The problem that arrises with "the real thing" is that it involves hacking to pieces a by and large unarmoured opponent in a very controled manner. That is what made the Roman army great, dicipline, training and superior weaponary.
I believe there is still very much to be won in a good drill display, showing the whole range of Roman combat. This calls for a sizable group, not six soldiers and a bloody centurion to lead them.
Investing in wicker training shields and wooden swords may well add to the display, with role play of unarmoured agressor against Roman soldier. This can be performed by smaller groups, too, as the training is mainly one on one. Also, it can attain a high degree of authenticity, something just not possible in a combat display.
The public does want to be entertained, but even they will realise "the real thing" just isn't on. This is NOT football, the real thing is bloody war. And they "know", thanks to Hollywood, what a "real" battle looks like. Blood, gore and guts, limbs hacked off, heads split. Charges decimated by pila and arowshowers, splintering on shield walls, the opponent trodden down in a controlled and massive advance, the fleeing survivors ridden down by cavalry.
Ten Romans taking on fourteen Celts/Dacians/Carthagians just doesn't cut the mustard, it quickly turns into a dangerous one on one melee and does not reflect "the real thing" of battle in the first century.
Being from Alabama I have seen re-enactments of the civil War. It is a different world altogether ad in that period 90% of the fighting was at long range and only a small portion close-in hand to hand. Using no live rifle or artillery round it's easy to make a lot of excitement with smoke and noise to spare.
It's just the opposite with Roman or any ancient fighting as most and sometimes all is close-in hand to hand. Movies like Gladiator make massive displays but they require much rehearsal and are a result of thousands of little film snippets pieced together. You can't do this with a live mock battle.
I think most of us agree that mock fighting is dangerous in itself using anything harder than a piece of foam. A shield can cause injuries to another participant simply due to it's rigid structure. Even with all the disagreements here all points made have been valid. The whole process is a risk to life limb and property which the participants who volunteer for the job have to weigh in their minds.
I can seriously identify with both sides in this discussion. I would love to "play war" but I don't relish the idea of being injured and much less killed. Maybe a bruise or two but please leave out cuts and broken bones and the like :-)
This has been very interesting reading so far! :eek:
Battle re-enactments can be hard to stage well because lack of participants/accuracy, while training exercises can be staged very simply. There is no need for choreography if it is a training exercise, which gives genuine interest to the public of the final outcome of each part.
Training also allows the public to view a vast array of weaponry and skills, in a controlled fashion. This helps the public to understand not only the capabilities of weapon but also the safety and care involved in using them.
Surely if you have any claim to authenticity, your clothing and equipment should stand to wear and tear, and you should not be afraid of its ability to protect you. You should be able to show you can walk, run, train, ride, & swim in it!
What is the point of getting such good (and often expensive gear) if you are too afraid to step out of the front door in it for fear of rain or over-use. Pay what you need to pay, and go out and use it! Only by using equipment on foot and especially by horseback will you learn about the actually practicality/strength of your kit.
I do not think that one period kit costs more or less than another. If you recreate any period of history well you are going to end up paying the roughly the same cost!
There is plenty of mileage for first Century groups to do combat in displays...if they really want to.
Amy Wallace
A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group www.comitatus.net
I have participated in both SCA armored combat-especially the Pennsic War and in a couple Roman combat scenarios - at Lafe and at New Ulm - both in 2009. It is only finances that really keeps me from getting to Lafe, now Clash of Iron.
One thing that made a difference when I was fighting in the SCA was the regularity that we in my household unit and in the larger Southern Army of the East Kingdom got together to practice both small unit and large tactics. From June to August I was nearly every weekend traveling somewhere to NY or New Jersey to war practice. I went with my knight to the Pennsic War councils as his chief of staff. Thus I knew the combat tactics and strategies for the various battles at Pennsic during the years I fought.
The combat conventions at Lafe are a bit different, but still the adrenaline rush of combat is there.
