who might know the answer. Physical Fitness: Ancient vs. Modern. If you took an average grunt of a modern-day army and matched him against an ancient warrior, how would they match up?
Naturally, I realize we have made significant advances in the discipline of physical fitness in the last 2,000+ years, but that is somewhat different than the degree of physical strength needed to merely survive in some ancient cultures. So, I’m curious. What do you think?
And, no, I’m not asking the outcome of a battle if they were armed with similar weapons! If you handed an average infantryman of today the gladius hispaniensis and told him to fight with it, he’d be hopelessly outclassed; and if you gave a Roman legionary an M-16, he’d be dead before he figured out how to flick off the safety. But the degree of physical fitness—how would it compare? Thanks.
I would assume modern, though this is a pretty subjective question as it cannot be tested.
Do you mean like if you gave both average soldiers some tasks to do? Bench press this, run this 100 meter sprint? And after which who would win?
QuintusSertorius
05-20-2008, 16:58
Modern. Better nutrition and active sports science to ensure they're training the way they should be.
Theodotos I
05-20-2008, 17:01
Just generally speaking. Ancient armies had to walk to battle, carry heavy armor and an equally heavy weapon and shield. Their weapons were often cumbersome to wield(think 21-foot sarissa), so the physical effort of fighting a battle was a lot different. Perhaps not more difficult, but very different. I mean, compare the wielding of a sarissa with the effort needed to squeeze the trigger of a rifle. I realize this is a difficult question, but that's why I posed it here. Thanks.
Cartaphilus
05-20-2008, 17:03
There are indeed many differences between the different peoples of the Ancient World.
We all know about the martial discipline and training of the Roman legionaries, and have some idea about the hellenic armies, but we only could make some guesses about how it would be for other peoples, the sources for them were scarce, and for example I don't know how the Saka or the Sabean armies were trained.
And don't forget about nutrition, and height, etc.
We knew that some men in the ancient world can fight in possible equal (or even superior) terms with the "super-heroes" of our time. But it is only a new (and funny) "what if" questioning who could be the winner, the emperor Maximinus Tracius or Chuck Norris (for example).
The Wicked
05-20-2008, 17:51
Well the ancient people were much stronger and durable than modern......
I remember an experiment that some british (?) scientist made by using paddle athlets on a modern replica of a trieiris, and then they compaire the stats and the speed the athlets made with those of the ancient athenian war trieiris (i don't know were they find the ancient stats) and the results were that the ancient people kicked asses and especially modern asses ....... The ancients were stronger many times over the modern people
Cartaphilus
05-20-2008, 17:54
But we must not make the mistake of believe that the ancient men were all like Conan the barbarian.
The Wicked
05-20-2008, 18:06
Hehehe no but they were badasses........
The ancients were stronger many times over the modern people
Why? Because some rowers beat some others in a expierment which had results for the athernians from somewhere, probebly a biased historical account.
And why would they be stronger, we are all hommo sapiens surely is depends on who more than when.
Weren't they like Conan? Oh noes! All the things I ever believed in are no more!
Anyways, the "Ancient Warrior" style varies greatly. And I have one good example of it (I suppose):
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t74.html
They live in an age of constant physical activity. What do we do these days? Sit on couches watching television. Sit on chairs using the computer. Work in offices, in chairs.
The Wicked
05-20-2008, 18:17
They live in an age of constant physical activity. What do we do these days? Sit on couches watching television. Sit on chairs using the computer. Work in offices, in chairs.
Sadly yes...
Oh dear, someone read the opening post, he refers to soilders, both modern and ancient.
Anyway, for general population, many people do exercise, but many do not do enough or eat to much.
However a average roman slave, or similar, or even a poor citezen, faced the threat of starvation, disease, and many other dangers that we do not.
And a modern day person who exercises regulary and eats well, has the benifits of both time lines.
Well the ancient people were much stronger and durable than modern......
I remember an experiment that some british (?) scientist made by using paddle athlets on a modern replica of a trieiris, and then they compaire the stats and the speed the athlets made with those of the ancient athenian war trieiris (i don't know were they find the ancient stats) and the results were that the ancient people kicked asses and especially modern asses ....... The ancients were stronger many times over the modern people
Are you talking about the Olympias? Because I don't know of any other replica Trireme. IIRC the problem was that the rowers didn't quite fit in the benches. They were too tall. After they selected rowers (and got people who rowed for a hobby or as profesionals) they could get a decent turn of speed.
That said: you have a point. In those days, most people would have to do back-breaking work for a living, without any of the technological devices we use to lighten it. Nowadays, or at least in the western world, physical excertion is getting so uncommon that it actually begins to be a health problem. Greek noblemen, on the other hand, prided themselves on being gentlemen of leisure, but that did give them plenty of time to shape up in the gymnasium.
Oh dear, someone read the opening post, he refers to soilders, both modern and ancient.
Just trying to defeat your point about the who rather than when.
Besides, regular soldiers these days have it much easier than soldiers of antiquity. The generals of the day could do much harsher things than we can, all to make the soldiers better. If we do the same things now, expect huge repercussions from the general public.
Back then, what could soldiers do for fun? There really weren't many options apart from physical activities. I believe the intellectuals were quite strong as well. Today, I hear some soldiers even play video games on their spare time. I don't think they train that much either. Soldiers back in the day did so constantly on the march. Now it's just a couple weeks of learning how to shoot a gun and other such things.
Heck, the marching aspect would probably have us beat. Now we just use planes and other vehicles to transport soldiers. Oh how great.
The Wicked
05-20-2008, 18:33
Are you talking about the Olympias? Because I don't know of any other replica Trireme. IIRC the problem was that the rowers didn't quite fit in the benches. They were too tall. After they selected rowers (and got people who rowed for a hobby or as profesionals) they could get a decent turn of speed.
That said: you have a point. In those days, most people would have to do back-breaking work for a living, without any of the technological devices we use to lighten it. Nowadays, or at least in the western world, physical excertion is getting so uncommon that it actually begins to be a health problem. Greek noblemen, on the other hand, prided themselves on being gentlemen of leisure, but that did give them plenty of time to shape up in the gymnasium.
Yes the olympias...
