Vegetius' passage on "The Arms of the Ancients"

[Alanus]

Here are my thoughts (whatever they're worth). The cavalryman in the first illustration is probably holding a bow, and not a scimitar. The second monument (ie. "best illustration") of a mounted archer shows the Mediterranean draw. Neat! This shows the thumb draw was not used exclusively. And finally, I agree with Adrian-- the Greutungi Goths were heavily Sarmatized (actually "Alanized") and would have used steppe weapons.

[nikgaukroger]

Something I've wondered about off and on - could you point me at some evidence for such a definitive statement please, it'd be useful for me. Thanks 

[Alanus]

Adrian probably knows the Goths as well as anybody. My specialty is the origin of the Alans. Janos Harmatta mentions the Sarmatians of Pannonia already "Gothicized" by the time they got there from Walachia. Several Iazyges had Gothic nomens. The Tyrfingi Goths were Sarmatized to the point they had adopted the Taifali (Alanic) ceremony of planting a sword in the ground. The name of the sword-god was "Tyrfing," for which the western Goths named themselves.

Even the Huns were Gothicized, and both Attila and Bleda had Gothic names. In my own studies on another thread, I have found the Yuezhi heavily "Tuvanized" from a cultural association between Indo-Iranian and Central Siberian peoples. The Yuezhi was also partially Sinicized. It was the way of the ancient world... in all corners... and the Goths were no exception.

The same cultural admixture applied to the Greutungi after living for at least 7-8 generations as neighbors of the Alans. The joint Greutungi-Alan-Hun forces which aided Fritigern at Adrianople were these very same people in a cultural coalition. Their leaders were Safrax (an Alan) and Alatheus (a Greutungus). After moving south, the Goths became steppe tribes, although they were farmers. No tribe lived in a void, and there was always active trade, cultural exchanges in art and religion, a sharing of weapon styles, and tribal inter-marriages. These marriages were important for keeping "neighborly" peace. Another good source would be Herwig Wolfram.

[nikgaukroger]

Even the Huns were Gothicized, and both Attila and Bleda had Gothic names.

That is, IMO, far more likely to be the result of "Hunnification" of a Gothic group as there is, as far as I recall, any indication that Attila (from Priscus?) was acting in any way other than a "Hunnic" one. I would guess that he came from a Gothic group that had, some time earlier, adopted a Hunnic identity when their lands were dominated by Huns in order to be able to do well and get on in the now Hun dominated milieux they were in. They kept a little of their Gothic heritage through their names, but little else. The same applied to the Greek seen at Attila's court who was in all ways a Hun.

I will check Wolfram, although I do seem to recall that Heather for one has raised doubts about some of his work - probably need to reread some of heather as well then ... 

Oh, and many thanks for taking the time to reply - much appreciated.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Even the Huns were Gothicized, and both Attila and Bleda had Gothic names.

Attila is Oghur Turkic. Not sure about Bleda. It just has a convenient meaning in Gothic too.

That is, IMO, far more likely to be the result of "Hunnification" of a Gothic group as there is, as far as I recall, any indication that Attila (from Priscus?) was acting in any way other than a "Hunnic" one. I would guess that he came from a Gothic group that had, some time earlier, adopted a Hunnic identity when their lands were dominated by Huns in order to be able to do well and get on in the now Hun dominated milieux they were in. They kept a little of their Gothic heritage through their names, but little else. The same applied to the Greek seen at Attila's court who was in all ways a Hun.

Attila was an Oghur-speaker with Altaic features which confirms he was an ethnic Hun. Although the Hun Empire was dominated in population by its Germanic vassals (along with some Slavic and Alanic groups), the core ruling body was Huna.

[nikgaukroger]

Ah, looks like I need to update my reading as a Gothic origin for the name is widely quoted. Cheers.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Huns are one of those areas that remain rather biased where everything is Germano-centric in Western scholarship while in Eastern scholarship it's all... I guess turko-centric would be the word.

[M. Val. Naso]

offensive with the right foot forward to enable the sword to be used to thrust

This seems wrong on every level. I mean not you, Mike, but the notion that you have to step forward to thrust. It actually weakens your attack since you will be unable to use torque generated from your legs and hips. Could you elaborate on how you meant this?