New Ulm was somewhat choregraphed, but we had combatants of all ages and many simply picked up sticks from the woods for swords or spears and threw pine cones at us Romans during the initial combat (of the "first day"). The true Roman/German reenactors were a core but the rest of the two sides was filled out by locals who volunteered that day. We reenactors used mock weapons, ditching the idea of a special live steel combat segment at the end. We simply did not have time to properly work out the details for it.
We in my legion are exploring needlefelt combat - as we do think that it might make things more interesting, especially if we combine events with Celtic or Germanic groups. Up until that decision, we have only been a display unit. But some of the members don't want to just march around, though some of them are not interested in mock fighting either. I, as one of only two with exposure to needlefelt need some guidance in the making of the weapons. There are a different couple of us, including me, with some exposure to SCA combat.
I, too, enjoyed the video Rado posted - thanks. I noted that many of the Romans rarely used their swords - holding them behind their shields. I liked the way the video and I presume the reenactment scenario, itself, told the story of the Dacian Wars including the fate of Roman soldiers captured by the Dacians (the scene on Trajan's Column of the Roman prisioners being tortured by the Dacian women comes to mind). I liked the New Ulm event for that reason - It told a story - of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Lafe is an immersion event with a story/scenario - that I really enjoy, too. The effort to stay in an ancient world persona is worth it.
I'll honestly say that different members of my legion and its auxiliaries bring different ideas of what they want out of reenacting the Roman army into the mix. Some of our members are into the crafts side - the making of equipment, tools, a cart, and artillery, etc. They are not so much into the soldiering side of things. It seems to be a constant endeavor to keep the interest by our members going right now. But, that is a whole other matter. But, it is one of the reasons we decided to open up to the idea of doing combat and not just talking about it. We are still a long way to go.
Quinton Johansen
Marcus Quintius Clavus, Optio Secundae Pili Prioris Legionis III Cyrenaicae
Quote: The problem that arrises with "the real thing" is that it involves hacking to pieces a by and large unarmoured opponent in a very controled manner. That is what made the Roman army great, dicipline, training and superior weaponary.
True, but how is this different from later Roman warefare?
Quote: I believe there is still very much to be won in a good drill display, showing the whole range of Roman combat. This calls for a sizable group, not six soldiers and a bloody centurion to lead them.
True again. What kind of size do you feel is sizable?
Quote: Investing in wicker training shields and wooden swords may well add to the display, with role play of unarmoured agressor against Roman soldier. This can be performed by smaller groups, too, as the training is mainly one on one. Also, it can attain a high degree of authenticity, something just not possible in a combat display.
The public does want to be entertained, but even they will realise "the real thing" just isn't on. This is NOT football, the real thing is bloody war. And they "know", thanks to Hollywood, what a "real" battle looks like. Blood, gore and guts, limbs hacked off, heads split. Charges decimated by pila and arowshowers, splintering on shield walls, the opponent trodden down in a controlled and massive advance, the fleeing survivors ridden down by cavalry.
Ten Romans taking on fourteen Celts/Dacians/Carthagians just doesn't cut the mustard, it quickly turns into a dangerous one on one melee and does not reflect "the real thing" of battle in the first century
Again, I do not really see how this differs from later period warefare.
I took considerable time making my scutum, as did others in my unit. We have pretty good looking semi-replica shields, and we're proud of them. I hear some people say they don't want to use their shields in even mock combat for fear of their getting damaged. I take a different view. My scutum has scuffs of other colored paint from being transported, and occasionally falling down against someone else's shield in the wind. A few scuffs and damaged edging material, plus a couple of actual dents in the shield boss? No problem, as long as the hand fits in the cavity. I just look at is as one that has been through a little use.
For the record, needled felt swords and spears don't damage equipment, either, beyond perhaps buffing an area a little more glossy. (the felt can be moistened, dipped in wood ashes and used to polish metal, even.) They're about as safe as it gets. The shafts of spears are something to look out for, because they're just a length of hard wood.
I would love to see someone swimming in their armour....:lol:
First century groups do perform combat manouvers, rather than knockabout sessions.