Theodotos I
05-20-2008, 18:35
They live in an age of constant physical activity. What do we do these days? Sit on couches watching television. Sit on chairs using the computer. Work in offices, in chairs.
That said: you have a point. In those days, most people would have to do back-breaking work for a living, without any of the technological devices we use to lighten it. Nowadays, or at least in the western world, physical excertion is getting so uncommon that it actually begins to be a health problem. Greek noblemen, on the other hand, prided themselves on being gentlemen of leisure, but that did give them plenty of time to shape up in the gymnasium.
This is more what I was talking about. Average physical life was far more active in those days. Of course, as with modern life, that depends on country. The West has developed a serious obesity problem which was not a factor in ancient days. However, Western soldiers are generally quite trim, and often do train hard. I recommend any book on the USMC or the Navy SEALs to anyone who thinks otherwise. However, I realize I'm talking about elite forces. Once again, thanks for the comments. I recently started a rigorous system of barbell training myself, so I was curious.
Red_Russian13
05-20-2008, 18:55
Today, I hear some soldiers even play video games on their spare time. I don't think they train that much either. Soldiers back in the day did so constantly on the march. Now it's just a couple weeks of learning how to shoot a gun and other such things.
Heck, the marching aspect would probably have us beat. Now we just use planes and other vehicles to transport soldiers. Oh how great.
You haven't done a lot of modern soldiering, have you?
While we might not do as much back-breaking labor as soldiers in antiquity, we did plenty of on-duty exercising, and are encouraged to do a great deal of PT on our own time (at least in the Marine Corps). Sure, some play video games, but didn't legionaries play dice or something as well? They didn't spend all their time marching or erecting field fortifications.
I also believe, though do not have the figures handy, that modern combat soldiers carry as much or more than many soldiers did in antiquity. Vehicles are great, and necessary to compete in today's fast-paced battlefield, but ammo is heavy. As are the weapons. Pulling a trigger isn't all a modern soldier does physically. We did our fair share of 20 mile marches while in garrison too. I believe that the physical rigors of modern soldiering are far greater than you might think. I'm not saying we're physically better, but I think we could compete.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-20-2008, 19:05
There are far too many variables, diet, dicipline, toughness and medical care. All in all it probably balances out, more or less. After all, it's not like humanity has progressed at all in the last 2,000 years.
You haven't done a lot of modern soldiering, have you?
While we might not do as much back-breaking labor as soldiers in antiquity, we did plenty of on-duty exercising, and are encouraged to do a great deal of PT on our own time (at least in the Marine Corps). Sure, some play video games, but didn't legionaries play dice or something as well? They didn't spend all their time marching or erecting field fortifications.
I also believe, though do not have the figures handy, that modern combat soldiers carry as much or more than many soldiers did in antiquity. Vehicles are great, and necessary to compete in today's fast-paced battlefield, but ammo is heavy. As are the weapons. Pulling a trigger isn't all a modern soldier does physically. We did our fair share of 20 mile marches while in garrison too. I believe that the physical rigors of modern soldiering are far greater than you might think. I'm not saying we're physically better, but I think we could compete.
Alright, I claim ignorance at this moment. Let's see what other people say...
Keep in mind that no human had been recorded as running a 4 minute mile until 1954.
LorDBulA
05-20-2008, 19:37
If you took an average grunt of a modern-day army and matched him against an ancient warrior, how would they match up?
If you mean only physical fitness, how fast and strong soldier is I would bet my money on modern soldier.
We have better healthcare and we have better diet and thus we can grow larger and stronger then people 2000 years ago. I dont think you would see any 'Conan barbarian' back then. They just didnt eat enough to develop and keep such big muscles (bigger muscles you get the more you have to eat each day ).
On the other hand average person in ancient times was much more tougher then average person today. They had huge mortality rate compared to current times and this is just natural selection in working, only strongest could survive.
But while this guys could withstand much tougher weather conditions this doesnt really translate to faster 100m lap.
Dont assume that when equipment is getting lighten soldiers are carrying less weight. They carry the same weight, they just take more equipment, ammo etc with them.
QuintusSertorius
05-20-2008, 20:12
They live in an age of constant physical activity. What do we do these days? Sit on couches watching television. Sit on chairs using the computer. Work in offices, in chairs.
We're supposed to be comparing warriors from the ages, not couch potatoes with ancient warriors.
Red_Russian13
05-20-2008, 21:12
I have much respect and admiration for soldiers of all ages, and I have a particular respect for Roman soldiers. But as much respect as I have for the "hardness" and "bad-a**-ness" of Roman soldiers, I would have to go with modern soldiers.
I understand the rigors of life in antiquity, and were this a comparison of average Romans and average Westerners (let me use Americans because this is who I'm most familiar with) I would pick the physical toughness of the ancient over that of the American, because even with advances in nutrition and such, we've become largely sedentary. But this isn't that discussion (which would just turn into a condemnation of modern lifestyles).
No one can doubt that Roman soldiers were incredibly physically active, for the most part. While at war, they marched everywhere. Erected walled camps daily. Foraged for food when necessary. Combat was physical, and the Roman soldier must have been a pretty tough customer. Today's combat soldiers are the same, but different.
Gone is the harsh discipline suffered at the hands of centurions. But modern NCOs can be particularly creative with punishments. Take for example, "field days." This means to clean your barracks and surrounding area. Failure to do so properly requires a revisit but with a twist. Now you get to move all the furniture from the room, or in squad bays, from the bays themselves and then meticulously clean the floor, ceilings, walls, and other crevices. Over and over again. Beating you with a cudgel this is not, but it deprives the Marine or soldier what he most craves: free time and smears his pride. It is particularly insulting to unit pride when the other units in your division are getting dressed up to go out and you're in PT gear (uniformed shorts and t-shirt) cleaning your barracks again. Anyway, harshness of discipline does not necessarily equal a physically fit soldier, nor a more motivated soldier. Today's techniques are as motivating, if not more motivating, than being beaten.
