Thank you very much for your interest in our work and interesting review! I will answer on points: 1) Concerning the knee of the unfolded inside and the iconography - we assume that on the bas-reliefs the legionaries are depicted in motion when they are about to strike. In this case, at the beginning of a step forward, the toe of the leg can indeed look forward. The beginning of the movement is confirmed by a sword that protrudes from behind the shield; there is a beginning of impact. In addition, on Trajan's Trophy, all legionaries are depicted with legs armor, and in my video I mentioned this that our stand with a reserved knee is especially useful when you do not have leg protection. From our experience, when the knee is looking forward and there is an active attack - you can easily get injured knee by this, such cases we had :( During a strong attack in your shield (with another shield or foot), your shield strongly hits your own knee. Especially when our barbarians (weighing about 100 kilograms) jump with their feet forward in our shields, and they love to do it. On this video th-cam.com/video/bvC7byJ3YNE/w-d-xo.html, starting from 40 seconds there is a small demonstration. Put the shield on your knee and ask the comrade to kick it hard and you will understand what I mean ;) In any case - this is our version, which may not be 100% fact =) 2) Secondly, about the stability (5:37 on your video) - the attack goes from the front, and not from the side (where are your companions - legionarries), and when attacking from the front this position is very reliable 3) Iconography - on the part of the images shown in your video the front leg is still deployed inside. And, as I said above, it is clear that this situation is difficult to save all the time, during strokes or toes, the feet can look forward. And I just in case apologize for my maybe the wrong English, which is not my native language)
Не совсем. Можно хотя бы произносить "th" звонкое и глухое правильно, а не "з" и "с". Ну и сериалы/фильмы смотреть, вербально практиковаться. И вообще не берите близко к сердцу мои докапывания, главное что вы понятно разъясниться можете.
You know Metatron I must admit I have tons of respect for you. You make great content and you also back up your claims in a very respectful and diplomatic way. You sir are by far a true Teacher. I bow to your knowledge.
crazy to think that the actual Legio V Macedonia survived from the beginning of the empire all the way to the Arab conquests. that's so much history it went through. really a testament to Roman organization
Coming from a martial arts background: Boxing, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and the Protect syllabus of Krav Maga co-developed by Itay Gil, I have to agree with you, Metatron, on the point of body mechanics and balance. To deliver optimal striking efficiency and power when simply punching, hips must be close to square on to the target at the moment of impact, and ideally, able to rotate in to the strike. Having the front foot facing forward facilities this. It stands to reason that a similar principle would apply when thrusting an edged weapon in battle, such as a gladius. The iconography seems pretty compelling also. Nice work.
+7dayspking You are no match for this man, shouldering the difficult task of mastering 3 martial arts at once. His expertise are so great that he rivals the sun with his wisdom and expertise. You should be ashamed to even question his beliefs, because questioning his beliefs is questioning martial arts itself!
Another great video Metatron - you make a strong case for the foot-forward stance, and it certainly matches up with a lot of what I was taught when I used to study Iaido.
I agree with you Metatron and as a black belt in karate I like your comparison to the stance Zencotsadatchi. sorry for the horrible spelling. I am dyslexic.
I always take iconography with a grain of salt, considering the people who did it probably didnt partake in the war or practice the martial art. Still, great video!
I agree with your points in this and was similarly skeptical for the same reasons you were when I saw the subject of this response (no disrespect whatsoever towards them) however one thing I have to point out is that the gladiatorial iconography is not at all relevant to the Roman military, and more than this, miedeval art especially should leave us skeptical of art for the minute details of combat; I'm not saying art is useless, just that it seems to not be made by people who saw the battles or who would have the experience to know what details to look for, like stance.
Images cleaely show front foot forward, back foot rotated 90 degrees. It also works better to have the front foot forward for advancement. Kendo does the same, and only straightens the back foot because it's so stylized compared to regular combat. From what I've heard of Kenjutsu, they keep the rotated rear foot. It just makes sense for mobility and stability to have the front foot forward for speed of advancement, and the back foot at a different angle (90 is best) for stability in different directions.
+Michael Berthelsen Except the images that have the front foot pointed inward at a 20-50 degree angle. Back foot in boxing for example is not normally a full 90 degrees, it also faces slightly forward.
Turning on the heel depending on the situation should be fairly easy and quick though. And in many martial arts the front foot is positioned slightly diagonally anyway, because that's the most stable stance. So the truth lies probably somewhere in between.
I was also thinking of that. I do HEMA, but I've dabbled a bit in Chinese swordsmanship and it seems that footwork when parrying changes for them. None of us can ever be entirely certain though. It's unfortunate that so much of history remains hidden from us.
Wonderful Metatron. I agree with you on fighting stance. But I think the foot would turn if being pushed against by another shield. Regardless, this type of experimental archaeology is fantastic and lights up many dark areas of understanding. Legio V is also appreciated for their thoughts on this subject. Your segmentata looks great Metatron!
7dayspking Do boxers carry shields, spears, and swords? Do they fight against people who carry shields, spears, and swords? Additionally, do they use their spears and swords against armored opponents?
Exactly, boxers and roman soldiers have pretty different priorities, as well as different equipment. They do have the same bodies though. Sorry to say, I'm not a roman soldier, but I know how to punch, how to swing a felling axe, how to use a sling. Power generation is universal, aims and restrictions are not.
+Dogthedeadly See you might actually have a point if Metatron's argument wasn't that this specific stance is 'universal' in unarmed fighting because of 'balance' and 'power' which was his only real argument against the foot position. Boxers, mma fighters, Kyokushin practitioners are among the hardest hitters in striking sports and they do not all universally stand with toes pointed straight forward. If the angle of the foot even is a dramatic factor Metatron is on the wrong side of reality here. The iconography he provided showed the same variety, some with the foot at an angle and some straight out in front. Now if you'd like to make an entirely separate argument not built on the foundation of Metatron's let's hear it. What mechanical advantage does the foot straight out provide in this specific context that clearly does not exist in modern combat sports? Look at the comment I responded to by the way. He claimed the forward facing foot facilitates 'waist pivot' which would contradict your argument that 'sword and shield' is a unique situation entirely. If you agree with him you are also on the wrong side of reality.
+kungfuasgaeilge Not according to you they don't have different priorities. You claimed the forward facing foot facilitates 'wasit pivot' that would also imply it's not achievable with an angled foot, are you arguing boxers are not looking to throw punches with power utilizing the mechanical advantage of 'waist' pivot? And from your punching competence could you explain why must the toes point out? "power generation is universal" and yet professional combat athletes often don't seem to see the same requirement you assert exists, nor their trainers.
Both great videos. None of us were there when it was all being done for the high stakes of pain, injury and death, and a lot of our modern theorising is probably wrong. However, seeing these two intelligently presented videos, with thoughts about what risks and opportunities might happen in combat, and how the gladius and scutum were tools for a job and used by skilled professionals, I feel I have gained some real insight. Having watched both videos, I come own on the side of "front foot forwards", but I also think the Legio V Macedonia video was excellent.
i think you are correct, advance and retreat is much easier with foot pointing forward sort of a left foot in front "fencing " stance --do you know what was more prevelent, the over the shield stab or one coming at mid level?
I agree with You Metatron, also this stance mayc reate injuries on the long term (or also on the short one, the knee is not structured to being strong of the lateral axis).
Metatron, great video, I love your stuff. You are videos are very educational and fun. Actually the stance is even more stable and more forward pressure can be generated if the back foot is turned to the side at an 45 degree angle with the heel of the ground and pushing off with the ball of the foot. You see this in every school of boxing. Especially in shielded formations, like Phalanx, it is way easier to push the enemy back like that, than having the back foot in a 90 degree angle pointing to the side which makes you lose grip when pushed. The Karate stance is not optimal for force transmission with the foot flat on the ground either. Simply put: 1. Front foot points to the enemy 2. back foots points to the side at an 45 degree instead of a 90 degree angle. 3. back foot only touches the ground with the ball of the foot, to be able to step in quickly and to push of the ground to generate forward pressure
Julian Polzin in aikido we use the same position, back foot at 45 degress, but only when we use bokken(wooden katana), for jo (stick) back foot at 90 degrees
+Julian Polzin Not quite. Front foot points inward towards your opponent's left foot, back foot points at more than 45 degrees and less than 90. Heel is planted on the floor when you're shifting your weight back onto it like you might for the hook.
