08-24-2011, 08:00 PM
I just want to add food for thought.
An article by Philip Sabin, The Face of Roman Battle, does bring, I think, an interesting view about what a battle involving close combat would actually look like. The hack'n'slash we usually see in reenactments, according to his interpretation, would be out of the question. And I challenge any reenactor to hack it out for 6 hours in full gear... You have to conserve your strength in battle and this means fighting a certain way.
The Roman equipement has a very defensive value, which can be turned out into an offensive tool if used the right way. I think most reenactors want to be warriors instead of soldiers, in the sense that their own willingness to get into the fight (knowing full well that they won't die) takes precedence over discipline and cohesion (and the reality that in real fighting, you could die). Don't forget that a Roman army was no more than a mob if it lost its discipline. Discipline and cohesion were its strength, not individual combat prowess nor its weaponry.
A lot of argumentation I've read here, although valid in some ways, totally ignore the self-preservation aspect of a human beings engaged in combat. One wants to survive first, and as a second priority, to defeat his opponent. In that order! Ask any person who has been in real combat, and that's what he/she will tell you. The stage combat that is happening at reenactments is fine for entertainment, but has no relevance to actual combat. If you are in formation, are discipined, and fear that any opening you allow could cost your life, you will still fight, but much more defensively. And that's where the tower shield and the short sword shines. You wait for your opponent to make a mistake, and then you go right in. You then end up with a kill, including few or no scratches. Patience and discipline, that's what win battles.
And I don't need vembraces to take down an opponent who commits himself without thinking about his defensive stance. And if I'm "killed" or "wounded" during that first contact, then that guy will be wide open to my fighting buddy on my left, on my right, and behind me. And if that opponent forgets about them, he's the next one going down.
My two cents.
An article by Philip Sabin, The Face of Roman Battle, does bring, I think, an interesting view about what a battle involving close combat would actually look like. The hack'n'slash we usually see in reenactments, according to his interpretation, would be out of the question. And I challenge any reenactor to hack it out for 6 hours in full gear... You have to conserve your strength in battle and this means fighting a certain way.
The Roman equipement has a very defensive value, which can be turned out into an offensive tool if used the right way. I think most reenactors want to be warriors instead of soldiers, in the sense that their own willingness to get into the fight (knowing full well that they won't die) takes precedence over discipline and cohesion (and the reality that in real fighting, you could die). Don't forget that a Roman army was no more than a mob if it lost its discipline. Discipline and cohesion were its strength, not individual combat prowess nor its weaponry.
A lot of argumentation I've read here, although valid in some ways, totally ignore the self-preservation aspect of a human beings engaged in combat. One wants to survive first, and as a second priority, to defeat his opponent. In that order! Ask any person who has been in real combat, and that's what he/she will tell you. The stage combat that is happening at reenactments is fine for entertainment, but has no relevance to actual combat. If you are in formation, are discipined, and fear that any opening you allow could cost your life, you will still fight, but much more defensively. And that's where the tower shield and the short sword shines. You wait for your opponent to make a mistake, and then you go right in. You then end up with a kill, including few or no scratches. Patience and discipline, that's what win battles.
And I don't need vembraces to take down an opponent who commits himself without thinking about his defensive stance. And if I'm "killed" or "wounded" during that first contact, then that guy will be wide open to my fighting buddy on my left, on my right, and behind me. And if that opponent forgets about them, he's the next one going down.
My two cents.
Danny Deschenes