Regarding modern fitness, I would contend that we were incredibly physically fit. In garrison, a Marine would be required to participate in unit PT three times a week. Usually this would revolve around a formation run of varying distance and difficulty. Routinely, we would run 5 miles, but on occasion, we'd stretch it out to 10 or so. Then we'd do pushups and sit ups and pullups and various creative exercises like moving sandbags from one end of an obstacle course to another. Sometimes we'd do the obstacle course a bunch of times, sometimes in uniform, sometimes in certain pieces of combat gear. Twice I served under commanding officers who were avid marathon runners, and we "paid the price" for that. Once, our general got so tired of our poor running skills (easily better than most civilians) that he took off on a three mile dash at a breakneck pace, then belittled us for being outran by a 52 year old, and then made those who dropped out enroll in a little bit of a remedial PT program.
But promotion in the Marine Corps is tied to a number of things, particularly PT scores. This encouraged Marines to PT off-duty to increase their run times for PT tests, or the number of pullups or situps. Max score on a PT test is 300 (when I was in - got out in 2002). Max run time was three miles in 18 minutes, which netted you 100 points. Max pullups was 20. Max situps were 100 in 2 minutes. Each netted 100 points. I knew guys in my unit that could routinely run the three miles in 16 or so minutes. My personal best was 19.5-ish. I could knock out 100 crunches in 45 seconds (best in the unit) and 16-18 pullups. But I knew a guy who did 30 pullups in cammies and a loaded LBV (load bearing vest). A 285 or above was considered a first class PFT score and to score lower than that was to incur the scorn of your peers and your NCOs. Noone wants to have guys in their unit scoring 2nd or 3rd class PFTs, and to do so regularly is to kill your career.
For other fun physical events were the ever-enjoyable exercises. By this I don't mean PT. The whole unit would "deploy" and play all the reindeer games associated with that. Loading up your gear (tents, computers, concertina wire, etc, etc, etc...) onto trucks, then marching around a training area for a long time with a full ruck. Sometimes we did march 20 miles. But sometimes it was 12-15. Then we got to set up the whole camp, just like the Romans. But what's worse is in a few hours, the "enemy" would find us, and we'd have to break camp and do it all over again. Once, we did this five times in two days, and 50% of the unit always got screwed out of their rack time because we had to move and they could just stay - they had to move too. We didn't march prolonged distances every day though, that I will concede.
If you were to attend a joint-school, which would be attended by Army soldiers or Navy sailors or Air Force airmen, you'd best be a good PTer, or you weren't going at all. But woe unto the Marine who got selected to go to a joint-school and was shown up by a member of another service during PT. Don't get me wrong, it happened, but you might never live it down.
Oh, anecdotally, in Okinawa one couldn't PT on black flag days - days where the heat and humidity was too high. This prevented heat casualties. Soldiers and Marines, all being rather equal in this regard (lazy - likely through the ages as well) hoped for black flag days. Someone might opine that this made Marines pansies or some such thing, because Romans would be training. On the contrary. It just meant that we got up at 0300 to PT rather than 0600; PT was not to be missed. And it meant we worked longer days because no one was getting off work until 1600 no matter the start of the day.
I admit this is from the perspective of one person and is not indicative of the physical fitness of every serviceman and woman in the US military. Each branch has varying requirements and they all have their "10 percent-ers" who are fat, lazy, bags of sh!t.
I hope this adds to the argument.
Edit: I meant to mention the fact that modern logistical systems and advances in keeping quality food edible greatly reduced the risk of degradation of combat effectiveness due to poor nutrition on the battlefield. This must be considered I would think. Modern soldiers are able to maintain high physical fitness for longer periods.
Cartaphilus
05-20-2008, 23:45
I think that the modern soldier has a better physical training and a better "shape".
But probably the ancient soldiers were tougher, because they had in far worse life conditions. Ancient armies were able to live of the field, plundering and eating what they found. Now this is unthinkable.
I'm sure that they haven't war stress or similar mental problems as our toy soldiers. From the childhood they were familiarized with death in all its horrible and painful forms. They don't fear the blood and carnage.
But now only one thousand soldiers die in Irak and a whole country (indeed, all Western countries) is questioning a war. This would be ridiculous for Hannibal or Caesar. They would laugh at our faces and despise us for sure. And they would be right. We are weak and deserve death and extintion. HAHAHA.
Another basic word to understand how a soldier does his job is motivation. And motivation has different sources: dread, punishment, promises of glory and looting, or of a better life in the underworld, exaltation of nation values, etc.
russia almighty
05-20-2008, 23:52
Actually they wouldn't laugh cause we'd just have to show them the destruction of Hiroshima and they'd heel over and die at the power.
They'd probably understand why we are so restrained; cause unlike them, a lot of nations have the ability to destroy the world.
Red_Russian13
05-21-2008, 00:08
But probably the ancient soldiers were tougher, because they had in far worse life conditions. Ancient armies were able to live of the field, plundering and eating what they found. Now this is unthinkable.
I disagree. Modern armies can and will forage for food (though plundering is strongly discouraged by most Western armies), and survival training provides the common soldier with skills necessary to live off the land to varying degrees. Granted, this is not generally needed because logistics have made it so vast numbers of men can be adequately supplied, for the most part.
I'm sure that they haven't war stress or similar mental problems as our toy soldiers. From the childhood they were familiarized with death in all its horrible and painful forms. They don't fear the blood and carnage.
I see your point here, but take issue with it. Combat stress and the damage it causes was not wholly unknown to the ancients. If I recall, this is why commanders had the triarii sit or kneel and why they had space between engaged components of a legion and reserves. Additionally, the sights, sounds, and smells of the modern battlefield would completely psychologically wreck a legionary; that type of warfare would be beyond his imagination. Modern training acknowledges that the modern battlefield is tough mentally and attempts to mitigate this through realistic training. "Shell shock" and PTSD were relatively undiagnosed until WWI, but it is impossible to say that some form of psychological trauma didn't exist for Romans. Surely, they were far more inured to death as it was common, but the human psyche couldn't have changed so drastically to have allowed Romans and Carthaginians to escape fear of blood and carnage. I'm reasonably sure more than one legionary defecated and/or urinated himself, and it's entirely possible that he would have also experienced nightmares or flashbacks.
But now only one thousand soldiers die in Irak and a whole country (indeed, all Western countries) is questioning a war. This would be ridiculous for Hannibal or Caesar. They would laugh at our faces and despise us for sure. And they would be right. We are weak and deserve death and extintion. HAHAHA.