I agree with Metaron here. I do both Roman re-enacitng and HEMA (Fiore's Armizare) and Have 20+ years of experience as an army infantryman, and I believe that a wider stance with the left food forward, toe pointing towards or a little to the left of the opponent, and the right (trail) foot with the toe pointing to the right is optimal if you need to be prepared to receive force from both the front and side. It's how we fight with longsword (Fiore loves to grapple) it's also how we stand, move and shoot for CQB (close quarter battle) in the army. It gives you good body structure from the front and side, and allows you to move quickly in any direction, as well as to turn quickly to one side or another while remaining stable. As far as we know, Roman legionaries (at least in the 1-2nd centuries CE) fought in a relatively open order do be able use use their swords effectively and (possibly) allow for line relief. In a closed order like the Greek or Macedonian Phalanx you really don't need to worry about force coming in from the side. In an open order, you absolutely do, and need to be able to potentially receive force form the side AND be able to turn quickly while remaining stable. It is also important that you may very well be fighting on muddy, uneven or broken ground with roots, brush, stones, etc. A narrow stance is going to make you less stable and increase the chance your going to fall on you face or ass as you're trying to advance or retreat across such terrain. Just my two sestercii.
I am always blown away by how much thought you put into every little detail. Props to both you, Metatron, and those hard working/thinking noble ones over at Legio V Macedonica.
I’ve always been taught that in any martial art to keep the foot pointing toward the enemy keeps you on balance, and you can see clearly in iconography that every soldier and gladiator is pointing there foot towards the enemy
Macedonica is referring to the Tropaieum traiani not Trajan's column in Rome, I think you might of confused them in your exposé. That monument is in Dacia itself and raised by the soldiers, i forget wich legion though. Just looking at it myself and an argument can be made that on some of the soldiers depicted a side-foot stance can be observed but it is not common in what I've seen in general. Definitely an interesting subject, thanks for the video!
I can't help but notice in the iconography, that many of the fighters have their front legs armored better as well, thus taking away the need to protect it as much with the shield.
@Metatron you were correct that the term in english is Lunge you pronounced it Lounge, like a room ou relax in. Good video, even though I only have little experience in fencing but in videogames like chivalry a main tip for group fights is to use overhead and stabbing (lunging) attacks that go forwards, and to facilitate that one would have to be able to move the foot forward quickly and stably, Most roman and military formations are rectanguar so forward movement is paramount, we all know that moving forward is easier than to the side, our entire body mechanics is aimed at what is before us. Good video, cheers
Hello Metatron, or Rafaello! I've been following your videos for a while now and I hope you happen to read this. I'd really like you to talk about the naginata in a historical context, and perhaps linking it to modern competitions in naginata-jutsu in comparison to historical use. Also i'd just like to state that I think you're a genuinely cool person and your content is very consistently good. Keep it up! Cheers from Sweden!
As a long-time martial arts practitioner, I agree that in legion combat when soldiers are fighting in rank, the front foot forward would definitely be more stable. It would also facilitate forward movement. However, in individual combat, it would be more useful (IMO, o course), to turn the front foot in to about a 30-45 degree angle. This would help maintain ease of forward movement, yet improve lateral movement.
Completely agree, it makes sense from almost all aspects that you take a more solid stand that is more stable and easier to move around (eg attack or defense).
9:18 Is the only one that sort of appears to be sideways but anatomically the leg itself is forward so it may be broken off since there seems to be some exposed rock. Anyway, I was taught that the direction the toes are pointing in, is where the max amount of power can be directed toward.
I love your videos, very informative and concise content, keep up the good work ! I noticed the channel who you're making a response to mention Trajan and the Dacians. I would love to see what are your thoughts about those campaigns and why are we (Romanians) Latin people in a sea of Slavic nations. That is only if you have the time and will to do so ! Thank you again for the great videos ! P.S: I saw your new TT, and as we say back home "master it healthily" !!!
Hunh... I'd never noticed how really high up on the body those scabbards were sometimes worn - 9:05, 9:15 , 9:26 ... is that something you've tried Metatron? Does it feel more or less natural than a more conventional belt-level scabbard position while wearing armor / in formation? ... or is it just artistic license?
Metatron I agree, the foot forward position is the most prominent in combat sports because of stability and ability to defend the legs too and its much better for attacking with the arms. Moreover the side stance used in TKD is greatly facilitated by the lack of leg attacks and wide range of movement back and forth, which a Legionary wouldn't have
Great video on both on both of your parts. This is what I love ancient history it's very open to interpretation and both of you makes great points. Though I would like to ask why you focus heavily on that part of the mosiac at 8:37 surely the scene that's on the left would of helped you more to support your theory. As the scene you focus is already a won battle with the gladiator on left is standing triumphant with the gladiator on the right is sticking his finger up at the referee and has his shield on the ground which are signs he has given up. Not only thar but the referee is also pointing his stick at the victor. That is all from me your other images do a decent enough job (some better than others) at proving your point. P. S Sorry if this reads bad I'm typing this on a small phone while on the toilet and my leg is going to sleep.
As an aspiring art historian, it strikes me that most (I wouldn't say all) iconography from the ancient world is presented as face on, that is the torso and head of the figure faces towards us as the legs point forward (think Egyptian painting). This stays in Greek art, the Chigi Vase as an example, and its depiction of Hoplight warfare.Thus it strikes me that most roman art was shown in this way as well, not only as it was typical of most ancient depictions, but that a completely 3D cannon of propositions had not yet been worked out. The implications I think for Roman fencing, since all the iconography shows the foot forward, is that this stance was more of an artistic type. I personally have doubts about these artistic types and their depictions of warfare, so it seems to me that foot forward was not necicerally (iconography alone) militarily used, but was simply an artistic form. Though as you pointed out in the video, foot forward does provide more balance, so in all, I agree its hard to tell. As always great video.
With the knee bent the shield will cover the front foot. A straight front foot will allow the legendary to advance with Forward energy to use the shield to push upon his opponent.
I don't know if someone pointed it out before but it looks like at least for gladiators fighting with scutum some kind of lower leg protection was used for the shield leg. Nothing similar seems to be issued to the soldiers. I would assume that as problematic leg injury would be in single / gladiatoral combat it wasn't a significant issue for the soldiers?
I practice Choy Li Fut, and we tend to turn the foot in. It works with the techniques and situations we tend to emphasize, but we don't always stay in that position, and I wouldn't do it with other styles, certainly not in a style like Roman swordsmanship.
Ive taken karate for nearly 6 years and I agree. Pointing the foot in seems unnecessary to me and bending your knee is fundamental to any fighting style. It just makes your stance more sturdy.
I have to agree with Rafaello Metatron. I practiced a few martial arts, not only karate, and the legs on a position of "15 minutes" gives you stability on a fight, and also works with the knees slightly flexed. Which also gives you an edge on the attack speed. We know that centurions often corrected the stance of soldiers (by beating them with a stick). That may not be only on disciplinary issues. As veteran warriors, centurions could correct the stances on a recruit to perfect the Roman fighting machine. Just as the sensei would do to a student (though he would be polite and not beat the guy). And please, we are just debating to achieve knowledge, respect the Legio V Macedonica, even if they thing different from us. We could both be wrong somehow. All my respect for our Russian Roman brothers!
There’s a question concerning Roman fencing and stance I’d like to ask but I am not sure you Metatron or anyone are going to answer. The way roman soldiers held their Gladii seems to have changed through time. Whenever I see some claimed accurate depiction of republican era soldiers they keep the arm straight or only slightly flexed and hold the sword on the level of belt, close to the Scutum with the tip sometimes even sticking out. Whereas the imperial legionary milites have that distinctive sword position far back behind the torso. Is there any explanation to that or the depictions of Hastati and Principes are merely inaccurate?
If we are speaking of the milites of the later half of the 1st century than it’s likely the sword style would have simply changed by then. During the time of the republic (and further back through history for that matter) battle was much less about skill and much more about practicality and attrition. Two sides would slam shields together, take pokes at one another on occasion, and hope the guy in front of you was going to fall over so you could finish him off and move on to the fresh soldier taking the other guys spot. This was although impractical, effective, but of course people would continue to try to innovate battle in order to make the killing faster, so techniques were added, then slowly those techniques would become a style of fighting as they kept getting added on and equipment change force said styles to adapt. The replacement of the Scutum with the oval shield was probably the most iconic (in terms of what the normal person would know) change to the roman army since it was replacing a huge amount of defense for offensive potential with spears. This would cause the legions to adapt to the change and use newer techniques to get around the new weaknesses defensively made by the shield. Of course this all could be wrong and the depicters simply used the milites stance for dramatic effect, but we simply don’t know cause the guy has been dead for 1000 years. (I know this is super extremely late but oh well, thought I would try to give an answer)
Given the linear perspective of ancient Greek and Roman art and again of Renaissance art, the oblique perspective of Chinese and Japanese art, and the vertical perspective of ancient Egyptian, is it possible that a Russian accustomed to the Byzantine perspective of Russian iconography might actually see something different when contemplating Roman art? To paraphrase Goethe quoted in an article by Oliver Sacks on the mind's eye, the ancients held that animals learn through their organs while men can both learn through and teach these organs. Does cultural affect influence what we see in Roman art? What little I've learned from Western fencing and from Tai Chi taught as a martial art, lead me to say that you are spot on with respect to stance; and, for whatever it's worth, I agree with your perception of Roman iconography . Their feet look even as you say.