What we don't do enough of, and the thing I enjoyed when I was a memeber of Comitatus,
was the practice sessions, ie, the use of the bows, artillary, and not really applicable for firsat cent, the francisca.
We also do sessions using artilary, ranging from small chieroballista to the catapults and ballista of the earluer period, including the smaller stonethrowers (which ae not very small)and bows.
However, Good, Throwable pila seem to be hard to source cheaply, I think the biggest hurdle
is turning the wooden shafts. Something I thing a good carpenter wit ha lathe could handle, just need to source enough ash wood, with out breaking the bank.
However, there is a lot more to early scuta, compared to flat plank/plywood boardds ,which are not really helpful in fighting accurately.
And rain is no barrier to our events...as Detling and Housteads are a small testimony to. 8-)
Does seem to scare the public though, sometimes. Ofcourse, those in later kit are covered from head to toe, so probably don't enjoy the full effect of a good british summer like the earlier groups do. 8-)
any hoo, I hear the call of the Cidre again.... 8-)
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Quote:A few scuffs and damaged edging material, plus a couple of actual dents in the shield boss? No problem, as long as the hand fits in the cavity. I just look at is as one that has been through a little use.
Agreed, my scutum looks better and I resist calls to re-do the painting to make it look better. :wink:
However, we do not fight with our shields, for replacing them each year would be above my budget. Look at the (equally) Late Roman group Britannia, who often make a shield every year (or so they tell me) for each year a shield becomes too damaged to repair.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Where's the rest of his kit (and his unit)? The Druids arn't going to run from just him once he reaches Anglsy!!
or the Catuvellauni across the Medway!
We get just as wet parading around and forming into battle formation, with all our kit on.
8-)
but hats off to him.
@ Robert, Same, I bought a fantastic late roman sheild, and the price sadly makes it too expensive to bust up and replace every year.
A bit of a scuffle is one thing, but having cavalry sticking spears into it at full pelt would be too expensive.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Salve,
Our group in Poland use normal metal weapons for fighting from the begining. It's almost the best part of this hobby for me - fighting Sometimes it hurts you, sometimes you have to repair something. Ofcours we have many rules to make it safe as much as possible.
Normaly we fight in full contact combats against celtic or carthaginian reenactors.
For the last years we had an opportunities to fight against vikings. For the example this year we trained with a group Skirmer in Denmark (except fighting with polish groups). Our equipment let us to fight as equal
I think that there is a lot of confusion in this thread over what should be meant by 'fighting'.
There are two main divisions here that I can see:
First, there is what, in my own combat re-enactment days, we used to refer to as "going for a bash". This is where you are fighting in a way which might be visually exciting, tiring and possibly exhilarating, but which has no real connection to the fighting techniques used by those you are supposedly depicting.
This might employ either metal or wooden weapons (or needlefelt if you will) and in order not to be potentially very dangerous requires a good deal of both training and restraint by participants. My old group used to spend about two hours every week training, to master 'point accuracy', weapon technique, pulling full speed blows and practicing believable reactions to assumed wounds.
This is all fun but it is not the same as fighting in a realistic manner, and therefore teaches little or nothing to either the audience or the participants of the reality of ancient combat. It is fun then, but it is not re-enactment.
Second, there is the accurate (within reason) portrayal of ancient combat. This is difficult, if not impossible to achieve in a first century display, according to what scant knowledge we possess of the tactics and fighting techniques of the period. Even if we could get the watching public to somehow imagine that the men in front of them (who probably number no more than twenty) represent an eight ranked battle line, we are still left with three fundamental problems that I can see:
Firstly, despite all the talk of swords and spears so far, from what we understand of the equipment of soldiers (legionaries in particular) any sort of contact with the enemy in a set piece battle would be proceeded by skirmishers throwing javelins and then with volleys of pila being thrown into the enemy ranks. Although I pride myself on being able to 'pull' a blow with any weapon which I am wielding in my hand, I can think of no way to reduce the penetrative force of a pilum after it had left my hand. This means that pila could not be thrown at a re-enactment opposition. This would mean (even assuming all participants actually had the skill to throw a pilum in what we could assume would be a realistic manner) that if pila were to be thrown, they would either all have to be deliberately thrown short, which would look silly if we are supposedly depicting trained professionals, or all deliberately thrown so that they passed over the heads of the opposition and landed behind them, which would also look silly, as well as carrying the worrying risk that some might fall short and land amongst the opposition, where they might very well end up doing what the Romans et al designed them to do. Now, it should be stated here that various attempts have been made to make pila for re-enactment combat use, utilising foam or polystyrene to form the 'metal' shanks. However, these did not fly well and ended up lying around over the field looking exactly like the pieces of foam and polystyrene that they really were, which was not very satisfactory, to which could be added the fact that they were good for one use only, requiring a whole new set to be made next time.