With this point, I largely agree (other than the last sentence, which I assume is jest). Were Caesar to have the resources we do, 4,000+ men lost over such a lengthy conflict would not have been disastrous. Although in fairness, the media has assisted in giving us a weaker stomach.
Which modern soldiers : Foreign legion ? French or Italian marine commandos ? US Marines ? green berets ? Swiss citizen-soldiers ? african tribal warriors ?
Which ancient soldiers : celt or german rank & file ? Soldurii ? Antruscions ? Polybian legionaries ? Hellenistic hoplitai ? sparabaras ?
Your question is ill asked.
Let's say, do you want to compare the physical prowess of the modern foreign legion shock assault troops with that of the Makedonian hypaspistai or do you want to compare the average modern soldier to the average ancient soldier ?
If it's the former, here is your answer : we can't compare. We know what the foreign legion is worth, we don't *know* what the hypaspistai are worth. We just have what the ancients wrote about them.
If it's the later... well, i never met an averge modern soldier. I don' think such a being exists. And the problem for the ancient one is even worse.
But now only one thousand soldiers die in Irak and a whole country (indeed, all Western countries) is questioning a war.
Actually, a good deal of those countries questioned it even before it started. It is absolutely not related to the number of dead soldiers during the war (but could be related to the number of dead civilians, as far as Europe is concerned), but to its actual goal, motivation and benefit. To start it was hazardous at best (some would say incredibly stupid, anyway a terrible throwing away of lives), to continue it would surely deal a dangerous blow to USA economics, to stop it would cause an international disaster.
Africanvs
05-21-2008, 06:31
You haven't done a lot of modern soldiering, have you?
While we might not do as much back-breaking labor as soldiers in antiquity, we did plenty of on-duty exercising, and are encouraged to do a great deal of PT on our own time (at least in the Marine Corps). Sure, some play video games, but didn't legionaries play dice or something as well? They didn't spend all their time marching or erecting field fortifications.
I also believe, though do not have the figures handy, that modern combat soldiers carry as much or more than many soldiers did in antiquity. Vehicles are great, and necessary to compete in today's fast-paced battlefield, but ammo is heavy. As are the weapons. Pulling a trigger isn't all a modern soldier does physically. We did our fair share of 20 mile marches while in garrison too. I believe that the physical rigors of modern soldiering are far greater than you might think. I'm not saying we're physically better, but I think we could compete.
That basically sums it up Red_Russian, nice post. I'd like to add a couple of points to the discussion if I may.
The first has to do with nutrition. I would say the nutrition and overall health of a modern soldier is much better. The Romans basically subsisted off of grain which they would make into a little bread meal whenever they stopped to eat. Additionally, Romans ate olive oil which gave them an extra calorie load helping them to dominate the world. I wonder how long I'd last eating only bread. I've always wondered how people were able to subsist off of this limited diet.
My second point is based on the overall type of training. Modern training is centered on cardio and endurance. While todays weaponry can weigh as much as ancient weapons, especially when you add the ammo, it isn't as if we have to swing it around most of the time. Usually we're inserting a mag and pulling a trigger. Unless the "s" hits the fan we shouldn't have to use the 16 as a club. Modern soldiers however are still expected to be able to sprint, hike long distances with gear, and drag friendly troops from harm's way. By the way fireman carrying a guy with full deuce gear and weapon up a hill is a bitch.
I think ancient warriors however were different. If you look at a Kelt swinging a heavy Gallic sword, strength would be very important, and they probably got plenty strong just fighting and practicing. Romans on the other hand used a thrusting sword and did a lot of marching, where speed and endurance would be more useful. Strength never hurts of course. By the way, before Marius, Roman troops didn't have to carry much at all, aside from their arms so they could probably move rather quickly.
Bottom line, I am quite sure that if a modern soldier were to travel back in time they would be much stronger and larger of stature due to their excellent nutrition. After some proper training in ancient combat, they could hold their own I'm sure. I'd like to think that even in Roman times the centurion would form his men up and take them on a run around the camp, singing some sort of cadence in the process, just like now. PT not only promotes fitness, but discipline as well.
As for what legionaries were doing off duty. I'd imagine whoring, gambling, and drinking. The truth is, the life of an ancient soldier was probably much like the life of a modern one. Superiors playing games with you, tough PT, strict discipline, and a lot of hurry up and wait.
Cartaphilus
05-21-2008, 07:31
I disagree. Modern armies can and will forage for food (though plundering is strongly discouraged by most Western armies), and survival training provides the common soldier with skills necessary to live off the land to varying degrees. Granted, this is not generally needed because logistics have made it so vast numbers of men can be adequately supplied, for the most part.
Modern armies were trained to live on the field but they usually don't apply that, and I don't believe that a whole army was able to do it now.
But the ancient soldiers had not any other form to subsist in a campaign.
The legionaries had some food in their baggage but it was scarce and they had to be able to survive in a enemy country.
I see your point here, but take issue with it. Combat stress and the damage it causes was not wholly unknown to the ancients. If I recall, this is why commanders had the triarii sit or kneel and why they had space between engaged components of a legion and reserves. Additionally, the sights, sounds, and smells of the modern battlefield would completely psychologically wreck a legionary; that type of warfare would be beyond his imagination. Modern training acknowledges that the modern battlefield is tough mentally and attempts to mitigate this through realistic training. "Shell shock" and PTSD were relatively undiagnosed until WWI, but it is impossible to say that some form of psychological trauma didn't exist for Romans. Surely, they were far more inured to death as it was common, but the human psyche couldn't have changed so drastically to have allowed Romans and Carthaginians to escape fear of blood and carnage. I'm reasonably sure more than one legionary defecated and/or urinated himself, and it's entirely possible that he would have also experienced nightmares or flashbacks.
It's obviouos that no all ancient men were valiant and the some knew the "shell shock", but I believe that it is more related to the modern men, and modern war.
Think that most of these ancient men lived war a natural thing, and a noble occupation for the free men.
Now, how many soldiers prefer returning home over the shield than wihout it?
It's not the same thing for boys that they were forced to fight and die in the trenches for thousands as in the IWW.
Archilochos has win in the end.