The arguments make sense. However: they neglect a factor. Roman soldiers would be a part of a battle line in which the soldier don't just protect themselves with their shields but also their comrades to the left and rely on their comrade to the right to protect their own right. In a "brace for impact"-kind of situation, when the soldier lean into their shields to prevent their line from being broken, they're neither trying to move nor trying to attack. In that specific case turning the knee might make sense. Here another factor that can easily be neglected comes into play: The consistency of the ground. Roman soldiers would rarely be fighting on hard ground like linoleum, wooden planks or whatever the floor in the gym was made of. They would often be fighting on much softer ground, which gives them the opportunity to dig their feet in. If the rear foot is pointed towards the enemy and breaks the surface of the ground it's essentially as if they had a starting block to push against instead of flat ground. That's a big advantage in a "push back against and impact as hard as you can" scenario. Iconographic evidence is selective because images are created consciously to convey meaning. The Romans did propaganda, too and wouldn't depict their own soldiers having a hard time holding their position. In addition to that: despictions of battles would be made by artists who depict them as best as they understand it. Which in most cases would be: Not particularly well, after all: They're artists, not soldiers. On top of that restrictions that come with the choice medium, perspective and production process might make realistic depictions very difficult or even impossible to execute.
As far as the iconography is concerned, it seems to show both forward facing and turned in front feet. Some seemed to show feet somewhere in between the two. Did anyone else see that also? Or did it seem that they were all forward. Thank you Metatron. Always enjoy your content. I will definetly check out the Legio V Macedonia channel
I studied martial arts for 15 years and I agree with the placed at a side angle. It makes sense from an offense and defense point of view. It is also similar to the Philly shell in boxing.
It seems to me that their idea of the placement of a foot is based on out of context experimentation. It might make it "easier" to cover or step on a spear in a controled environnement, but I think any sort of more "agressive" sparring would make them revert to a foot pointing forward stance. In fact, as soon as they stop being in a static position, they do revert to a foot pointing forward. Look at 7:24 the guy on the left, who started with their method, quickly got back to pointing his foot forward when he advances.
3:46 I took Tai Kwan Do; it's been several years, but I distinctly remember front foot forward, as in most martial arts. I might be misremembering, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Black belt in TKD here. Yeah it's front foot forward. We have a stance called back stance where the front foot is still facing forward but the back foot is perpendicuar to it
Thank you. I haven't practiced Tai Kwan Do in a number of years, and, last year, I started training in HEMA (longsword, specifically), so I thought I may have been misremembering.
The T stance can be found, to a greater or lesser degree, in every martial art I've seen. Why? Because it works, better stability whilst allowing mobility.
Maybe they let the shield "rest" on the knee to have it move less on lower blows, of course the knee would eat up all the force. That gives me an idea, could you not break up their stance with a "sparta" kick to the knee? "Once I was a legionary like you, but then I took a kick to the knee."
My background is in Fencing, Taekwondo (didnt care for personally) and now my main style is Xingyi Quan. "Proper" stance can seem different with other people. In fencing, I saw people use a parallel stance and that seemed natural to them because that was they instinctively did, they were corrected because it wasnt stable in the lateral, limited space that fencing is "played in". Taekwondo however, for mobility purposes a parallel stance is encouraged especially if your bouncing on the balls of your feet which is something I disagreed/disagree with because my logic states that bouncing around like that is 1. Unstable & 2. A waste of your energy and sacrifice power for the sake of extra speed. In Xingyi, the primary stance is called "Santishi" (Trinity Posture or 3 bodies alignment). It is the Back foot is at a 45° angle and the front is very slightly pointing forward with the big toe turned in with the rear heel and front toe are in an alignment with the nose. This is a very solid stance and an essential training exercise with this stance is called "Stake standing". Not only is it solid, it's stable and mobility was never a problem. It happens to be extremely close to the foot placement in fencing. I've personally never had any issue concerning mobility with this foot placement and in fact felt very limited and unstable with a parallel stance.
I saw the original video before watching yours and I had the same ideas and solutions about the stance. My reenactment and HEMA background always thaught me that having your foot pointing somewhere else than in front of you, even just a little, is bad. Yet this is no criticism against Legio V Macedonica as a whole : roman fighting techniques (should we say roman HEMA?) is a difficult topic, with only indirect sources. All pre-treatise era fighters and fencers should be respected as they do research in a field where nothing's sure. Everyone's right as long as they have enough method to back up their statements. Great videos!
Looks quite like a boxing stance to me. Not quite parallel to the shield, not quite perpendicular, but somewhere in the middle, this gives a good compromise between stability and mobility.
As a fellow martial artist, footwork is 100% where it starts. You can flip a sword and twirl it menacingly, but if you have 0 footwork, you’re going down like a house of cards. Equally so, your foot will be stabbed by a gladius, spear or sword.
Hi Metatron! Since the Gladius/Scutum in the hands of heavy infantry were an Empire builder and World beater combination why where they not used again by the 4th Century? The later Roman army (both East and West) became more cavalry orientated and no successor states used Heavy Infantry and war machines like the Republic/Early Empire did.
foot forward also enables rapid forward advancement, as in a unit combat as part of a phalanx. the russians seem to be preoccupied with 1 vs 1 tactics, but legions did not fight that way
It seems to me that in most martial disciplines, from karate to european fencing to kendo and many others the general stance (front foot forward back foot rotated) is the norm, and would probably be the same for fighters of any era. That said, it would certainly make sense if legionaries in the era of the scutum had an alternate stance they might use at certain times to protect the front foot/leg, especially when being charged. Their formations would, I imagine, primarily be moving forward or backwards, and when pushing forwards against a crowd of enemies perhaps something like this was done. Guess we'll never know. A pity they didn't leave behind a legion training manual. Great video though, and the iconography definitely seems to support your view. You'd expect otherwise if the Legio V stance was more common.
I think both could be correct at the same time. a) I do not think it is a good idea to use shield as showed in video to protect your foot by touching the ground because that will expose you a lot and could lead to a fatal attack on head or neck. b) I would assume something like "shin armour" is a must for a soldier of roman army. c) I would assume Legio V stance is good to withstand the "furious" attacks/ charge but then I would switch to what Metatron is showing
Hm, I don't know. The stance proposed by Legio V is actually used in olympic archery. Although here you need extreme stability in your pose, as the slightest alteration will yield different results regarding arrow flight. So yes, if your feet are turned inwards, you gain more static stability. Then the only thing left to do is train your muscle tension, and you are good to go. But is this static stability really desirable in a combat situation?
I finally get to say I agree with your entire video in a comment. When you mentioned the iconography I was thinking that you might be wrong because perspective wasn't that good in the past so you get funky things, but when you showed the images it was clear that the back foot was all turned to the viewer and the front to the side and that would only happen if they knew what they were drawing and did it intentionally. Also the knee thing... The point of the knee cap is to protect the knee. It makes little sense to say they'd turn their knee shield to the side to expose their defenseless knee like they were saying you do. So yeah completely agree with you here.
Maybe different Legions practiced different styles of the basics. Legions practiced legion specific military traditions most probably after all. However, I think situation would dictate which a legionary automatically shifts to..
Maybe we should take a look at what the guys over at the SCA have been doing. Some of them look rough but collectively they have millions of hours of trial and error in sword and shield fighting (with non-lethal weapons) duels, skirmishes and full on battles.