[Dan Howard]

This seems wrong on every level. I mean not you, Mike, but the notion that you have to step forward to thrust. It actually weakens your attack since you will be unable to use torque generated from your legs and hips. Could you elaborate on how you meant this?

The "reverse punch" in martial arts is when you step forward with your left leg and punch with your right. It generates more power than stepping with the right leg and a lot more power than keeping the feet stationary. Stepping with the right foot reduces power but increase reach. With a sword I would think that reach would be more important than power. It takes very little effort to cut open flesh with a sword.

[Alanus]

Right foot forward is a byword in swordsmanship... assuming you're right-handed. Dan has it correctly. Also for lunging during fencing.

[M. Val. Naso]

But would someone really do this in battle, exposing his whole figure from the right side? That would be just as dumb as resting his shield on the ground mid fight for example.

[Dan Howard]

Lead with the shield. When the opponent has been knocked out of position you then step forward to attack with the sword and right leg. Then the left leg comes forward and the shield comes back into full coverage.

[ValentinianVictrix]

My reasoning behind the Goth's being armed in the Sarmatian style is that the Goth's lived in the area between the Sarmatians and the Alan's. They conquered many tribes from the Caspian westwards, including tribes armed and armoured like the Steppe tribes. It would be in the realms of fantasy to suggest that they were not armed similarly to the tribes they lived next to, why would they not be so armed? Why would Vegetius make the comment about the improvements being made to the arms of the Roman cavalary including the Goth's in that statement if the Goths were not armed differently from their Roman counterparts at that time?

[Nathan Ross]

Right foot forward is a byword in swordsmanship...

I'm with György on this one, I'm afraid! The substance of the Vegetius quote appears to be that 'right foot forward' was the basic fighting stance, not a follow-up to a push with the shield. This would indeed be true if the Roman army went in for duelling or fencing with longsword or rapier, but as far as we know, they didn't...

We don't know from which period Vegetius is drawing his information, but the stance he describes certainly appears to be opposed to the classic legionary style of the principiate - left foot forward, greave on that leg, leading with the shield - as described in literature and depicted on monuments (Mainz, Adamklissi, Trajan's and Aurelius's Columns).

The introduction of the longer spatha may have changed things, but Ammianus Marcellinus, for one, seems to suggest that the later legions favoured a 'shield wall' approach.

So I'm still inclined to think that V is in error here. Probably not for the first time...

EDIT - I'm also reminded of V's (possible) suggestion that soldiers attack by leaping into the air...

[ValentinianVictrix]

Right foot forward is a byword in swordsmanship...

I'm with György on this one, I'm afraid! The substance of the Vegetius quote appears to be that 'right foot forward' was the basic fighting stance, not a follow-up to a push with the shield. This would indeed be true if the Roman army went in for duelling or fencing with longsword or rapier, but as far as we know, they didn't...

We don't know from which period Vegetius is drawing his information, but the stance he describes certainly appears to be opposed to the classic legionary style of the principiate - left foot forward, greave on that leg, leading with the shield - as described in literature and depicted on monuments (Mainz, Adamklissi, Trajan's and Aurelius's Columns).

The introduction of the longer spatha may have changed things, but Ammianus Marcellinus, for one, seems to suggest that the later legions favoured a 'shield wall' approach.

So I'm still inclined to think that V is in error here. Probably not for the first time...

Nathan, you have to look at various sections in Vegetius to see where he was coming from. In this case you need to read these two sections in Book 1-

'It must be observed that when the soldiers engage with the javelin, the left foot should be advanced, for, by this attitude the force required to throw it is considerably increased. On the contrary, when they are close enough to use their piles and swords, the right foot should be advanced, so that the body may present less aim to the enemy, and the right arm be nearer and in a more advantageous position for striking. Hence it appears that it is as necessary to provide soldiers with defensive arms of every kind as to instruct them in the use of offensive ones. For it is certain a man will fight with greater courage and confidence when he finds himself properly armed for defense.'

'They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.'

So, the right foot forward was favoured as it allowed the infantryman to thrust the point of the sword into his opponent rather than slashing about which would have exposed the soldier to a return blow.