PD: I think that Hannibal or Caesar didn't doubt to "nuke" if they could. The ancient generals were not so scrupulous with human rights than us. And if they had to exterminate a city or a whole "nation" they did it and slept well at night. Their mental war schemes were more related to the Stalin's or Hitler's ones (and Bonaparte's) than to Amnisty International.
Cartaphilus
05-21-2008, 07:38
Actually, a good deal of those countries questioned it even before it started. It is absolutely not related to the number of dead soldiers during the war (but could be related to the number of dead civilians, as far as Europe is concerned), but to its actual goal, motivation and benefit. To start it was hazardous at best (some would say incredibly stupid, anyway a terrible throwing away of lives), to continue it would surely deal a dangerous blow to USA economics, to stop it would cause an international disaster.
I wasn't speaking about if that war was just or not.
But the impact of one single coffin covered with the banner is huge on the people's moral.
In the World Wars the soldiers died for milions and no one wanted the peace till they had not really won or lost the war. The media forced the USA to retreat in Vietnam and it could happen again in Irak.
Power2the1
05-21-2008, 09:36
Seems that Celts definitely valued physical fitness. The classical writers mentioned that if the belly/girdle of a young man exceeded a certain size, he would be fined.
The descriptions of the gaesatae at Telamon, as I'm sure most of us have read, mention the warriors out front, all in the prime of life and finely built men.
From what I've read, it seems the ancient world placed much value on excellent physical form (Greek/Roman statures for example), though obviously not everyone aspired or achieved such great physical standards. Just my own little two cents. ~:)
Cambyses
05-21-2008, 09:41
Cartaphilus,
I suspect you might be assuming that modern soldiers have much the same thinking process as civilians in relation to the battlefield. I strongly suspect this is not the case. There are plenty of people out there who would be just as excited getting their first combat kill as the average Celtic youth. But yes general attitudes to war have changed significantly since WW1. And given how devastating modern war is to entire countries (note, not just battlefields and the odd city sacking etc) I think that change was probably inevitable and entirely positive. The nature of war has totally changed in the last 100 odd years. Excluding a significant technological revolution I cant imagine we will ever see another major war of conquest on this planet again. It would be too expensive to justify if for no other reason.
Yes, I am aware that ancient warfare could be enitrely gruesome. eg Marius's slaughter of the ?Cimbri?, The crucifiction of thousands of slaves after Sparticus's defeat. The third Carthaginian War etc. But even at the time these actions were considered remarkable. Usually defeat meant slavery not immediate death to the whole population.
Regarding fitness a modern soldier would surely be at leat the equal of an ancient, due to our better understanding of nutrition, diets etc. Although wearing heavy (bronze) armour all day, charging into battle and having the strength to wield both spear and shield would require an enormous amount of strength and stamina.
Regarding discipline, there is no doubt in my mind that ancient warrior elites had more. The Romans of course were famous for their discipline. But even without them, there are several cultures where the warrrior classes almost actively sought death in battle. Which of course is why militia troops are so inferior to elites. IMO vastly more so than EB shows. Modern warfare has very different needs. The "warrior class" is a much smaller - tiny - percentage of the population. The need to keep these expensive assets alive is key both in the public perception and for military needs.
Cartaphilus
05-21-2008, 10:19
I agree with you.
But I want to remark that I'm not assuming that in modern armies all the soldiers think as civilians. Obviously many of the professional soldiers don't. And some of them enjoy the war as the old warrior did.
But in the countries where the militar service is obligatory for everyone, the soldiers think as civilians because they are indeed civilians. And they are the main bulk of the army, because the elite (and highly motivated) troopers are few.
My father fought in the spanish civil war and in the 2WW as volunteer (when he was just eighteen), in that time the most part of the youth were eager to fight. But now, how many of you, guys, want to fight in a war? Not me. Not at least in a nasty modern war.
Another question: I admire the ancient warrior spirit, the roman virtus and the oaths that germans (and others) made of die for their lord, or perish if he died in battle. Some of this spirit is still alive in the elite troops. I recomend you to read the spanish legionary "credo", it is inspired in all of this, and indeed in the Bushido. The spanish legion is worth of that name.
If you understand spanish, read the credo in:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_Legionario
Here my humble and wrong translation:
1. The spirit of the legionary: It’s unique and with no equal, it’s blind and fierce aggressiveness, always seeking to shorten the distance with the enemy and charge with the bayonet.
2. The spirit of companionship: With the sacred oath of never leave a man in the field till all perish.
3. The spirit of friendship: Of oath between each two men.
4. The spirit of union and help: At the cry of “To me the Legion!”, wherever it was, all they’ll come, and, with or without reason, will defend the legionary that ask for help.
5. The spirit of marching: A legionary will never say that he’s tired, till falling to the ground exhausted. The legion will be the swifter and more resistant corp.
6. The spirit of suffering and toughness: The legionary will not complain of fatigue, nor pain, nor hunger, nor thirst, nor sleep, he will do all the jobs, digging, carrying cannons, he will be detached, he will make convoys, he will work in what they order.
7. The spirit of going to the fire: The Legion (one man or the whole Legion) will go where fire is heard, at day or at night, always, always, although there was not order for that.
8. The spirit of discipline: The legionary will fulfil his duty, he will obey till die.
9. The spirit of combat: The legion will always, always ask to fight, without turn, without counting the days, nor the months, nor the years.
10. The spirit of death: To die in combat is the greatest honour. We only die once. Death comes without pain and to die is not so horrible as it seems. The most horrible thing is to live like a coward.
11. The banner of the Legion: It’s the most glorious, because it’s dyed with the blood of its legionaries.
12. All the legionary men are brave: Each nation has fame of bravery; here it’s necessary to demonstrate what people is the most valiant.
QuintusSertorius
05-21-2008, 11:02
The first has to do with nutrition. I would say the nutrition and overall health of a modern soldier is much better. The Romans basically subsisted off of grain which they would make into a little bread meal whenever they stopped to eat. Additionally, Romans ate olive oil which gave them an extra calorie load helping them to dominate the world. I wonder how long I'd last eating only bread. I've always wondered how people were able to subsist off of this limited diet.