I do Muay Thai, have done so for well over 2 years now. And before that, jiu jitsu for over a year. Anyway, in Muay thai, the front foot always faces forward, while the rear foot is angled. We use a high guard, of course. I figure this is a natural fighting stance, since I see it used(not the hand positioning I mean, but the foot/hip positioning). Its very easy and very powerful and very fast when you step forward with the front leg and jab, or throw a cross - and I figure that would work just as well replacing those punches with say a sword thrust or a slash. Because the direction your foot is facing is where most of your body weight is gonna be transferred, thats why its useful to have this kind of stance. Same goes for boxing, too, its why mexican boxers and others that use a more straight on style also use this same stance. Easy to defend while in this stance as well(with your forearms and hands/gloves, as opposed to a shield, which would naturally be MUCH easier to defend against everything with, rather than your arms lol). The front foot turned inward, that stance is popular with the kind of boxers that dance around the ring like Ali. Its not really used that much by fighters that want to finish the fight, but to score points and be extra evasive. I dont like that stance, personally, like you said it off balances you too badly, also it makes many strikes awkward to use or require more hip rotation than usual. I would say that you are prob right in this regard Metatron. The front foot facing where you wanna go/forward, and the rear foot angled to the side is a natural combat stance imo. You see it everywhere in art across the ages. And it works.
I have zero experience with any martial art, so take my thoughts with a large chunk of salt. I'd say that if you let the shield rest on your knee and an enemy strikes it, it hurts more than if you hold the shield slightly in front of it. When touching, more energy of the strike is transferred directly to the knee because it doesn't have to counteract the inertia of the shield while also virtually removing your chance to counteract by pushing back the shield the moment you feel pressure on it.
From the icons it appears both were used to me. Your method would, however be most useful moving, especially over broken ground. The balance of your form looks better, but I can see usefulness in the other. Sorry Raphe, I think it's possible both were used. Good video, thanks.
With your first point (i.e. front foot facing forward), I agree with you, Metatron - point the toe at your enemy, then you can add an extra brace to your shield (see point 3.5) using the leading knee (even in modern fencing the front knee is over the toe, if you're using a shield this stops the enemy stabbing you in the foot!). The "guide" video assumes you're expecting a foot attack, which would only happen in single combat and ONLY if your opponent saw you had left your foot unguarded. As to your second point, regarding parallel legs - this is only "back-stance" footing, where you are expecting to retreat. I doubt a roman would ever use this. If he did, there would be according adapted defensive tactics. On your third point regarding the knee; the knee is one of the main body-part attacks in kickboxing, Muay Thai, and many other fighting styles historically and globally. It is also a powerful defense; it involves many of the muscles that support your bodyweight, so its tensile strength is huge. The only times knees are known to be broken by direct force is during torture or crippling. Accidental breaks are always through twists. Having said that, your 3.5th point says you see no reason to brace a shield against your knee, you think an armoured shoulder is enough. In a counterpoint, I would suggest that bracing a shield on both shoulder and front knee would be very effective: It would half the impact force (spread ofer 2 points of resistance), and allow some of the force to transfer to the human thigh bone - the strongest in the body). If you were wearing armour, as you mentioned, the effect would be even better because it would share the fatigue between your shield arm and your leg, and allow more overall endurance. Just my thoughts...
Personally I have achieved the rank of 2nd Degree Black Belt in Karate, and I can definitely confirm that parallel feet in the stance of any warrior is not a good idea. Any warrior worth their salt finds that a firm base is at the core of all other skills, and it's always best to have feet at un-parallel angles, fir balance and base purposes. Plus, it just feels more natural. Great video m8 love your content :D
+PixelArrowProduction What about toes pointing directly forward? I'm no expert on karate but looking at some Kyokushin championships a lot of fighters with their lead foot pointing inward like the Russians and not like metatron.
Ehm, I didn't say anything about putting your foot directly forward. I said to keep them *un-parallel*. This gives you a stronger base, whereas if they *are* parallel than you are much easier to knock over.
+PixelArrowProductions Almost the entire video was complaining about foot pointing inward instead of forward. That's why I asked for your opinion, as you didn't address it in your comment. If you don't agree with metatron on that point might have been useful to point that out.
Oh sorry, I didn't understand your question properly. I've always kept the front foot facing forward and the back foot facing perpendicularly to the front one. Of course, that's if you're going for a strong base. Agility is another matter entirely, but I'd imagine that a strong base would be preferable in this sort of combat. I'm no expert on Roman combat, and even with Karate you'll probably have different people telling you different things. That's just my experience.
+PixelArrowProductions I would argue nearly the opposite, that the position you've described with front foot forward is more for agility in and out and foot turned inward is for stability. Which might be why I see foot turned inward looking at Kyokushin and Kudo but also Judo. I don't think either position is the most stable, look at western wrestling for maximum stability. But I still feel you didn't address my question well. Metatron was extremely vague and didn't seem to provide any real reason to intentionally have the front foot pointing forward just asserting that it must be that way and only very vaguely suggesting there's no stability or agility with foot turned inward.
I myself competed heavily in karate as a rep for canada in our national competitions, and personally iv seen people spar with both kinds of footwork, and belive that either opinion is valid
Some of the images looked as if they might have been supporting their view of the stance, but most seemed to support yours. Of course, in some cases it wasn't altogether clear. People were standing around and not necessarily in battle, and it wasn't always that easy to see what their feet were supposed to be doing. But when you demonstrated the stance and your reasons for it, your arguments made a great deal of sense. I can see some advantages to their stance, but the advantages of yours were greater. And you even addressed how to get around the few weaknesses it had. I think these people had limited iconography to look at, and maybe drew some hasty conclusions. Iconography isn't always the best source of information. It can be difficult to interpret and can even be inaccurately drawn. So, at the very least, you are going to want to compare multiple sources. With any luck, they'll see your video and get additional sources of information to help them in their efforts to create accurate reenactments. It looks like they are really putting a lot of work into it. I applaud their efforts. And of course, with limited sources of information to rely upon, this is always going to be a work in progress. They will be constantly looking for new sources and improving what they are doing as they go along. So, hopefully, they will see your constructive criticism in the way it was intended.
IMHO, artists may not necessarily have an understanding un biomechanics when applied to combat. Or even combat itself for that matter. Therefore I believe that although iconography gives you a good general ideal of how the ancients fought, it should not be used as the ultimate guide.
I think that due to the angle the iconography was sculpted in, an optical illusion is created of some people standing one way and others standing another way. Having said that, I think it is safe to say that the majority of iconography shows the foot at an angle like this /. Just try it. Then, with left foot forward just a little bit, bend your left knee. Don't go past the left foot when you bend and the shield will protect your foot just fine.
The video is entirely about the position of a foot and yet it's still extremely entertaining, great job
I'm gald to hear that pal
Details like this are the most interesting thing in martial arts imo
Thank you very much for your interest in our work and interesting review!
I will answer on points:
1) Concerning the knee of the unfolded inside and the iconography - we assume that on the bas-reliefs the legionaries are depicted in motion when they are about to strike. In this case, at the beginning of a step forward, the toe of the leg can indeed look forward. The beginning of the movement is confirmed by a sword that protrudes from behind the shield; there is a beginning of impact.
In addition, on Trajan's Trophy, all legionaries are depicted with legs armor, and in my video I mentioned this that our stand with a reserved knee is especially useful when you do not have leg protection.
From our experience, when the knee is looking forward and there is an active attack - you can easily get injured knee by this, such cases we had :( During a strong attack in your shield (with another shield or foot), your shield strongly hits your own knee. Especially when our barbarians (weighing about 100 kilograms) jump with their feet forward in our shields, and they love to do it.
On this video th-cam.com/video/bvC7byJ3YNE/w-d-xo.html, starting from 40 seconds there is a small demonstration. Put the shield on your knee and ask the comrade to kick it hard and you will understand what I mean ;)
In any case - this is our version, which may not be 100% fact =)
2) Secondly, about the stability (5:37 on your video) - the attack goes from the front, and not from the side (where are your companions - legionarries), and when attacking from the front this position is very reliable
3) Iconography - on the part of the images shown in your video the front leg is still deployed inside. And, as I said above, it is clear that this situation is difficult to save all the time, during strokes or toes, the feet can look forward.
And I just in case apologize for my maybe the wrong English, which is not my native language)
And more about sustainability) We are on the right th-cam.com/video/2D5FHoLuyOs/w-d-xo.html
Ну и прозношение у вас, ребзя. Я как в шестой класс на урок английского попал.
Для "хорошего" или считающегося таковым произношения необходимо жить в стране носителей языка, т.е. в Великобритании
Не совсем. Можно хотя бы произносить "th" звонкое и глухое правильно, а не "з" и "с". Ну и сериалы/фильмы смотреть, вербально практиковаться.
И вообще не берите близко к сердцу мои докапывания, главное что вы понятно разъясниться можете.
ayy thx my dude
You know Metatron I must admit I have tons of respect for you. You make great content and you also back up your claims in a very respectful and diplomatic way. You sir are by far a true Teacher. I bow to your knowledge.
