Romans = great warriors???

the germanic tribes were bigger but were really not very   intelligant they put on markings/tattos to protect them .. .... lol  armor would have been alot beter ... like the defeat of queen budaka w/e the BLEEP  her name is lol. Roman commander finds a good area wich has only one entrance to it. sp they cant be flanked or anything so then when the celtics try to attack them the romans have a awsome formations    VVVVV  best i could do but lol like a huge row of V SHAPED troops and when the celtics charge in theyin the gap between ech v and therefore can just be hit continuisly by the roman legions they all have there huge shields up like a wall so celts are trapped so chaotic lol  also cool one for when its just an open plain battlefield get like bunch of men in a row and have more rows behind them so if the man at the front is tired man behind him can go up and soforth very cool and also funny part at budaka battle was when celts are charging romans have spears there just throwin at them like crazy and with basicly no armor its a horro seen for the celts ... im done talking

What a load of utter BS that is...

The whole notion that the Roman legionary had no individual fighting skill is completely ludicrous, and is certainly not backed up by the surviving evidence.

We know from Flavius Renatus Vegetius' Epitoma Rei Militaris that legionary recruits received rigorous training in swordfighting and other weapons skills, in the system known as the armatura, which was based on gladiatorial training methods.   The recruits were instructed in their skills by a doctor armorum.  Training methods included working various thrusts and cuts at the pallum (6-foot target stake), while using a weighted wooden sword (rudius) and wickerwork shield.  Later, recruits were paired off and engaged in some sort of free-bouting, with real swords covered in leather.

The emphasis on realistic training was perhaps best summed up by the Jewish historian Jospeh Ben-Matthias, aka Flavius Josephus:

"Their drills are like bloodless battles, and their battles are like bloody drills."

And the legionaries had individual skills other than swordplay.  Their use of combative grappling has been documented:

Cassius Dio 71.7:

The Iazyges were conquered by the Romans on land at this time and later on the river. By this I do not mean that any naval battle took place, but that the Romans pursued them as they fled over the frozen Ister and fought there as on dry land. The Iazyges, perceiving that they were being pursued, awaited their opponents' onset, expecting to overcome them easily, as the others were not accustomed to the ice. Accordingly, some of the barbarians dashed straight at them, while others rode round to attack their flanks, as their horses had been trained to run safely even over a surface of this kind. The Romans upon observing this were not alarmed, but formed in a compact body, facing all their foes at once, and most of them laid down their shields and rested one foot upon them, so that they might not slip so much; and thus they received the enemy's charge. Some seized the bridles, others the shields and spearshafts of their assailants, and drew the men toward them; and thus, becoming involved in close conflict, they knocked down both men and horses, since the barbarians by reason of their momentum could no longer keep from slipping. The Romans, to be sure, also slipped; but in case one of them fell on his back, he would drag his adversary down on top of him and then with his feet would hurl him backwards, as in a wrestling match, and so would get on top of him; and if one fell on his face, he would actually seize with his teeth his antagonist, who had fallen first. For the barbarians, being unused to a contest of this sort, and having lighter equipment, were unable to resist, so that but few escaped out of a large force.

The particular throw is clearly a Roman version of judo's tomo-nage. 

So, to draw this artificial line between "warriors" and "soldiers" is a bit misleading. 

Did the Romans train to fight in an organized unit?  Of course.  Does that mean that they didn't have individual fighting skills?  No.  They clearly had plenty of ability in that regard.

So many people love to play up the supposed greater individual swordfighting skill of the barbarian peoples (Celts, especially), and while their swordplay was praised in some circles, it was also criticized.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote about the downside of barbarian swordplay--things like "crosswise blows aimed at no target" and cuts "which were aimed too high".  In addition, Polybius criticized Gallic sword design, which appears to have had a negative impact on swordplay--he commented that the slash was "the peculiar and only stroke of the Gauls, as their swords have no points".  Examination of La Tene II period Gallic swords does reveal many blades with ends that are rounded or even squared off (some almost resemble later executioners' swords in blade form).

Contrast the above with what Dionysius of Halicarnassus said about the Romans who fought the Gauls--he even points out that legionaries made use of cuts to the hamstring (which later became a specialty of Renaissance-era Mediterranean swordplay).  Dionysius wrote about the Romans:

...holding their swords straight out, they would strike their opponents in the groin, pierce their sides, and drive their blows throught their breasts and into their vitals.  And if they saw any of them keeping these parts of the body protected, they would cut the tendons of their knees or ankles and topple them to the ground roaring and biting their shields and uttering cries resembling the howling of wild beasts.

Were the Romans "warriors" or "soldiers"?  I'd say that they qualified as both.

Thus, in the final analysis, this notion of

No, they didn't.

The legions were organiced in cohors, which were able to defeat the phalanx that most of their rivals used.

Gauls and Germans used a organization similar to the phalanx.

you said about the Romans is right, but you got to see is that back then that�s how it was, the civilization they conquered did the same, every civilization in this time did the same.

In other words there is no good or bad guys back then, only strong guys (but there are few good people thow.)

I am not saying that was right, but that�s how was

Perhaps Athens were a good civilization.

There were one other one that I know and they did not have an army, they were the most peaceful people in ancient history, but they got conquered by Sparta in a week or so.

Rome have great army, but they are not great worrior. 1 on 1 PK they can not defeat barbarians. They beat Guals because Phanlanx and weapons. not cause of strong.

PS:barbarians always have no order. many battle they should win but they lost.

 Thats cool your from Vatican City, Im going to visit there soon and Roma too.

Not really so, they did have a lot of civil wars, but you got to see that they conquered north Africa, pretty much all of Europe , and a chunk of Asia.

There were so many tribes or civilizations in Europe and other places the Roman had fought.

The Chinese in this time period were mainly fighting each other, like the Greek�s city states.

there were lots of kingdoms In China, so they mainly Fought each other. And of course they did fight barbarians.

One more thing almost forgot to put is that, the Romans did not need to use walls to protect themselves from the Barbarians they crush them, only later on in the empire they started using walls on a vast scale and that I guess around when the Huns came or after.

I�m putting this again: I�m pretty sure that the Chinese destroyed some barbarian tried that went up against them, because the Romans have, they also conquer some barbarian tries.

Just because the Romans or the Chinese as suffered big defeats that dos not mean their army is bad, every great army has suffered bad defeat.

The Romans army were soldiers not warriors, there is a big difference.

Warriors were like Roman Gladiators, Japanese Samurais, or Celtic Warriors while the Roman Legion are professional soldiers.

Soldiers fought like a machine, while the Warriors fought on their own, soldiers were more like engineers they�ve built forts trenches, ditches and other things, while the warrior didn�t do none of this they spend their time perfecting there skills and not fighting as a whole. And one more thing about soldiers and warriors, soldiers were more mechanized, and warriors weren�t.

I�m pretty sure that the Chinese destroyed some barbarian tried that went up against them, because the Romans have, they also conquer some barbarian tries.

Just because the Romans or the Chinese as suffered big defeats that dos not mean their army is bad, every great army has suffered bad defeat.