Print Page | Close Window

Fantasy Duel #4--Roman Centurion vs. Celtic Chieftain

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2482
Printed Date: 08-Dec-2022 at 05:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Fantasy Duel #4--Roman Centurion vs. Celtic Chieftain
Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Subject: Fantasy Duel #4--Roman Centurion vs. Celtic Chieftain
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 20:05
A classic matchup.

-------------
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)



Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 20:12
Now this actually happened several times. Often barbarian chieftains would challenge Roman generals to single combat before battles. And 9/10 the Roman generals made short work of the chieftains.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 20:25

Originally posted by Paul

Now this actually happened several times. Often barbarian chieftains would challenge Roman generals to single combat before battles. And 9/10 the Roman generals made short work of the chieftains.

Yes, it's a hard fact for those Celt-O-Philes--who have deluded themselves into believing in the Celts' assumed superiority in 1-on-1 combat--to face.



-------------
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 21:40

Now this actually happened several times. Often barbarian chieftains would challenge Roman generals to single combat before battles. And 9/10 the Roman generals made short work of the chieftains.

Any link to prove that.  I highly doubt that considering what we know was written by romans and are probably nonsense. Most romans considered the barbarians as bursting with strength. And don't think barbarians were dumb fools fighting like beasts, they were actually highly skilled with swords. Brennus and his naked army crushed an entire roman army.


The barbarian will crush the roman centurion. The celts like germanics were used to fight wild animal. Now you tell me a man will beat him. The average roman were puny compared to the average celt or germanic.  The romans only won because of their discipline, equipment and organisation of large numbers. One on one, no way a roman can beat a celtic chieftain, a celtic chieftain would be a monster of a man.



-------------


Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 21:42
"The celts like germanics were used to fight wild animal"
are you saying they fought wild animals or they fought like wild animals?

-------------
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 21:51

The celts like germanics were used to fight wild animal"
are you saying they fought wild animals or they fought like wild animals?

 

 No they fought wild animals and they didn't fight like wild animals. Celts lived close to nature, surrounded by wild animals. They would be often  attacked by wild boar, wolves, bears etc. Weakling can hardly survived in such society. Romans travelling in northern gaul or germania were scared as hell of the environment, wild beast were everywhere and light could hardly penetrate the forest during the day.



-------------


Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 21:55
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

The celts like germanics were used to fight wild animal" are you saying they fought wild animals or they fought like wild animals?


 


 No they fought wild animals and they didn't fight like wild animals. Celts lived close to nature, surrounded by wild animals. They would be often  attacked by wild boar, wolves, bears etc. Weakling can hardly survived in such society. Romans travelling in northern gaul or germania were scared as hell of the environment, wild beast were everywhere and light could hardly penetrate the forest during the day.



whew good, because then you would have contradicted yourself in the same post

-------------
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 22:13

whew good, because then you would have contradicted yourself in the same post

 

 tell where the contradiction appears in my post??



-------------


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 05:26

 

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

I highly doubt that considering what we know was written by romans and are probably nonsense. Most romans considered the barbarians as bursting with strength.

They also commented that the Celts lacked stamina.

And don't think barbarians were dumb fools fighting like beasts, they were actually highly skilled with swords. Brennus and his naked army crushed an entire roman army.

That was comparatively early in Rome's history.  Look who ultimately came out on top, through sheer fighting skill--the Romans.


The barbarian will crush the roman centurion. The celts like germanics were used to fight wild animal. Now you tell me a man will beat him.

Centurions were legionaries who had a quarter century's worth of experience in fighting barbarians.

 

The average roman were puny compared to the average celt or germanic.

This is highly debatable, considering that Vegetius wrote that legionary recruits had to be 5'10" tall. 

But even if the size difference was as great as is sometimes claimed, "bigger" isn't always "better".

 

The romans only won because of their discipline, equipment and organisation of large numbers. One on one, no way a roman can beat a celtic chieftain, a celtic chieftain would be a monster of a man.

What is a battle between a Roman legion and a mob of Celts?

I'll tell you what it is--it's a series of 1-on-1 fights.



-------------
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 08:56
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Now this actually happened several times. Often barbarian chieftains would challenge Roman generals to single combat before battles. And 9/10 the Roman generals made short work of the chieftains.

Any link to prove that.  I highly doubt that considering what we know was written by romans and are probably nonsense. Most romans considered the barbarians as bursting with strength. And don't think barbarians were dumb fools fighting like beasts, they were actually highly skilled with swords. Brennus and his naked army crushed an entire roman army.