Thank you for your kind words Chris ;)
crazy to think that the actual Legio V Macedonia survived from the beginning of the empire all the way to the Arab conquests. that's so much history it went through. really a testament to Roman organization
I think you may be the worlds most powerful history nerd.
Illini Legatus he has definitely reached level cap in history nerd.
Do you want to lead one of my legions Metatron?
Gaius Julius Caesar trade with me
Fredericus II this is why degenerates like you deserve to be in prison
Can i join the 11th legion or 13th
Metatron! Give me back my legion!
Holy hell you were right your beard did grow back in like 2 days
I read somewhere that the scutum's bottom was metal lined and often used to crush feet of opponents during close melee or trap/smash polearms?
Coming from a martial arts background: Boxing, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and the Protect syllabus of Krav Maga co-developed by Itay Gil, I have to agree with you, Metatron, on the point of body mechanics and balance. To deliver optimal striking efficiency and power when simply punching, hips must be close to square on to the target at the moment of impact, and ideally, able to rotate in to the strike. Having the front foot facing forward facilities this. It stands to reason that a similar principle would apply when thrusting an edged weapon in battle, such as a gladius. The iconography seems pretty compelling also. Nice work.
Thank you for your comment :)
+Iconoclasticnation In boxing lead feet points slightly inward, not straight forward. Aren't conflating your Krav Maga or Muay Thai with boxing?
+7dayspking You are no match for this man, shouldering the difficult task of mastering 3 martial arts at once. His expertise are so great that he rivals the sun with his wisdom and expertise. You should be ashamed to even question his beliefs, because questioning his beliefs is questioning martial arts itself!
i think metatron is right , but maybe if versing a spear they did turn their foot.
ZhongDe 95 LoL. Yes! Kneel before me, peasant!
Another great video Metatron - you make a strong case for the foot-forward stance, and it certainly matches up with a lot of what I was taught when I used to study Iaido.
Just so you know, you're amazing. Total respect for ya
Grazie!
I agree with you Metatron and as a black belt in karate I like your comparison to the stance Zencotsadatchi. sorry for the horrible spelling. I am dyslexic.
It's ok I messed up with the pronunciation so :D
Dude, your spelling is perfect. Not one mistake. Only possible mistake is that foreign word which I do not know, so it's probably right too.
I always take iconography with a grain of salt, considering the people who did it probably didnt partake in the war or practice the martial art. Still, great video!
I agree with your points in this and was similarly skeptical for the same reasons you were when I saw the subject of this response (no disrespect whatsoever towards them) however one thing I have to point out is that the gladiatorial iconography is not at all relevant to the Roman military, and more than this, miedeval art especially should leave us skeptical of art for the minute details of combat; I'm not saying art is useless, just that it seems to not be made by people who saw the battles or who would have the experience to know what details to look for, like stance.
Images cleaely show front foot forward, back foot rotated 90 degrees. It also works better to have the front foot forward for advancement. Kendo does the same, and only straightens the back foot because it's so stylized compared to regular combat. From what I've heard of Kenjutsu, they keep the rotated rear foot. It just makes sense for mobility and stability to have the front foot forward for speed of advancement, and the back foot at a different angle (90 is best) for stability in different directions.
Also provides more stability when you need to swivel your hip.
Should change his name to Joe Butt Hurt
+Michael Berthelsen Except the images that have the front foot pointed inward at a 20-50 degree angle. Back foot in boxing for example is not normally a full 90 degrees, it also faces slightly forward.
Joe blow is a asshole but is probably right
Lachlan Allen he said 45 to 70. It seems a comfortable and useful range to me, doing reenactment and hema.
Turning on the heel depending on the situation should be fairly easy and quick though. And in many martial arts the front foot is positioned slightly diagonally anyway, because that's the most stable stance. So the truth lies probably somewhere in between.
I was also thinking of that. I do HEMA, but I've dabbled a bit in Chinese swordsmanship and it seems that footwork when parrying changes for them. None of us can ever be entirely certain though. It's unfortunate that so much of history remains hidden from us.
Wonderful Metatron. I agree with you on fighting stance. But I think the foot would turn if being pushed against by another shield. Regardless, this type of experimental archaeology is fantastic and lights up many dark areas of understanding. Legio V is also appreciated for their thoughts on this subject. Your segmentata looks great Metatron!
~5:25 speaking of body mechanics, the forward facing foot would also make it easier to pivot the waist into thrusts
+kungfuasgaeilge Which must be why boxers don't have the front foot pointing directly forward?
7dayspking
Do boxers carry shields, spears, and swords? Do they fight against people who carry shields, spears, and swords? Additionally, do they use their spears and swords against armored opponents?
Exactly, boxers and roman soldiers have pretty different priorities, as well as different equipment. They do have the same bodies though. Sorry to say, I'm not a roman soldier, but I know how to punch, how to swing a felling axe, how to use a sling. Power generation is universal, aims and restrictions are not.
+Dogthedeadly See you might actually have a point if Metatron's argument wasn't that this specific stance is 'universal' in unarmed fighting because of 'balance' and 'power' which was his only real argument against the foot position. Boxers, mma fighters, Kyokushin practitioners are among the hardest hitters in striking sports and they do not all universally stand with toes pointed straight forward. If the angle of the foot even is a dramatic factor Metatron is on the wrong side of reality here.
The iconography he provided showed the same variety, some with the foot at an angle and some straight out in front. Now if you'd like to make an entirely separate argument not built on the foundation of Metatron's let's hear it. What mechanical advantage does the foot straight out provide in this specific context that clearly does not exist in modern combat sports?
Look at the comment I responded to by the way. He claimed the forward facing foot facilitates 'waist pivot' which would contradict your argument that 'sword and shield' is a unique situation entirely. If you agree with him you are also on the wrong side of reality.
+kungfuasgaeilge Not according to you they don't have different priorities. You claimed the forward facing foot facilitates 'wasit pivot' that would also imply it's not achievable with an angled foot, are you arguing boxers are not looking to throw punches with power utilizing the mechanical advantage of 'waist' pivot?
And from your punching competence could you explain why must the toes point out? "power generation is universal" and yet professional combat athletes often don't seem to see the same requirement you assert exists, nor their trainers.
Both great videos. None of us were there when it was all being done for the high stakes of pain, injury and death, and a lot of our modern theorising is probably wrong. However, seeing these two intelligently presented videos, with thoughts about what risks and opportunities might happen in combat, and how the gladius and scutum were tools for a job and used by skilled professionals, I feel I have gained some real insight. Having watched both videos, I come own on the side of "front foot forwards", but I also think the Legio V Macedonia video was excellent.
i think you are correct, advance and retreat is much easier with foot pointing forward sort of a left foot in front "fencing " stance --do you know what was more prevelent, the over the shield stab or one coming at mid level?
I agree with You Metatron, also this stance mayc reate injuries on the long term (or also on the short one, the knee is not structured to being strong of the lateral axis).
Metatron, great video, I love your stuff. You are videos are very educational and fun. Actually the stance is even more stable and more forward pressure can be generated if the back foot is turned to the side at an 45 degree angle with the heel of the ground and pushing off with the ball of the foot. You see this in every school of boxing. Especially in shielded formations, like Phalanx, it is way easier to push the enemy back like that, than having the back foot in a 90 degree angle pointing to the side which makes you lose grip when pushed. The Karate stance is not optimal for force transmission with the foot flat on the ground either.
Simply put:
1. Front foot points to the enemy
2. back foots points to the side at an 45 degree instead of a 90 degree angle.
3. back foot only touches the ground with the ball of the foot, to be able to step in quickly and to push of the ground to generate forward pressure
Julian Polzin in aikido we use the same position, back foot at 45 degress, but only when we use bokken(wooden katana), for jo (stick) back foot at 90 degrees
+Julian Polzin Not quite. Front foot points inward towards your opponent's left foot, back foot points at more than 45 degrees and less than 90. Heel is planted on the floor when you're shifting your weight back onto it like you might for the hook.
Yep, agreed. Also, to me, that Roman iconography seems to be pointing at something in between 90 and 45, not really 90.