No they didn't subsist on bread alone. With normal supply conditions, legionaries had a mixed diet of grain, meat and vegetables. Indeed one of the major advantages Roman soldiers had over their contemporaries was their massively superior supply arrangements which kept them well sustained during the campaigning season.
Cambyses
05-21-2008, 13:09
I do understand Spanish.
It is a remarkable credo, and quite interesting that its still in use as it appears to date fom some time ago. This "band of brothers" attitude is powerful stuff.
Y tu traduccion fue mas que bien para los demas. Siempre sea dificil capturar la emocion de la original en otra idioma.
Red_Russian13
05-21-2008, 13:13
As for what legionaries were doing off duty. I'd imagine whoring, gambling, and drinking. The truth is, the life of an ancient soldier was probably much like the life of a modern one. Superiors playing games with you, tough PT, strict discipline, and a lot of hurry up and wait.
Africanvs;
Excellent points. It also warms my heart to know that since the beginning of war, soldiers have been doing the same crap that I did. It's quite the bonding experience, isn't it?
Cartaphilus
05-21-2008, 13:23
I do understand Spanish.
It is a remarkable credo, and quite interesting that its still in use as it appears to date fom some time ago. This "band of brothers" attitude is powerful stuff.
Y tu traduccion fue mas que bien para los demas. Siempre sea dificil capturar la emocion de la original en otra idioma.
Thank you.
The credo has its origin in the Legion beginnings in the 20s of the XX century.
But it wanted to recreate the spirit of the spanish armies of old, the glorious Tercios, when Spain was an empire and not the mess that is today.
The Legion (and some elite forces more) are the finest troops of the spanish army. And as far as I know, this spirit is somehow still alive in them.
Africanvs
05-21-2008, 23:36
Excellent points. It also warms my heart to know that since the beginning of war, soldiers have been doing the same crap that I did. It's quite the bonding experience, isn't it?
Indeed sir.
No they didn't subsist on bread alone. With normal supply conditions, legionaries had a mixed diet of grain, meat and vegetables. Indeed one of the major advantages Roman soldiers had over their contemporaries was their massively superior supply arrangements which kept them well sustained during the campaigning season.
They were given supplements on occasio or replacements when their grain was running short but to say they had a mixed diet may be overstatement. I am also certain that as soldiers were levied from different provinces in the empire they would bring their native dietary habits with them and the diet was probably different in republican and imperial Rome. Here is an exerpt from a Roman site on the net as a quick reference.
The Army
Apart from at the banquets of the rich, meat was rarely a part of the Roman diet.
The diet of the Roman army, shows us much about the Roman ideas of nutrition. The Roman word for wheat is frumentum. And it was the same word which eventually came to describe army rations itself. Generally the army ration consisted of little else than wheat. The soldiers themselves then ground the grain they were given and made it into things such as porridge or bread.
Whenever possible the monotonous army diet was naturally supplemented with whatever came to hand. Pork, fish, chicken, cheese, fruit or vegetables. But the basic ration of frumentum always formed the basis of the diet. So much so, that if in times of supply difficulties the grain would fail to reach the troops and instead other foodstuffs (even meat !) were handed out, there would be discontent among the ranks.
Naturally the officers of the army enjoyed a more versatile diet. Archaeologists working along Hadrian's Wall in northern Britain discovered records for the household of a commander of a fort from around AD 100. These records listed choice cuts of pork, even piglet, chicken, venison, anchovies, oysters, eggs, radishes, apples, lentils, beans, lard and butter.
http://www.roman-empire.net/society/society.html#food
QuintusSertorius
05-21-2008, 23:56
All that quote tells us is that grain was a staple. Which it is, even in modern diets.
I'm reading Goldsworthy's biography of Caesar, and he even makes reference to erroneous translations that implied legionaries were vegetarian, for example. He's also keen to point out that privation is noted at times where they don't have a balanced diet available to them, but generally late Republican armies were well-supplied with a varied diet.
NeoSpartan
05-22-2008, 00:06
Physical Fitness: Ancient vs. Modern??????
Same, I am not joking.
All the arguments I've read so far are about different variables in regards to nutrition, training, supplements, education, madical care, etc....
BUT if you put all variables aside, we are still the same SOBs who fight eachother and use the environment to fit our wants/needs.
if u take a modern man and put him through say "Legionary School" (whatever training just making up a term here), as long as that individual is determined, couragous, and believes in what he is doing, he will be just as good as the other guys (and better than some).
Same story the other way around.
NOW.... if your asking about a Homo sapien vs a Homo erectus, then yeah there will be some MAJOR differences.
Africanvs
05-22-2008, 00:23
All that quote tells us is that grain was a staple. Which it is, even in modern diets....but generally late Republican armies were well-supplied with a varied diet.
Actually no, it tells a lot more than that. It tells you that 1) Generally the army ration consisted of little else than wheat, and 2) Whenever possible the monotonous army diet was naturally supplemented with whatever came to hand. Key word, whenever possible.
If you have read somewhere that late-republican armies were well-supplied with a varied diet more often than not, I'd like to know where you found the information. Keep in mind, there is a difference between what an army can get in garrison, and while campaigning. As far as the vegitarian thing, there is archaeological evidence to show they ate meat, but it is clear that this would be difficult in the summer months in the absence of salt. There are varied opinions about diet in general, but are you saying they had nutrition equal to ours in the 21st century? Many documented cases of scurvy among the legions would contradict.
QuintusSertorius
05-22-2008, 00:59
There are varied opinions about diet in general, but are you saying they had nutrition equal to ours in the 21st century? Many documented cases of scurvy among the legions would contradict.
No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. You're the one conflating "they didn't subsist on wheat alone" with "they had diets equivalent to ours in the 21st century".
Goldsworthy's specific reference on the diet of the legion is R. Davies, 'The Roman Military Diet', in R. Davies, Service in the Roman Army (1989). When talking of the siege of Avaricum and the shortages of food, he notes:
The persistent myth that Roman legionaries were vegetarian is based on a misunderstanding of this and a couple of other passages. Normally they ate a balanced diet of meat, grain and vegetables. What was exceptional in this case was that they were receiving only meat, not that they were eating it at all.
Later he talks about the siegeworks at Dyracchium:
Caesar's men were short of food, for it was still winter by the natural seasons even if by the calendar it was well into spring. Livestock was plentiful, so meat was usually available and came to form a greater than usual proportion of the diet.
