Full blown combat or display only?

[Crispvs]

I think that there is a difference between what you can do with late Romans from what you can do with earlier periods in a display.

Althougfh missile weapons must still have been employed in large numbers by the late Romans, the fact that the spatha is a slashing weapon opens up the possibility of combat re-enactment, albeit without missiles.

This is not the case if you are armed with a shorter thrusting weapon such as a Mainz or Pompeii gladius. When I was a combat re-enactor myself, in a group which was an offshoot of Regia Anglorum, I learned the 'five attacks' and five corresponding defensive movements. Of these five attacks the head shot was banned. That said, the one attack we were not taught (with side arms at any rate) was the thrust, as a thrust with a sword is much harder to control (not to mention the pointed end of an otherwise blunt edged sword). As Giannis suggests above, if your weapons are designed for thrusting, mock combat is a much more dangerous proposition than it is when you weapons are designed for slashing. We certainly thrust with spears, but as these were used two handed a variable amont of pressure could be used when holding the shaft to ensure that there was no hard impact. With a single handed weapon you do not have this option.

Then there is the issue of missiles. If I was really to try to fight like a genuine first century soldier I should really preceed any swordplay with the throwing of pila. I pride myself on being able to control the movement of a weapon which I am still holding but I cannot do this the something I have thrown. Safety has to be paramount. If we were to depict the professional Roman army it would look ridiculous if all of our pila were to land short. It would be similarly unlikely that trained and professional soldiers would throw their missiles in a way which would ensure that they passed over the heads of the enemy and landed harmlessly behind them. The remaining option: that of throwing them at an opposition, would be likely to result in the weapons doing exactly what they are designed to do, leading to serious injuries and worse. We cannot take that risk.

Therefore, while the spatha gives the late Romans some latitude in the area of combat re-enactment, the gladius and pilum do not allow the same freedom, which means that the first century AD Romn re-enactor must stick to field formations and drill.

Crispvs

[John Conyard]

I broadly agree with what Crispvs says. Spathas have been categorised into different classes dependant upon size and presumed use. Basically some are more adapted to thrusting, than cutting. But such definitions should not mask the fact that the spatha is at best a cut and thrust weapon, and at worst just for cutting. I agree with Crispvs.

This allows training fights to be put on using blunt spathas, and indeed the capped spears. Both mentioned by Vegetius. Something which is safe and authentic.

As an aside I do remember a mock battle in York between 1st century legionaries and Vikings. I'm pleased to report the Romans won, hopefully due to their superior close quarters thrusting technique!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A picture from one of your events gave me the idea, perhaps something you already do John, of having a group of targets, set up to represent the opposition. There for the pila can be thrown, and then the charge can go through and destroy them.......only ones hurt by the pila and pointy
hand-helds are plywood..? Any thoughts Crispus?

[John Conyard]

Hi Gauis,

It all sounds a bit wooden.
:lol:
We use different targets for different things. So wooden targets are used for the ballista and archery. A different target is used for various types of javelin, and old shields etc used for throwing axes. Blunted spatha and capped spears are used on each other, from foot or horse back. All done as a training exercise. It allows people to hit each other, hopefully demonstrating the correct heft of the weapon, but done within an training context. A form of combat justified by Vegetius.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

True, they can't fight back! :roll: :lol:

But as a way of being able to throw the pila and then charge home for an audience, just thought it wouldbe as impressive as throwing broom handles at empty space....maybe? :lol:

I'll probably get in trouble for this now..... :lol:

[Marcus Mummius]

True, they can't fight back! :roll: :lol:

But as a way of being able to throw the pila and then charge home for an audience, just thought it wouldbe as impressive as throwing broom handles at empty space....maybe? :lol:

I'll probably get in trouble for this now..... :lol:

I think it would look very nice, but you still have to be carefull. Pila could be stuck into the ground with the sharp butspikes sticking up like stakes. So be carefull if you charge over/into them or you might end up being impaled.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

True, but somehow the Roman managed....maybe?

It would require care, you are right, but I wonder how much practice, and choreography would it take to do a convincing performance?

[Marcus Mummius]

I now have mental images of a bunch of romans throwing their pila, charging, getting impaled on the butspikes, falling over each other and having to retreat, leaving the wooden targets victorious :lol:

We once had a short fight with a bunch of medieval reenactors. It was very awkward. we were standing their with our real pila. They were advancing. We stood there for a while in throwing position, then we put down our pila as we would probably have killed or wounded most of them if we had thrown them. Then they charged us and started hacking with their swords. all we could do was poke them very softly with the gladius. That didn't stop them of course. You could hold the gladius in front of their face, ready to thrust, but of course we couldn't punch the point into their face, not even softly . Very frustrating...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I have seen a medieval/viking combat display, and they hack each other pretty savagely.......one slip and there is possibility of one being toast! :?