I agree with Metaron here. I do both Roman re-enacitng and HEMA (Fiore's Armizare) and Have 20+ years of experience as an army infantryman, and I believe that a wider stance with the left food forward, toe pointing towards or a little to the left of the opponent, and the right (trail) foot with the toe pointing to the right is optimal if you need to be prepared to receive force from both the front and side. It's how we fight with longsword (Fiore loves to grapple) it's also how we stand, move and shoot for CQB (close quarter battle) in the army. It gives you good body structure from the front and side, and allows you to move quickly in any direction, as well as to turn quickly to one side or another while remaining stable. As far as we know, Roman legionaries (at least in the 1-2nd centuries CE) fought in a relatively open order do be able use use their swords effectively and (possibly) allow for line relief. In a closed order like the Greek or Macedonian Phalanx you really don't need to worry about force coming in from the side. In an open order, you absolutely do, and need to be able to potentially receive force form the side AND be able to turn quickly while remaining stable. It is also important that you may very well be fighting on muddy, uneven or broken ground with roots, brush, stones, etc. A narrow stance is going to make you less stable and increase the chance your going to fall on you face or ass as you're trying to advance or retreat across such terrain. Just my two sestercii.
The use of a single greave on the left leg in some iconography, I think makes it clear how the foot must have been positioned.
I am always blown away by how much thought you put into every little detail. Props to both you, Metatron, and those hard working/thinking noble ones over at Legio V Macedonica.
Thanks pal!
You're welcome.
I agree with the Italian
Ray Reznof I mean they’re basically Romans.
Ray Reznof MICROAGRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve always been taught that in any martial art to keep the foot pointing toward the enemy keeps you on balance, and you can see clearly in iconography that every soldier and gladiator is pointing there foot towards the enemy
Macedonica is referring to the Tropaieum traiani not Trajan's column in Rome, I think you might of confused them in your exposé. That monument is in Dacia itself and raised by the soldiers, i forget wich legion though. Just looking at it myself and an argument can be made that on some of the soldiers depicted a side-foot stance can be observed but it is not common in what I've seen in general. Definitely an interesting subject, thanks for the video!
I can't help but notice in the iconography, that many of the fighters have their front legs armored better as well, thus taking away the need to protect it as much with the shield.
@Metatron you were correct that the term in english is Lunge you pronounced it Lounge, like a room ou relax in. Good video, even though I only have little experience in fencing but in videogames like chivalry a main tip for group fights is to use overhead and stabbing (lunging) attacks that go forwards, and to facilitate that one would have to be able to move the foot forward quickly and stably,
Most roman and military formations are rectanguar so forward movement is paramount, we all know that moving forward is easier than to the side, our entire body mechanics is aimed at what is before us. Good video, cheers
Hello Metatron, or Rafaello! I've been following your videos for a while now and I hope you happen to read this. I'd really like you to talk about the naginata in a historical context, and perhaps linking it to modern competitions in naginata-jutsu in comparison to historical use.
Also i'd just like to state that I think you're a genuinely cool person and your content is very consistently good. Keep it up! Cheers from Sweden!
As a long-time martial arts practitioner, I agree that in legion combat when soldiers are fighting in rank, the front foot forward would definitely be more stable. It would also facilitate forward movement.
However, in individual combat, it would be more useful (IMO, o course), to turn the front foot in to about a 30-45 degree angle. This would help maintain ease of forward movement, yet improve lateral movement.
Meta, the music in this reminded me to ask - what was the music of Rome like? What kind of instruments did they have?
Raf, you are right.
Front foot always pointed towards the enemy in single or in groop combat.
Simple question of balance and fast moving.
Completely agree, it makes sense from almost all aspects that you take a more solid stand that is more stable and easier to move around (eg attack or defense).
9:18 Is the only one that sort of appears to be sideways but anatomically the leg itself is forward so it may be broken off since there seems to be some exposed rock.
Anyway, I was taught that the direction the toes are pointing in, is where the max amount of power can be directed toward.
I like your response because you acknowledged their efforts and spoke of them respectfully. So rare in this age of trolls and polarization.
Seeing so many people in Roman armor was glorious!
I love your videos, very informative and concise content, keep up the good work ! I noticed the channel who you're making a response to mention Trajan and the Dacians. I would love to see what are your thoughts about those campaigns and why are we (Romanians) Latin people in a sea of Slavic nations. That is only if you have the time and will to do so ! Thank you again for the great videos !
P.S: I saw your new TT, and as we say back home "master it healthily" !!!
Hunh... I'd never noticed how really high up on the body those scabbards were sometimes worn -
9:05, 9:15 , 9:26
... is that something you've tried Metatron? Does it feel more or less natural than a more conventional belt-level scabbard position while wearing armor / in formation?
... or is it just artistic license?
Metatron I agree, the foot forward position is the most prominent in combat sports because of stability and ability to defend the legs too and its much better for attacking with the arms. Moreover the side stance used in TKD is greatly facilitated by the lack of leg attacks and wide range of movement back and forth, which a Legionary wouldn't have
Great video on both on both of your parts. This is what I love ancient history it's very open to interpretation and both of you makes great points. Though I would like to ask why you focus heavily on that part of the mosiac at 8:37 surely the scene that's on the left would of helped you more to support your theory. As the scene you focus is already a won battle with the gladiator on left is standing triumphant with the gladiator on the right is sticking his finger up at the referee and has his shield on the ground which are signs he has given up. Not only thar but the referee is also pointing his stick at the victor. That is all from me your other images do a decent enough job (some better than others) at proving your point.
P. S Sorry if this reads bad I'm typing this on a small phone while on the toilet and my leg is going to sleep.
I feel their video was a good example of possible scutum fencing. Who knows which was used, but both seem viable in different situations.
As an aspiring art historian, it strikes me that most (I wouldn't say all) iconography from the ancient world is presented as face on, that is the torso and head of the figure faces towards us as the legs point forward (think Egyptian painting). This stays in Greek art, the Chigi Vase as an example, and its depiction of Hoplight warfare.Thus it strikes me that most roman art was shown in this way as well, not only as it was typical of most ancient depictions, but that a completely 3D cannon of propositions had not yet been worked out. The implications I think for Roman fencing, since all the iconography shows the foot forward, is that this stance was more of an artistic type. I personally have doubts about these artistic types and their depictions of warfare, so it seems to me that foot forward was not necicerally (iconography alone) militarily used, but was simply an artistic form. Though as you pointed out in the video, foot forward does provide more balance, so in all, I agree its hard to tell. As always great video.
What is the background music played from 7:30 at the pictures of frescoes etc.? 🤔
Scourge of the Scarab - Deskant
In aikido sankaku stance is with the forward foot straight forward and the knee slightly bended in order to thrust the jo forward
With the knee bent the shield will cover the front foot. A straight front foot will allow the legendary to advance with Forward energy to use the shield to push upon his opponent.
I don't know if someone pointed it out before but it looks like at least for gladiators fighting with scutum some kind of lower leg protection was used for the shield leg.
Nothing similar seems to be issued to the soldiers. I would assume that as problematic leg injury would be in single / gladiatoral combat it wasn't a significant issue for the soldiers?
I practice Choy Li Fut, and we tend to turn the foot in. It works with the techniques and situations we tend to emphasize, but we don't always stay in that position, and I wouldn't do it with other styles, certainly not in a style like Roman swordsmanship.
Ive taken karate for nearly 6 years and I agree. Pointing the foot in seems unnecessary to me and bending your knee is fundamental to any fighting style. It just makes your stance more sturdy.
I have to agree with Rafaello Metatron. I practiced a few martial arts, not only karate, and the legs on a position of "15 minutes" gives you stability on a fight, and also works with the knees slightly flexed. Which also gives you an edge on the attack speed.
We know that centurions often corrected the stance of soldiers (by beating them with a stick). That may not be only on disciplinary issues. As veteran warriors, centurions could correct the stances on a recruit to perfect the Roman fighting machine. Just as the sensei would do to a student (though he would be polite and not beat the guy).
And please, we are just debating to achieve knowledge, respect the Legio V Macedonica, even if they thing different from us. We could both be wrong somehow. All my respect for our Russian Roman brothers!
There’s a question concerning Roman fencing and stance I’d like to ask but I am not sure you Metatron or anyone are going to answer.
The way roman soldiers held their Gladii seems to have changed through time.
Whenever I see some claimed accurate depiction of republican era soldiers they keep the arm straight or only slightly flexed and hold the sword on the level of belt, close to the Scutum with the tip sometimes even sticking out.
Whereas the imperial legionary milites have that distinctive sword position far back behind the torso.
Is there any explanation to that or the depictions of Hastati and Principes are merely inaccurate?
