Full blown combat or display only?

[Hodekin]

This has been a very interesting discussion, but the one critical element that seems to be missing from it has been any mention of morale.

Very few battles -- ever -- have been decided by one side killing the other to a man. Instead, the vast majority of battles were (and still are) decided when one side perceives it is losing, and then breaks. Adrian Goldsworthy provides some great discussion of this in his "Roman Army at War," as does John Keegan in "Face of Battle." As a serving Soldier, I can tell you that fear is a factor in combat, real fear that is not present in a re-enactment but is dominant in combat.

You are absolutely correct, my serving days are long behind me, but I remember fearing only too well the one shot that I would never hear or see, but would be for me anyway!

My main objection to actual "steel-on-steel" or other forms of hand-to-hand combat by re-enactors has therefore been that either a) the combat has to be scripted to the extent that one side will "lose" (with a very good chance of injury nonetheless) or b) that guys will tend to pound on each other long after one side would have broken because there is no (perceived) chance of sustaining a debilitating or fatal wound.

Combat by re enactors would have to be scripted, there is no other way, even to make it seem real, it would need to be scripted.

Thus, for me (and me alone, this is my opinion only) I tend to shy away from "combat" re-enactment since it does not accurately portray the effects that morale would exercise on the combatants.

Regards,

Edge

I entirely understand you point of view Edge, I do however advocate combat, but as this interesting thread has shown, there is room enough for both disciplins I think!


Hodekin