Why do 1st Century Roman groups avoid combat

[Augustus Janus]

I'm not really up on the historical facts but knowing the Roman mentality, they were creative and innovative so usually found some way around most any obstacle and I just can't see them coming up to a river and thinking "Damn! A river! Oh well we'll just have to turn around and go home."

I would maybe surmise that they had multiple strategies and would deploy different ones depending on available time and resources. Maybe goat skins, maybe rafts. If nothing else, the Romans were persistent as hell and didn't give up easily so I would be sure they used whatever means at their disposal and I somehow don't think it would have been swimming your soldiers across in full gear :-)

Jim

[Robert]

OK, as we seen to be off topic anyway, please consider the following:

The Batavians were reputed to cross river in full armour. There is no mention of any other flotation devises, be it goatskins or otherwise. The crossing of a river was usually done at a ford, a place where the river could be waded. In a battle situation, the enemy would have guarded that ford well to deny passage and retain the upper hand, as the battle would be very constricted to that crossingpoint. The role of the Batavians cavalry was to upset their defence, tear into their bagagetrain, wreck general havoc in the rear lines, but not get stuck in a pitching battle against the whole enemy force. So if and when a Batavian unit crossed, they came on the opposite bank driping wet, but totaly geared for action and fully armoured. The crossing would have been made out of sight of the ford and the essembled enemy troops, who, having a full cavalry unit unleashed on them as the felt safe on their side of the river, could not maintain their full attention of defending the ford. This would allow the Roman infantary troops to advance on the ford under covering fire from their artillary and archers and remove the obstacles placed in their way, thus clearing the path for the army's advance across the ford to do battle.

So it is not about how the Romans went about crossing a river, they were excellent engineers and given some time, could well devise ways of crossing dry, like using a bridge or some boats. In the time of Ceasar, it was a different kind of war to when the Batavians were around, and regular units may well have been sent across using floats to secure a bridgehead (to build a bridge :-) ), but this would almost certainly not have been done in the face of the enemy. They would have been hacked to pieces on the opposite shore.

[Augustus Janus]

Well I would have to say then Robert those guys had to have been bloody good and tough as hell. I wouldn't attempt to demonstrate the methods myself in a re-enactment situation without some sort of safety device attached. I would love to see it demonstrated though. Since it's not a combat demonstration maybe that isn't against regulations and a 1st century group could try it (trying to be a bit back on topic lol)

Jim

[Robert]

Yep, it is small wonder these lads were mentioned several times as an outstanding unit. They were indeed tough as hell! No wonder they recieved tax exemption and other bonus rewards for being part of the Roman army.

But quite frankly, your safety devise is your horse. Just do not let go !! illy:

A inflatable lifepreserver under your mail is another option, I suppose. Just be sure to remove the salt tablet and only leave the manual ripcord for emergency use, or you will find yourself bobbing to the surface after a very short time indeed.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes Robert, that is what I understood for the Medway crossing!
The reference to bladders was referring to Caesar, so not
The same, IIRC (however, I am struggling to recall this, as I
Mentioned)
Anyway, that would be another example of drill display,
Assuming you can always get events near a river!

[Robert]

And do please note my previous comment on the type of river to be crossed! Modern day rivers, due to adaptations made to help shipping, can be very different to the rivers the Romans would have had to deal with. This will cause the expanse of water the horse will actually have to swim to be a LOT wider then in the old days, as well as the depth and speed of current, increasing the danger of misshap.

[66kbm]

Hi all
I am so cautious to get involved in this thread but eventually i had to give my pennies worth.
Most 1st cent groups are living history, ie. this is what it was like, as said many times before, sharp pointy weapons produce casualties, not wanted, and finally, years ago we used to call the Saxon/Norman reenactors "bikers with blankets"...its moved on tremendously since those days...but....a good fight/battle atracts the public but does it do more than a good drill display..good as in an AVGII ortunatly the ESG are allways absent from these debates/coments made. There is so much more t6o showing the public the things that are available in respect to Roman Mi;litary life, as the ESG would probabvly back me up on, without goinig through the phase of trying to kill each other...Roman gear...sharp and pointy....once again its gonna hurt/maime/kill
Dont want that.
Kevin

[scotti73]

Cassius Dio stated that the Batavians crossed rivers with 3 or 4 infantry holding on to the horse(by the saddle horns??) thus the horse was the flotation device. Big brass balls though.