If we are speaking of the milites of the later half of the 1st century than it’s likely the sword style would have simply changed by then. During the time of the republic (and further back through history for that matter) battle was much less about skill and much more about practicality and attrition. Two sides would slam shields together, take pokes at one another on occasion, and hope the guy in front of you was going to fall over so you could finish him off and move on to the fresh soldier taking the other guys spot. This was although impractical, effective, but of course people would continue to try to innovate battle in order to make the killing faster, so techniques were added, then slowly those techniques would become a style of fighting as they kept getting added on and equipment change force said styles to adapt. The replacement of the Scutum with the oval shield was probably the most iconic (in terms of what the normal person would know) change to the roman army since it was replacing a huge amount of defense for offensive potential with spears. This would cause the legions to adapt to the change and use newer techniques to get around the new weaknesses defensively made by the shield. Of course this all could be wrong and the depicters simply used the milites stance for dramatic effect, but we simply don’t know cause the guy has been dead for 1000 years.
(I know this is super extremely late but oh well, thought I would try to give an answer)
Given the linear perspective of ancient Greek and Roman art and again of Renaissance art, the oblique perspective of Chinese and Japanese art, and the vertical perspective of ancient Egyptian, is it possible that a Russian accustomed to the Byzantine perspective of Russian iconography might actually see something different when contemplating Roman art? To paraphrase Goethe quoted in an article by Oliver Sacks on the mind's eye, the ancients held that animals learn through their organs while men can both learn through and teach these organs. Does cultural affect influence what we see in Roman art? What little I've learned from Western fencing and from Tai Chi taught as a martial art, lead me to say that you are spot on with respect to stance; and, for whatever it's worth, I agree with your perception of Roman iconography . Their feet look even as you say.
8:00 the guy on the far left looks like his knee is not straight. Is that because he is being attacked?
The arguments make sense. However: they neglect a factor. Roman soldiers would be a part of a battle line in which the soldier don't just protect themselves with their shields but also their comrades to the left and rely on their comrade to the right to protect their own right. In a "brace for impact"-kind of situation, when the soldier lean into their shields to prevent their line from being broken, they're neither trying to move nor trying to attack. In that specific case turning the knee might make sense. Here another factor that can easily be neglected comes into play: The consistency of the ground. Roman soldiers would rarely be fighting on hard ground like linoleum, wooden planks or whatever the floor in the gym was made of. They would often be fighting on much softer ground, which gives them the opportunity to dig their feet in. If the rear foot is pointed towards the enemy and breaks the surface of the ground it's essentially as if they had a starting block to push against instead of flat ground. That's a big advantage in a "push back against and impact as hard as you can" scenario.
Iconographic evidence is selective because images are created consciously to convey meaning. The Romans did propaganda, too and wouldn't depict their own soldiers having a hard time holding their position. In addition to that: despictions of battles would be made by artists who depict them as best as they understand it. Which in most cases would be: Not particularly well, after all: They're artists, not soldiers. On top of that restrictions that come with the choice medium, perspective and production process might make realistic depictions very difficult or even impossible to execute.
As far as the iconography is concerned, it seems to show both forward facing and turned in front feet. Some seemed to show feet somewhere in between the two.
Did anyone else see that also? Or did it seem that they were all forward.
Thank you Metatron. Always enjoy your content. I will definetly check out the
Legio V Macedonia channel
I studied martial arts for 15 years and I agree with the placed at a side angle. It makes sense from an offense and defense point of view. It is also similar to the Philly shell in boxing.
It seems to me that their idea of the placement of a foot is based on out of context experimentation. It might make it "easier" to cover or step on a spear in a controled environnement, but I think any sort of more "agressive" sparring would make them revert to a foot pointing forward stance. In fact, as soon as they stop being in a static position, they do revert to a foot pointing forward.
Look at 7:24 the guy on the left, who started with their method, quickly got back to pointing his foot forward when he advances.
I would argue that they changed their stance depending on the combat conditions. Both stances may have been used depending on the situation.
3:46 I took Tai Kwan Do; it's been several years, but I distinctly remember front foot forward, as in most martial arts. I might be misremembering, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Black belt in TKD here. Yeah it's front foot forward. We have a stance called back stance where the front foot is still facing forward but the back foot is perpendicuar to it
Thank you. I haven't practiced Tai Kwan Do in a number of years, and, last year, I started training in HEMA (longsword, specifically), so I thought I may have been misremembering.
Can you do a video about the fascio littorio specifically when it was used as a weapon by royal guards?
Is that shield from Fabrica Cacti? When did it come?!
The T stance can be found, to a greater or lesser degree, in every martial art I've seen. Why? Because it works, better stability whilst allowing mobility.
Maybe they let the shield "rest" on the knee to have it move less on lower blows, of course the knee would eat up all the force.
That gives me an idea, could you not break up their stance with a "sparta" kick to the knee?
"Once I was a legionary like you, but then I took a kick to the knee."
My background is in Fencing, Taekwondo (didnt care for personally) and now my main style is Xingyi Quan.
"Proper" stance can seem different with other people. In fencing, I saw people use a parallel stance and that seemed natural to them because that was they instinctively did, they were corrected because it wasnt stable in the lateral, limited space that fencing is "played in".
Taekwondo however, for mobility purposes a parallel stance is encouraged especially if your bouncing on the balls of your feet which is something I disagreed/disagree with because my logic states that bouncing around like that is 1. Unstable & 2. A waste of your energy and sacrifice power for the sake of extra speed.
In Xingyi, the primary stance is called "Santishi" (Trinity Posture or 3 bodies alignment). It is the Back foot is at a 45° angle and the front is very slightly pointing forward with the big toe turned in with the rear heel and front toe are in an alignment with the nose. This is a very solid stance and an essential training exercise with this stance is called "Stake standing".
Not only is it solid, it's stable and mobility was never a problem. It happens to be extremely close to the foot placement in fencing. I've personally never had any issue concerning mobility with this foot placement and in fact felt very limited and unstable with a parallel stance.
I saw the original video before watching yours and I had the same ideas and solutions about the stance. My reenactment and HEMA background always thaught me that having your foot pointing somewhere else than in front of you, even just a little, is bad.
Yet this is no criticism against Legio V Macedonica as a whole : roman fighting techniques (should we say roman HEMA?) is a difficult topic, with only indirect sources. All pre-treatise era fighters and fencers should be respected as they do research in a field where nothing's sure. Everyone's right as long as they have enough method to back up their statements.
Great videos!
Looks quite like a boxing stance to me. Not quite parallel to the shield, not quite perpendicular, but somewhere in the middle, this gives a good compromise between stability and mobility.
As a fellow martial artist, footwork is 100% where it starts. You can flip a sword and twirl it menacingly, but if you have 0 footwork, you’re going down like a house of cards.
Equally so, your foot will be stabbed by a gladius, spear or sword.
Hi Metatron!
Since the Gladius/Scutum in the hands of heavy infantry were an Empire builder and World beater combination why where they not used again by the 4th Century? The later Roman army (both East and West) became more cavalry orientated and no successor states used Heavy Infantry and war machines like the Republic/Early Empire did.
Really well researched I subbed to the 5th anyhow as I have respect for anyone trying to reconstruct the past.
foot forward also enables rapid forward advancement, as in a unit combat as part of a phalanx. the russians seem to be preoccupied with 1 vs 1 tactics, but legions did not fight that way
It seems to me that in most martial disciplines, from karate to european fencing to kendo and many others the general stance (front foot forward back foot rotated) is the norm, and would probably be the same for fighters of any era. That said, it would certainly make sense if legionaries in the era of the scutum had an alternate stance they might use at certain times to protect the front foot/leg, especially when being charged. Their formations would, I imagine, primarily be moving forward or backwards, and when pushing forwards against a crowd of enemies perhaps something like this was done. Guess we'll never know. A pity they didn't leave behind a legion training manual. Great video though, and the iconography definitely seems to support your view. You'd expect otherwise if the Legio V stance was more common.
I think both could be correct at the same time. a) I do not think it is a good idea to use shield as showed in video to protect your foot by touching the ground because that will expose you a lot and could lead to a fatal attack on head or neck. b) I would assume something like "shin armour" is a must for a soldier of roman army. c) I would assume Legio V stance is good to withstand the "furious" attacks/ charge but then I would switch to what Metatron is showing
Whats the name of the music which he used when showing the historical evidence.
martin vasilevki not sure, but it sounds like it's from assassin's creed
After two years of extensive search i found it:
Scourge of the Scarab - Deskant
Hm, I don't know. The stance proposed by Legio V is actually used in olympic archery. Although here you need extreme stability in your pose, as the slightest alteration will yield different results regarding arrow flight. So yes, if your feet are turned inwards, you gain more static stability. Then the only thing left to do is train your muscle tension, and you are good to go. But is this static stability really desirable in a combat situation?
I finally get to say I agree with your entire video in a comment.