Secondly, as has already been pointed out in this thread, we only have very general descriptions of ancient combat to go on, with even something as valuable as Arian's order of battle telling us next to nothing of the way in which weapons were used or how formations formed up and then moved once in combat. Authors like Caesar seem very promising but when we look closely we find we are still no closer to knowing how to hold, thrust or throw a weapon. We have no idea how the famous exchanging of lines really worked and even with the most intensive study of sculptural depictions we can still only guess at how even swords were used. Unlike more recent periods, beginning with the fifteenth century, we do not have the benefit of drill books or manuals telling us precisely how to use this or that weapon. Therefore, if we try to tell the watching public that they are seeing an authentic display of Roman fighting technique, we are telling a lie, as we ourselves do not known how the Romans really fought. This would apply as much to skirmish combat as it does to set piece battles.
Thirdly, most groups are not big enough to divide into two to provide both Romans and Britons/Gauls/Germans/Persians in sufficient numbers to look good. It is one thing to show a solid block of twenty Romans or a 'horde' of twenty 'barbarians' either of which could actually look fairly effective to the public but quite another to have only ten of each to participate in the battle and even that would be assuming that enough people wanted to do without their 'glamourous' Roman equipment in order to provide the opposition. There are, of course, possible solutions to this problem. One is to work with another group, who will provide the opposition. However, our period is hardly awash with 'Celtic', German or Persian groups and those few that do exist may have wildly differing attitudes to both authenticity and safety, in my own experience at least. The other solution is the inescapable fact that many people are drawn to combat re-enactment and so if you promote yourself as a combat group (like Britannia) you are likely to attract more members, particularly if some can get away with not having to invest in as much expensive hard kit as most early Imperial re-enactors have to. A cheap Intercissa helmet, a basic belt, a combat ready shield and a blunt spear end up being a lot cheaper than an Imperial Gallic helmet, segmentata, curved scutum, pilum, basic belt and gladius. That said, I do not recall ever seeing Britannia's late Romans throwing plumbatae at their opposition, which surely should be a feature of a realistic portrayal of late Roman combat (which would in any case bring us back to my first point), which means that Britannia's style of combat cannot really be seen as an accurate portrayal of ancient combat and moves them back into the same 'bashing' category as most Viking groups, who do not employ archery, despite it being a well attested part of Scandinavian warfare.
Because of these three points I don't think we can ever claim to be able to achieve a realistic portrayal of Roman combat. If you want to go and have a bash, fine - just don't claim it to be Roman combat.
What we *can* do (and many groups do this very well), is perform drill and training displays, which do not present most of the problems outlined above and which can be taken to represent an everyday part of military existence, even if we do not know precisely how the Romans themselves actually conducted their own drill. My own group always makes this known to the audience early on in the display so that they know that they are watching men doing (what we hope is) a realistic portrayal of Roman soldiers performing assumed drill to demonstrate some of the formations we believe the Romans employed.
All too often when we see re-enactment battles, we are allowed to assume that they represent a realistic view, but this is rarely the case. Thus we see Civil War re-enactors forming pike blocks but when they come to the so called 'push of pike' they keep their pikes vertical so that the business ends are nowhere near the people in the opposing block; we see Viking and Anglo-Saxon re-enactors using no bows, too many swords and not enough spears; we see fifteenth century billmen tapping each other with their bills because to use them properly would be far too dangerous; and we see Napoleonic and American Civil War re-enactors giving very realistic fusillades (with realistic looking casualties as well) but we do not see them using bayonets on each other.