Yet, I reckon it would be feasable! Just instead of having a living opponent to watch out for, you would just have to watch out for the
throw pila.....you can flatten them with the scuta then finish the targets off!

[Marcus Mummius]

you can flatten them with the scuta then finish the targets off!

Indeed, if the charge doesn't have to much speed and the guys in the back don't push the front line forward too fast this would be feasable. I like the idea. But you will need a lot of extra pila if you want to do this display several times at events. Or you will need a smith who straightens out the bent ones at the event.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, that is the problem.....bent and damaged pila.......

The way we use two charging lines, would eliminate the crush aspect at least!
ah well, I suppose if a company were picking up the tab it would be
OK.

[Marcus Mummius]

Yes, that is the problem.....bent and damaged pila.......

The way we use two charging lines, would eliminate the crush aspect at least!
ah well, I suppose if a company were picking up the tab it would be
OK.

You could always make cheap pila for that, but this will detract from the authenticity again...

[Salvianus]

I was one of the barbarians having a go at the Romans at York John spoke of. We were all contact steel re-enactors, mostly Regia etc, and armed as such and they, the XX and XIIII Legions, were mostly not and bore sharps (I was told at the time that the XX was more about the civic displays in Chester than traditional re-enactment - I suspect they have changed a lot since then).

http://pics.livejournal.com/salvianus/gallery/0000fwbp

The organisers agreed to stage the fight so long as it was fully scripted and participants only used very specific movements: 'push' flat on the shield rather than strike, 'thrust' past wide of the body and 'draw-cut' with the flat, nothing on the helms.

This enabled a fine display of the barritus, steppan, shield-wall etc and the last barbarians fell down on cue, but the safety instructions did not prevent widespread damage to Roman equipment, lots of shield edging gone, a crest gone, a helmet split in two and several injuries, including one very nice bloke from Chester who got a blunt metal spear in the face and was very stoic about an injury that would have sent me running off to casualty hock:

One could say that long trained combat blunt reflexes took over to cause the lapses in the safety rules, but who trains to strike the head? Perhaps less 'combat' experienced Romans did not cover themselves as barbarians expected them to, but why were shield edges chopped? I think a mismatch in experience and equipment excacerbated a dangerous idea: that one can re-enact combat with sharps or untrained participants.

[Hodekin]

Thank you for all the contributions folks, this has been most enlightening.

A couple of points seem to fall out of this thread.

1. Although there appears to be a goodly number of 1st century re enactors more than willing to give active combat a go, for the sake of authenticity (and a whole host of safety reasons) 1st century man on man combat has to be a no no!

2. Because of the more open order skirmish formations and the general use of the largely slashing Spatha as opposed to the largely thrusting Gladius, it would appear that man on man combat is better achieved by the late Roman re enactors. Not perfect perhaps, but possible!

Another aspect of this discussion which was raised I do now have to pick up on. The quality of equipment (especially shields) following combat. In my view, one thing that the (non Combat) re enactors have over the (Combat) re enactors is the look and quality of their equipment.

In most cases, a non combat outfit (of any period) will look immaculate, whereas a combat outfit can fall down in this area! This is most apparent with shields.

I realise of course that in reality, war gear would have been repaired and been taken care of to a better or lesser degree, but this unfortunately is not always the case with modern re enactment groups that engage in combat, shields particularly can look very sorry affairs which detract from overall appearance of the group as a whole. I suppose there are ways around this problem….one shield for combat, one shield for display etc.

So, it appears there will always be the compromise for both groups. 1st century ‘sharps’ means immaculate ‘look’ but no combat…Late Roman ‘blunts’ means combat but with at times less than perfect equipment!

There will always be exceptions to this rule but is that generally the way it is right now?

Ken.

[John Conyard]

Almost, but not quite.

From the thread training seems possible in the 4th-5th century, with sharp missile weapons and blunted swords and capped spears. "Combat" seems to be very hard to achieve convincingly, and can easily fall into cavorting ninny status if not done well. Training seems a safe middle ground. Combat is a word that comes loaded with all sorts of unfortunate connotations in terms of authenticity, equipment, etc etc.