When you mentioned the iconography I was thinking that you might be wrong because perspective wasn't that good in the past so you get funky things, but when you showed the images it was clear that the back foot was all turned to the viewer and the front to the side and that would only happen if they knew what they were drawing and did it intentionally.
Also the knee thing... The point of the knee cap is to protect the knee. It makes little sense to say they'd turn their knee shield to the side to expose their defenseless knee like they were saying you do.
So yeah completely agree with you here.
8:21 Gladiator on the far right of the shot is giving the ref a piece of his mind?
Maybe different Legions practiced different styles of the basics. Legions practiced legion specific military traditions most probably after all.
However, I think situation would dictate which a legionary automatically shifts to..
Maybe we should take a look at what the guys over at the SCA have been doing. Some of them look rough but collectively they have millions of hours of trial and error in sword and shield fighting (with non-lethal weapons) duels, skirmishes and full on battles.
What it if you just move your foot depending on what's going on in front of you in the formation?
Something that I would love to do is act as a berserker for these kind of groups and see how well their training really holds up
Having your front leg turned sideways seems like a good way to have your knee buckle if you have to absorb / brace for a heavy impact...
I do Muay Thai, have done so for well over 2 years now. And before that, jiu jitsu for over a year.
Anyway, in Muay thai, the front foot always faces forward, while the rear foot is angled. We use a high guard, of course.
I figure this is a natural fighting stance, since I see it used(not the hand positioning I mean, but the foot/hip positioning). Its very easy and very powerful and very fast when you step forward with the front leg and jab, or throw a cross - and I figure that would work just as well replacing those punches with say a sword thrust or a slash. Because the direction your foot is facing is where most of your body weight is gonna be transferred, thats why its useful to have this kind of stance. Same goes for boxing, too, its why mexican boxers and others that use a more straight on style also use this same stance. Easy to defend while in this stance as well(with your forearms and hands/gloves, as opposed to a shield, which would naturally be MUCH easier to defend against everything with, rather than your arms lol).
The front foot turned inward, that stance is popular with the kind of boxers that dance around the ring like Ali. Its not really used that much by fighters that want to finish the fight, but to score points and be extra evasive. I dont like that stance, personally, like you said it off balances you too badly, also it makes many strikes awkward to use or require more hip rotation than usual. I would say that you are prob right in this regard Metatron. The front foot facing where you wanna go/forward, and the rear foot angled to the side is a natural combat stance imo. You see it everywhere in art across the ages. And it works.
7:59 what is the 3rd guy from the right doing
I don't think that would work in tai kwon do either... or any fighting system I'm aware of for that matter.
I have zero experience with any martial art, so take my thoughts with a large chunk of salt.
I'd say that if you let the shield rest on your knee and an enemy strikes it, it hurts more than if you hold the shield slightly in front of it.
When touching, more energy of the strike is transferred directly to the knee because it doesn't have to counteract the inertia of the shield while also virtually removing your chance to counteract by pushing back the shield the moment you feel pressure on it.
From the icons it appears both were used to me. Your method would, however be most useful moving, especially over broken ground. The balance of your form looks better, but I can see usefulness in the other. Sorry Raphe, I think it's possible both were used. Good video, thanks.
It's so nice to see people disagreeing with such civility.
That shield the guy is holding is so beat up it looks like it's really been in battle.
With your first point (i.e. front foot facing forward), I agree with you, Metatron - point the toe at your enemy, then you can add an extra brace to your shield (see point 3.5) using the leading knee (even in modern fencing the front knee is over the toe, if you're using a shield this stops the enemy stabbing you in the foot!). The "guide" video assumes you're expecting a foot attack, which would only happen in single combat and ONLY if your opponent saw you had left your foot unguarded.
As to your second point, regarding parallel legs - this is only "back-stance" footing, where you are expecting to retreat. I doubt a roman would ever use this. If he did, there would be according adapted defensive tactics.
On your third point regarding the knee; the knee is one of the main body-part attacks in kickboxing, Muay Thai, and many other fighting styles historically and globally. It is also a powerful defense; it involves many of the muscles that support your bodyweight, so its tensile strength is huge. The only times knees are known to be broken by direct force is during torture or crippling. Accidental breaks are always through twists.
Having said that, your 3.5th point says you see no reason to brace a shield against your knee, you think an armoured shoulder is enough. In a counterpoint, I would suggest that bracing a shield on both shoulder and front knee would be very effective: It would half the impact force (spread ofer 2 points of resistance), and allow some of the force to transfer to the human thigh bone - the strongest in the body).
If you were wearing armour, as you mentioned, the effect would be even better because it would share the fatigue between your shield arm and your leg, and allow more overall endurance.
Just my thoughts...
Personally I have achieved the rank of 2nd Degree Black Belt in Karate, and I can definitely confirm that parallel feet in the stance of any warrior is not a good idea. Any warrior worth their salt finds that a firm base is at the core of all other skills, and it's always best to have feet at un-parallel angles, fir balance and base purposes. Plus, it just feels more natural.
Great video m8 love your content :D
+PixelArrowProduction What about toes pointing directly forward? I'm no expert on karate but looking at some Kyokushin championships a lot of fighters with their lead foot pointing inward like the Russians and not like metatron.
Ehm, I didn't say anything about putting your foot directly forward. I said to keep them *un-parallel*. This gives you a stronger base, whereas if they *are* parallel than you are much easier to knock over.
+PixelArrowProductions Almost the entire video was complaining about foot pointing inward instead of forward. That's why I asked for your opinion, as you didn't address it in your comment. If you don't agree with metatron on that point might have been useful to point that out.
Oh sorry, I didn't understand your question properly. I've always kept the front foot facing forward and the back foot facing perpendicularly to the front one. Of course, that's if you're going for a strong base. Agility is another matter entirely, but I'd imagine that a strong base would be preferable in this sort of combat.
I'm no expert on Roman combat, and even with Karate you'll probably have different people telling you different things. That's just my experience.
+PixelArrowProductions I would argue nearly the opposite, that the position you've described with front foot forward is more for agility in and out and foot turned inward is for stability. Which might be why I see foot turned inward looking at Kyokushin and Kudo but also Judo. I don't think either position is the most stable, look at western wrestling for maximum stability.
But I still feel you didn't address my question well. Metatron was extremely vague and didn't seem to provide any real reason to intentionally have the front foot pointing forward just asserting that it must be that way and only very vaguely suggesting there's no stability or agility with foot turned inward.
How tall and wide should a Scutum be. If it helps my Profile Picture is my Scutum. It’s at slight angle
Wait, wait, did we just find a language that Metatron doesn't speak??? I didn't think that existed!
@8:32 you can see his rear foot is side way and his front foot is facing foward
I myself competed heavily in karate as a rep for canada in our national competitions, and personally iv seen people spar with both kinds of footwork, and belive that either opinion is valid
@Metatron what is the music used towards the end of the video with the ancient depictions, Noblest One?
Some of the images looked as if they might have been supporting their view of the stance, but most seemed to support yours. Of course, in some cases it wasn't altogether clear. People were standing around and not necessarily in battle, and it wasn't always that easy to see what their feet were supposed to be doing. But when you demonstrated the stance and your reasons for it, your arguments made a great deal of sense. I can see some advantages to their stance, but the advantages of yours were greater. And you even addressed how to get around the few weaknesses it had. I think these people had limited iconography to look at, and maybe drew some hasty conclusions. Iconography isn't always the best source of information. It can be difficult to interpret and can even be inaccurately drawn. So, at the very least, you are going to want to compare multiple sources.
With any luck, they'll see your video and get additional sources of information to help them in their efforts to create accurate reenactments. It looks like they are really putting a lot of work into it. I applaud their efforts. And of course, with limited sources of information to rely upon, this is always going to be a work in progress. They will be constantly looking for new sources and improving what they are doing as they go along. So, hopefully, they will see your constructive criticism in the way it was intended.
IMHO, artists may not necessarily have an understanding un biomechanics when applied to combat. Or even combat itself for that matter. Therefore I believe that although iconography gives you a good general ideal of how the ancients fought, it should not be used as the ultimate guide.
I think that due to the angle the iconography was sculpted in, an optical illusion is created of some people standing one way and others standing another way. Having said that, I think it is safe to say that the majority of iconography shows the foot at an angle like this /.
Just try it. Then, with left foot forward just a little bit, bend your left knee. Don't go past the left foot when you bend and the shield will protect your foot just fine.
Where do you have your Segmentata from? It looks awesome.
ma il piede che punta di lato è una cosa utilizzata molto nella boxe che ti da molta più forza nei pugni quindi penso abbia senso