There is a place for re-enactment combat, but I don't think all periods are really suitable to include in it and I think first early Imperial Roman really is a case in point. As I said, if you you want to bash - fine - that is up to you. It is not Roman combat though and I for one would not wish to knowingly mislead the public in such a way.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
Quote:The other solution is the inescapable fact that many people are drawn to combat re-enactment and so if you promote yourself as a combat group (like Britannia) you are likely to attract more members, particularly if some can get away with not having to invest in as much expensive hard kit as most early Imperial re-enactors have to. A cheap Intercissa helmet, a basic belt, a combat ready shield and a blunt spear end up being a lot cheaper than an Imperial Gallic helmet, segmentata, curved scutum, pilum, basic belt and gladius. That said, I do not recall ever seeing Britannia's late Romans throwing plumbatae at their opposition, which surely should be a feature of a realistic portrayal of late Roman combat (which would in any case bring us back to my first point), which means that Britannia's style of combat cannot really be seen as an accurate portrayal of ancient combat and moves them back into the same 'bashing' category as most Viking groups, who do not employ archery, despite it being a well attested part of Scandinavian warfare.
Because of these three points I don't think we can ever claim to be able to achieve a realistic portrayal of Roman combat. If you want to go and have a bash, fine - just don't claim it to be Roman combat.
Crispvs
Crispvs whilst agreeing with much of your argument can I just firstly point out that Britannia also have a considerable living history arm as well as the 'combat re-enactment' that you cite and secondly that Britannia shows do often involve the throwing of Plumbatae as evidenced at Old Sarum the other week- I fully accept that you added the caveat you did not recall but just wished to correct you on that point.
I'm not entirely sure that you can claim to be an authority on why members are drawn to Britannia (as you have chosen to use this as an example) but speaking personally a number of other factors encouraged me to join other than 'combat re-enactment'.
I think it would benefit everyone if instead of naming specific groups to make points (sometimes erroneously) we stick to the question at hand and talk in more general terms of what has hitherto been a very interesting and worthwhile debate.
I only mentioned Britannia specifically because it had already been mentioned in the thread.
Yes, I was aware that Britannia threw plumbatae but had not realised that you do so during your battles (am I correct to infer this from your post?). How do you manage to do this safely?
Having spent a good deal of time around Britannia over the years I was also aware of the living history element but I did not think that living history displays (in the accepted sense of the term) were the matter under discussion.
I accept that there are many possible reasons for people to wish to join any re-enactment group. When I joined a combatant group myself twenty years ago it was not the combat itself which most interested me. However, the possibility of engaging in mock combat is a strong one for many people, as I think some of the comments already in this thread show. I have seen many people joining my own group who left again shortly afterwards when they discovered we did not engage in combat. We would be a much larger group if we were a fighting group, I am sure, even if not all members of the group wished to be part of the fighting element. As a parallel, your own group has members who do not wish to participate in gladiator fights but by the same token, I am sure this element has drawn some others in. I have also met members of various groups (including Britannia) who have expressed no interest in the living history side of things and were there primarily for the shows involving combat. As I said, I think combat is draw card for many people, in whatever period. Thus we often see larger 'fighting' societies than purely living history societies, which tend to be smaller. So engaging in combat *can* help a group to become larger. The caveat to that though, is that just because a group is larger, it does not guarantee that it is fighting in an acceptably historically authentic manner.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
In the US it's illegal, the only thing we're really allowed to do is the gladiator fights with needlefelt swords.
That and on a Good Day 6 people is a lot for us. The only time we ever get close to enough is at the Italian Festival and Castra Romana, and even then we only have like, 12 Guys. Considering Legio XI doesn't join in on Drill and stuff it's more like 9.
Sometimes it hurts you, sometimes you have to repair something. Ofcours we have many rules to make it safe as much as possible.