 

Scipio the younger while serving is a tribune in Lucius Lucullus's army won a single combat against a Spanish chieftain. Marcus Claudius Marcellus slew the king of the Insubrian Gauls in a single combat and Marcus Licinius Crassus grandson of Ceasar's famous rival slew a Scythian chief in single combat.

 

Not sure what what everybody means when they are talking about these wild animal fighting, nature loving, tall strong, warrior celts.....

I presume you are talking about the early iron age and later bronze age farming communities that existed in Britain, France and Germany around that time.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: akıncı
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 09:31

the chieftain will get split.



-------------
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
              


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 12:04
well bear in mind you guys are talking about the flower of Rome's military aristocracy, I don't believe that a common centurion is on par with say Scipio the Younger


Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 16:36
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

whew good, because then you would have contradicted yourself in the same post


 


 tell where the contradiction appears in my post??<!-- Signature -->



no i never siad that you did, just that you would have

-------------
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 21:43

Originally posted by Laelius

well bear in mind you guys are talking about the flower of Rome's military aristocracy, I don't believe that a common centurion is on par with say Scipio the Younger

As I already pointed out, the "common centurion" was a fighting man with a quarter century of service already under his belt.



-------------
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 22:06
Barbarian champions easily had more years than 25. Their whole life was dedicated to fighting. I think it was widely accepted that the barbarians were fierce and strong, their strongest stood like giants. That is why Augustus chose to recruit his bodyguard from the Germans, not only because they were politically immune, but because they were fierce warriors.

I also don't think studying roman accounts of duels is reliable, because they are obviously biased into reporting Roman victories.



-------------


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 22:51

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

Barbarian champions easily had more years than 25.

What are your sources for that claim?

 

Their whole life was dedicated to fighting.

Ditto for Imperial legionaries--they were professional soldiers.

 

I think it was widely accepted that the barbarians were fierce and strong, their strongest stood like giants.

They werent' Supermen--they were homo sapiens, just like the Romans.

And, as I said, they also lacked stamina.  Interestingly, Elizabethan writers made similar observations about Irish galloglass warriors, in the 16th century.

 



-------------
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)


Posted By: Germanic_Celt79
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2014 at 04:03
Typical, a whole bunch of people use misconceptions and say they're facts. Firstly, it's common that people say 'Celtic Chieftain' as they lack knowledge of the real names, so let's go with Ariomaros (Great Noble). Firstly, both the ariomaros and the centurion would have chainmail or hamata. The Centurion would probably have a centurion helmet (not sure of name) and bronze shinguards. He'd be equipped with a gladius and probably a large round shield. The Ariomaros would have a montefortino with a bronze falcon on top. He wouldn't have leg armour. His sword would be the typical gallic longsword and he'd have an oval shield. I say the Celt wins because Celts often practiced duels whilst Romans practiced formations more.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2014 at 09:49
And without sources or refs. your repeating the error.  It's fairly common knowledge that the preferred Roman shield was rectangular, with a slight curvature.  I don't have a specific source to credit, like I said, common knowledge.
 
BTW- I looked at your Email addy, any relation to the late William Paulsen, former Motoring Correspondent for the London Times, and a RAF Spitfire pilot?
 
 
You might also notice that the title is Fantasy Duel.  I don't believe they were interested in Historical accuracy
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2014 at 15:55
and in keeping with that genre. neither wins. as a huge ancient red dragon probably from Wales...swoops down...fries both and enjoys lunch.

only later, in a moment of self reflection, will the dragon possibly regret frying the celt.

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2014 at 17:11
I'm going to cast my vote for the Celt.  The Celts trained much more rigorously for one-n-one combat with the enemy while the Romans trained to fight as cohesive units.

When the Germans famously slaughtered the Third Legion in the forests, they caught the Legion where they could not form squares and fight but had to fight singly and in small groups, and cut them to shreds.


-------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2014 at 17:12
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

and in keeping with that genre. neither wins. as a huge ancient red dragon probably from Wales...swoops down...fries both and enjoys lunch.

only later, in a moment of self reflection, will the dragon possibly regret frying the celt.


No, he'll regret eating the Roman.  To much Italian will give him the squirts. 


-------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2014 at 20:26
There is that of course but I'm with you on the larger issue. Individually it's probably the Celt.

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 09-May-2015 at 02:59
The high production value TV series "Rome" included an interesting scene..
..in which an ex-professional legionary was condemned to die ( on a murder conviction)
- by death in the arena via combat against gladiators..

The ex-soldier was unwilling to engage in fighting but was goaded by insults to his unit,
& finished up by reedeming himself - in successful trial by combat.. a lawful activity then..



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com