Here he cites Plutarch and Appian.
Africanvs
05-22-2008, 04:13
This has prompted me to do a bit more research into the subject and it seems you're quite correct about the balanced diet of the Roman soldier. That's why I love these forums, I'm always learning something. :)
Very interesting point. I love red Russian's point about shell shock: its a whole aspect of battlefield suffering no-one in the ancient world could've dreamed of. I imagine 'tank fright" would've been like "elephant fright" and the Romans had a bit of "bolt shock" at Syracuse when Archimedes was tormenting them, but warriors unused to firearms have been known to freak out, wet themselves and faint when shot at. I recall an interview with a New Guinean warrior who was shot at by an Aussie explorer (first white fella in the Highlands) and he fessed up with a smile.
I think we modern westerners are generally softer than our ancient kin, catching vehicle transport and massively over-eating. that New Guinea bloke could've walked me into the ground ten times over at the age of 70.
I think our soldiers are harder than most but for endurance and pain tolerance an ordinary roman citizen or subject would have 90% of us beat. however as for physical fitness the majority of us are healthy, disease, parasite and injury free and well nourished to a degree unkown in ancient times.
I guess our professional athletes and elite soldiers would be superior to the ancients given our wealth (they can dedicate more time to training, never worry about famine) and technology (medicine, physio, nutrition and performance enhancing drugs).
I used to argue with my dad about modern footballers vs the heroes of the 1930's. In Aussie Rules the average height has gone up 10 cms or more: men who played ruckman in the past (=centre, tallest man in the team) would be short as a midfielder now (=point guard, often the shortest).
He said yes but the oldies were tougher, endured their knocks better, walked everywhere, did manual labour. I think it was rosy glasses on his part. You can see from the old footage they ran slower, moved less often, contested less and got up slower (and no its not just the old newsreel running at 75% speed). So while the fellas in the 30's were fitter than me, they're not fitter than the elites. Same with the ancients I reckon.
We are a lazy lot in modern society but we have the potential and the opportunity to make ourselves fitter than most of the ancients dreamed of.
That said I reckon the citizen rowers in silver age Athens must have been a buffed and burly lot. I'd bet the crew of an average quinquereme could take on the entire WWF (or whatever that laughable fake wrestling crap is called) and smash them in a cage fight.:smash:
Africanvs
05-22-2008, 04:29
That said I reckon the citizen rowers in silver age Athens must have been a buffed and burly lot. I'd bet the crew of an average quinquereme could take on the entire WWF (or whatever that laughable fake wrestling crap is called) and smash them in a cage fight.:smash:
Ha! Wouldn't that be a sight. Yeah rowers must have been in great shape. I bet gladiators were too, and I don't mean those condemned to death in the arena, but the real ones. They would have been the equivalent of our professional athletes. They probably just worked out and trained to fight all day, and ate the best food available in the city they were in.
could be im just pessimistic, but i would bet all my money on the ancients...
If i just go back to the generation of my grandfather, i can see how those people were thoughter than my generation. Yes we have training etc. but im sure with all those muscle mass we have (not me, but i say in general fitness people) after 1 day of march, we would have a dramatic dawngrade on the glucosius in the blood, we would feel like a pricked balloon...
to make a metaphor, id say we are like breeding chickens, while i see, 2 or 3 generation ago, they were like farmyard chickens...
there is a big difference, if you eat a breeding chicken meat, you will see his meat has no colour, it has no flavour, and it's very soft and the meat will detach from the bones with no difficulty.
if you eat a farmyard chicken, you will see that its meat is dark, it's hard to masticate, but it has a lot of flavour, and it detach very difficulty from the bones... another planet.
Id say that the few remaining farmyard chickens in humankind, are the immigrants from the poorer countrys, so im very favourable to the mixing up of the peoples, and to the mixed marriages, like the germans in the roman empire, they brought a lot of fresh new blood... they were a godsent.
ok im just so prejudicial...:sweatdrop:
And i can read even a bit of "Millenaristic":whip: spirit in my post... wow could be im getting old...:laugh4:
Cartaphilus
05-22-2008, 17:16
My girlfriend is russian, so I'm definitely for the mixing of bloods. Hehe.
Slavian girls are awesome.
:sweatdrop:
Baktrion Agema
05-23-2008, 12:57
I would say that our fittest are fitter than their fittest, thanks to better nutrition and sports science etc, but on average they would be far more fit than todays westerners, as todays couch potatoes would no have survived back then.
QuintusSertorius
05-23-2008, 13:02
I would say that our fittest are fitter than their fittest, thanks to better nutrition and sports science etc, but on average they would be far more fit than todays westerners, as todays couch potatoes would no have survived back then.
Your second point would only be relevant if we were comparing their average citizen with our average citizen.
Cambyses
05-23-2008, 15:22
I would say that our fittest are fitter than their fittest, thanks to better nutrition and sports science etc, but on average they would be far more fit than todays westerners, as todays couch potatoes would no have survived back then.
Indeed and many of the ancients did not survive "back then" either, child mortality, death during child birth, death from many minor illnesses we could cure easily today, being enslaved and sent into the mines etc etc. it would be misleading to describe it as survival of the fittest as many of the premature deaths would have been quite random.
Unless of course you were part of the lowe-end elite in which case being a coach potato was as good an option then as it is now!
Theodotos I
05-23-2008, 19:02
Wow, what a discussion I started! Very interesting. My salute to Red Russian. I admire and respect anyone who has served in our armed forces, particularly the USMC. You guys are tough. However, not everyone in the US or world military trains as hard as the Marines. A balloon for your input, sir. :balloon2:
Oo-rah!
I would chose probably ancient fitness based on my love in idealist Platos education: calm music and fitness to make a well-balanced soul. And the greeks didn't eat so badly... yogurt, cheese and lots of wine with water. :beam:
I would chose probably ancient fitness based on my love in idealist Platos education: calm music and fitness to make a well-balanced soul. And the greeks didn't eat so badly... yogurt, cheese and lots of wine with water. :beam:
Add bread, olives and fish too.
Iustinus
05-23-2008, 23:23
Hold on a sec....
