Theoretical Discusions?

[Alanus]

James Thorne, in "Battle, Tactics, and the Emergence of the Limites in the West," in Paul Erdkamp, A Companion to the Roman Army, argues that Roman battles were probably characterized by short clashes and longer stand-offs out of reach of the other side.

This seems less of a "what-if comparison" and more a "theory." It's actually based upon practicality and the endurance of the human animal. Recently, an actor-director filmed an ancient battle; and in the "extras" section of the DVD, he noted that-- with the weight of his armor, the weight of the sword, etc.-- an average human could not fight straight-out for more than an hour or two. Of course, he was an actor, but he was also one of the world's great atheletes.

This wasn't Tacitus speaking, but short clashes and "longer stand-offs" (and sieges) were probably the norm. But this is different than some goofy scenario like, "Who would win the Battle of Adrianople? General Custer or Brad Pitt?" illy:

But Robert just pointed out, "Theoretical discussions per se are quite normal here, because lots of what we discuss-- per definition-- is only availabe as theory." mile: