Where did the ''Romans were shit at 1v1'' meme came from? First of all why would that even matter...

Where did the ''Romans were shit at 1v1'' meme came from? First of all why would that even matter? Since when battles are boxing matches? Second - do we have any proof?

My other question is - why Romans stopped using tight formations later on?

Romans weren't trained to fight 1v 1 but rather in formation. This had a mix of positive and negative results in battle.

And who was trained for 1v1 battle? Where is this legendary culture of duelists?

Videogames

Everything must be balanced and equal, so when Romans have superior disciplened formation, barbarians must be bulky stronk giants superiour at chaotic 1 on 1 fighting.

Gauls were terrific one on one fighters, and the Romans viewed them as so

Didn't stop them systematically neutering the goat fuckers though

The Romans ceased using formations later on... Mostly because they weren't even Roman anymore.

The later incarnation of the Roman army, was mostly a mercenary Army, or, of people that weren't originally Roman.

Romans were trained to fight as one... Therefor, their 1v1 is basically THEM vs anything that comes.

Their armor, tactics, weapons... All were constructed around being a living walking wall.

The wall died when it was no longer consisted only of Roman troops.


For such tactics requires you to blindly trust the people around you.

Guess what?

That trust didn't exist later on.

And the new soldiers, neither had the discipline nor the union of the real Roman army.

>Mostly because they weren't even Roman anymore.

Stopped reading right there.

>Their armor, tactics, weapons... All were constructed around being a living walking wall.
>The wall died when it was no longer consisted only of Roman troops.

This is partially true. The "walking wall" tactic was used by them and most other disciplined armies of the time. However, they assimilated many new non-Roman fighters into their ranks well before they reformed the "walking wall."

I'm not going to deny the significance of demographics within the army but the Romans were also more able to change up their tactics due to technological advancements. The soldiers were later able to carry the carbon steel gladius which was versatile and much more tough than previous instruments. They also had throwing javelins which bent at the tip once they landed which prevented them from being re-used by the enemy.

This various new implementation of tech into the army allowed each individual soldier to be more independent than was previously possible. The formation spread out so each soldier had room to pivot on the spot. This was a huge advantage over a "walking wall." Even the best disciplined troops took a while to turn a tight wall formation. The new looser formation could turn immediately.

>Their armor, tactics, weapons... All were constructed around being a living walking wall.

Romans didn't fight in a shield wall, they fought in spaced checkerboards and filtered the enemy through.

These. It was the flexibility of the legions, both in tactics and strategy, that allowed them to dominate for almost 600 years.

> The Romans ceased using formations later on

They were different formations, but still formations you utter retard.

Everyone used formations, even fucking Eskimo's used formation fighting as recorded by frontiersmen.

This is the least correct post I've ever seen on Veeky Forums, and that's saying something

Please nobody coming into the thread believe anything this guy says. It is literally all wrong.

Veeky Forums really needs a requirement for every post to be backed up with some kind of academic source or it automatically gets deleted. It would stop morons like this spreading misinformation.

>why Romans stopped using tight formations later on?
They never used "tight" formations to begin with. Every legionary had two meters of space to their side and behind them. This continued into the later period, but situationally they would use walls of locked shields to defend against certain types of enemies like mounted archers.

Everything you've posted is nonsense. Read a book you dummy.

If the epics are to be trusted, battles were often essentially boxing matches in the Bronze Age. 1v1 combat to decide the fate of entire armies is attested in literature as west as the Iliad to as east as the Mahabharata.

The late romans used formations and group tactics. Perhaps not the same as early legions but they used group tactics

In fact many of the barbarians they fought did to

man, what the fuck is that spear grip?

You cant two finger spear thrust?
Pfft, kid you'll never make it in the epic 1 vs 1s that decide the fate of thousands of lives.

Japanese samurai would literally waltz into battle call out another samurai's name and battle.

Do you understand just how much a 1v1 affects moral? Seriously, read old epics such as The Persian Book of Kings, 1v1's were extremely prevalent before battles to boost or lower the morals of the opposing armies.

But Romans didn't fucking duel with germaniggers and other cunts so that's a moot point drink bleach you kike faggot.

The point was that cultures with warfare that focused on duels, not on Romans you dumb Shitalian.

>Germaniggers
>Kike faggot
Ashkenazis are genetically more Italian than they are European.

>ABOOGA ABOOGA LOOK AT ME I'M HANS KEKMICH VON PANZERKAMPFWAGEN IBN MOHAMMAD MY COUNTRY'S CULTURE IS ERASED BY A BUNCH OF IMMIGRANTS AND I LOVE WATCHING MY WIFE GETTING FUCKED BY NIGGERS BUT LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY

fucking russian rape baby

Some times they did that. The book that contains the most famous and sited example of that also contains an accounts of arson and surprise attacks.

Though, just like in Europe, men perfered to fight their social equals, because the rewards were greater, so there was a great incentive to take the heads of important people, and sometimes that took the form of a battlefield call out. And sometimes you would be winning only to have the guys retainers kill you from behind.

>Romans stopped using tight formations

umm, no they didnt? If anything the byzantines got even tighter and less maneuverable. The Roman legions used to be a bit more lose so they could move around the battlefield easily, but once cataphractari became the main arm of the armt, the infantry became a static shield wall/testudo formation whose sole job was to hold the line so the cavalry could hit the flanks.

Even the cataphractari were arranged in an extremely tight formation and charged as a massive tight formation of armored horses.

That guy is literally a retard don't listen to him.

cont


basically the byzantine army was closer to a Macedonian phalanx army than a traditional roman legion in that it became all about the hammer and anvil and the infantry stopped being the end-all-be-all of the battlefield.

Romans might have been shittier one vs one until they conquered Iberia and learned tactics about breaking formation and fighting one on one

Retards took Josephus very literally, applied no critical thinking, and then proceeded to do the same with Vegetius.


Fuck off, retard.


Except they very routinely did. Dueling was a celebrated aspect of roman culture. They respected the resulting trophies so much that their display and protection was enshrined into law.


The varies tremendously by period. You get anything from long spear centric mobile bases for cavalry to formation consisting mostly of armored swordsmen with everything form archers to javlineers in support who are meant to close with and destroy the enemy.

Pretty sure it started in Roman times. A legion would wreck some shitters and they'd shitpost "Come 1v1 irl and not in your legion".

autism

>Romans weren't trained to fight 1v 1 but rather in formation. This had a mix of positive and negative results in battle.
>what is a mandible
>what is the corona aurea

they literally had an award for killing the enemy in single combat.

oh look, the lil faggots triggered.

dont worry no black men will fuck your girlfriend. because you will never have one

And the Civic Crown