I don't have much time as I'm about to go (and be gone for the next three days) but I don't agree that nutrition is better today than two millennia ago. Sure, in some cases; but even the bread back in the day had more nutritional value. Stuff was waaaayyyyy less processed. And most importantly, while most ancient armies did subsist largely on bread or mush, their diet was supplemented with various greens and other vegetables (season permitting) that they gathered on the road, besides the occasional meat, fish, wine, etc. People think we have a varied diet now. We eat a much smaller variety of fruits and vegetables now than our ancestors did (I speak mostly for Americans and Europeans, I'm sure it's different in other parts of the world.)
Yeah yeah, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, bananas, apples, grapes, etc etc etc.
How many of you eat chickory? Dandelions? Plantain? Amaranth? Flours made from chestnuts, buckwheat, etc etc.
In the end, I think that in many cases nutrition was better two thousand years ago than now.
But we hit all the nutrition we need, ancients did not alot of the time.
And processed food does not mean bad food, look at survival rations, everything you need to live, which is more that ancient armies had.
Hold on a sec....
I don't have much time as I'm about to go (and be gone for the next three days) but I don't agree that nutrition is better today than two millennia ago. Sure, in some cases; but even the bread back in the day had more nutritional value. Stuff was waaaayyyyy less processed. And most importantly, while most ancient armies did subsist largely on bread or mush, their diet was supplemented with various greens and other vegetables (season permitting) that they gathered on the road, besides the occasional meat, fish, wine, etc. People think we have a varied diet now. We eat a much smaller variety of fruits and vegetables now than our ancestors did (I speak mostly for Americans and Europeans, I'm sure it's different in other parts of the world.)
Yeah yeah, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, bananas, apples, grapes, etc etc etc.
How many of you eat chickory? Dandelions? Plantain? Amaranth? Flours made from chestnuts, buckwheat, etc etc.
In the end, I think that in many cases nutrition was better two thousand years ago than now.
It's like that:
2,000 years ago major cause of death was either malnutrition or simple diseases and infections
Today major cause of death is too much nutrition and cancer from all the s***t we produce
In 2000 years it will be the gladiator games of the alien invaders.:help:
Red_Russian13
05-25-2008, 02:42
Wow, what a discussion I started! Very interesting. My salute to Red Russian. I admire and respect anyone who has served in our armed forces, particularly the USMC. You guys are tough. However, not everyone in the US or world military trains as hard as the Marines. A balloon for your input, sir. :balloon2:
Oo-rah!
Many thanks for your sentiments, Theodotos I.
polluxlm
05-25-2008, 15:40
The modern soldier, no doubt.
Today the military complex has all the advantages.
A vast number of fighting techniques from all cultures are available, with 2000 years added perfection.
Nutrition and fitness knowledge are accessible from all parts of the world from the finest experts, in mere seconds.
What did the Greeks know of their far off enemies? What did they know about the Chinese and Indians? Today they have the ability to know almost everything about everything that exists. Computer models and simulations, an enormous logistic and bureaucratic system and of course money, enable them to reach a conclusion of action with a far greater complexity than the ancients could ever dream of.
Soldiers naturally have great variations in ability in a society, modern or ancient, but if we take the best the ancients could come up with against what todays system can come up with, I really don't see much of a contest.
We are talking of fitness not fighting technics..
Theodotos I
05-27-2008, 17:13
Well, this has been an interesting discussion. I realize my initial question perhaps wasn’t as specific as it should have been, but I wanted to give people’s opinions some leeway. Naturally, I’m aware of the fact that not all ancient warriors were as musclebound or terrifying as Conan the Barbarian, but the Hebrew Scriptures present us with a list of warriors who could have whipped Conan on his best day.
II Samuel 23:8-12, “These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. And after him was Eleazar the son of Dod the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gather together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away: He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was wear, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the Lord wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil. And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentils: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philitstine: and the Lord wrought a great victory.”
II Samuel 23:18 “And Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief among three. And he lifted up his spear against three hundred, and slew them, and the name among three. Was he not most honorable of three? Therefore he was their captain: howbeit he attained not unto the first three. And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel, who had many acts, he slew two lionlike men of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of apit in time of snow: and he slew an Egyptian, a goodly man: and the Egyptian had a spear in his hand; but he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand and slew him with his own spear.”
And if you believe the Greek myths, Achilles could be killed only by his heel, Hercules could hold the sky on his back and Ajax was a freaking monster.
Hebrew scriptures are not historical texts except from the parts refering to David, Solomon etc and those really REALLY embelished.
For God's shake in churches they sing David's hymns and he was a king of an ancient kingdom who killed thousands of people, and most likely usurped the place of his protector Saoul.
mucky305
05-29-2008, 21:08
When comparing a Roman Legionary vs. a modern infantry soldier in physical fitness, I would imagine that they would be about equal. Both the Romans and the Greeks had an understanding of how to build physical strength and endurance (Milo and the Bull is a good example). Granted, they didn't have access to Dianabol, but I doubt they ate mud either (and they didn't have Twinkies). I'd imagine that modern soldiers, on average, are bigger and the equipment loads are actually slightly more now than when the Roman Legions were kicking about, but Roman training was quite severe and combat was obviously very physically demanding for all soldiers as it consisted almost exclusively of intense hand-to-hand. Roman Legionary vs. U.S. Marine in a triathlon, I say it's a tie.
Strategos Alexandros
05-29-2008, 21:19
In a modern situation the marine would be better as it's what he has trained for and vice versa for the legionary, for example if a marine was confronted by a drugged up naked warrior he wouldn't react as well as a Roman.
for example if a marine was confronted by a drugged up naked warrior he wouldn't react as well as a Roman.
That's not true they face them all the time in the subway.
Red_Russian13
05-29-2008, 22:32
In a modern situation the marine would be better as it's what he has trained for and vice versa for the legionary, for example if a marine was confronted by a drugged up naked warrior he wouldn't react as well as a Roman.
While not nude, the Somalis used qat, which from what I'm told is a mild stimulant. Presently, insurgents/jihadists/whatever you want to call them have been reported to use hash and other substances before fighting.
Skandinav
05-29-2008, 23:40
EDIT: Deleted by user for being too far off the topic.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.