[scott]

I'm afraid I have to side with some of the other posters here. At the risk of offending people I think the whole idea of mock combat is simply a bit silly. How can anybody possibly hope to demonstrate what combat was like two millenia ago by dressing up, often in innacurate equipment, and charging around in a field whacking each other with blunt weapons? It's ridiculous. There are a thousand reasons I could go into but quite frankly I just can't see the point. Re-enactment is one thing, playing at soldiers is another. I don't think the two should be confused.

[M. Demetrius]

If you can't see the point, then clearly that activity is not for you. Odd, though, that people who don't want to "play at soldiers", as you put it, regularly disparage those who do enjoy that activity. You'll rarely hear the latter poking any jibes at those who don't. Don't want to? Don't. Want to? Have fun and be safe.

I do both.

[Robert]

I do believe the point Scott is making was completely missed here. I tend to agree, as I argumented at length in my post on the WHY, with the opinion Re-enactment is one thing, playing at soldiers is another. I don't think the two should be confused.

There is nothing "wrong" with playing soldiers, but its place and value in re-enactment was under discussion. In my view its value, be it scientific or educational, is non existant from a more professional viewpoint, it does always end up looking rather silly. The true reason many 1st century groups avoid combat could lay in their better understanding of exacly those points. So in the end, it is not just down to damaging kit or people, they perhaps avoid combat for the simple reason there is just no added value to be gained. Other then recreational, that is.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If you can't see the point, then clearly that activity is not for you. Odd, though, that people who don't want to "play at soldiers", as you put it, regularly disparage those who do enjoy that activity. You'll rarely hear the latter poking any jibes at those who don't. Don't want to? Don't. Want to? Have fun and be safe.

I do both.

You should perhaps read between the lines occassionally Dave.

[M. Demetrius]

I agree in principle with what's been said, don't get me wrong here. But I think it's not the best choice to extend one's own view to an implied mandate, and disparaging comments from either side to the other are just not warranted, that's all. :|

That's my view, but others are perfectly free to have another. Some have a great deal of fun with needled felt, blunt steel, padded spear, or whatever means of making the "combat" safer. Being in a paintball match is not like live ammo combat, but it's fun instead of deadly. Both have their place. Those who don't want to participate in non-lethal gaming, should not do so. But they are probably out of line for the most part, by saying to those who do that their activity is pointless.

I won't argue the issue, though. Think whatever you like, gentlemen and ladies.

[M. Val. Naso]

If a group/several groups can do a combat reenactment (blunt steel or wooden or anything), up to par with standards, why shouldn't they? The viewers like it, and you can show formations and ifghting more intensively. Because yes, I can show them a fulcum right away without enemies, but it's much better against real thrown missile weapons.

[jkaler48]

I feel that there are two distinct types of "Combat".

The first which is choreographed public demonstration which is highly organized and perhaps rehearsed which can be fairly safe even using blunted steel weapons. If done correctly I feel this can be an effective demonstration of Roman Legionary tactics and their application in battle for the public.

Second is the "free play" battle where there are scoring rules of some sort and which often substitute
"Safe" weapons for steel ones. With this type of battle it is much more difficult to present an accurate demonstration of Legionary tactics due to the level of training of the participants and other variables. It does, however, give the actual battle participants some small sense of the difficulty and emotional impact of ancient warfare as well as being a great deal of fun.

Whether either of these combat recreations could ever be valid ways of testing theories about how battle was ACTUALLY conducted is a matter for debate. Limitations of numbers of participants, level of training and the modern necessity of not actually killing or maiming anyone are a few of the factors that limit both the testing validity and the accuracy of the reenactment.