Why do 1st Century Roman groups avoid combat

[Robert]

Perhaps I was mistaken in my understanding of "combat". The example you give (blunt tipped projectiles thrown at a defensive formation to demonstrate it's effectiveness) is in my belief a totaly valid part of a re-enactment spectacle. Just as the riders doing demos hacking off cabbage heads.

Edit: sorry John, cross posted. You make a very valid point.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think we are now looking at three types of 'combat':

First:

choreographed public demonstration which is highly organized and perhaps rehearsed which can be fairly safe even using blunted steel weapons.

This may give the public an idea about Roman movements on the battlefield. However, it’s only possible for larger group (by that I mean 15-20 or more) who have had plenty of time to rehearse. As I’ve learned from experience, it’s nearly impossible even if you have a day to practice when the groups involved don’t know each other. The result is a bit like equipping a group with plastic shields – it looks nice from a distance, but no more.

Second:

"free play" battle where there are scoring rules of some sort and which often substitute "Safe" weapons for steel ones.

This is next to useless for Roman groups. No matter how many times I see videos of this from Medieval groups who even practice this for many times each year, the result is always the same: the ‘scoring’ and the safety involved always comes down to a one-on-one, even when dozens of people are facing each other. Almost always, the semblance of a unit is lost and a melee ensues.
For Roman re-enactment it’s next to useless, but I immediately agree it is great fun for all involved.

Third:

blunt tipped projectiles thrown at a defensive formation to demonstrate it's effectiveness

As with the above, the usefulness is limited by the aspect of danger. It may give an audience some idea about missile coverage during a battle, but because no danger can be involved, it can’t be anything real.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly there. I’ll go a bit further, I think that no practical lessons can be learned because the conditions in which we practice ‘battle’ are totally different from an actual battle.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Perhaps I was mistaken in my understanding of "combat". The example you give (blunt tipped projectiles thrown at a defensive formation to demonstrate it's effectiveness) is in my belief a totaly valid part of a re-enactment spectacle. Just as the riders doing demos hacking off cabbage heads.

Edit: sorry John, cross posted. You make a very valid point.

That sort of demonstration of weaponry is fine Indeed!
It is a limited display though, whereas I have only seen
One group show combat against cavalry!
Standing passively without defending ones position does disservice to
The infantry in a display, and is not really combat! There again, showing safety
Comes first! (although there is always the exception)

[M. Demetrius]

A mistake involving a galloping horse could equal a trip to the hospital, and/or a veterinarian. Odds are that's why they stand still next to the lane, eh?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, unless the rider deliberately rides into the infantry!
Not much he can do about that!
However, in reality, I think even the densest of cavalrymen
Would think twice about riding into a wall of armed and armoured men.
Unless he had a death wish!

[Robert]

The horse, do not forget the horse! Horses are smart, they try to avoid riding into anything that looks like a solid mass. So even if the cavalryman has a deathwish, this does not mean his horse will comply.

[jvrjenivs]

The horse, do not forget the horse! Horses are smart, they try to avoid riding into anything that looks like a solid mass. So even if the cavalryman has a deathwish, this does not mean his horse will comply.

Although you might have a point there, it's not that simple as it seems. It's all back to the training the cavalryman and his horse have gone through. But well, that's with all the stuff about 'crossing the river in kit'.

[M. Demetrius]

Like all the other combat skills, they were doing it for a slightly more serious reason than we are. :unsure: hock:

[Agricola]

I think cost plays a large part why some Roman re-enactors are reluctant to go into combat. For Dark Age groups the equipment, from the armour to the shields, tend to be much cheaper than their Roman equivalents. Therefore finding replacements for damaged equipment hits the Roman re-enactors pocket harder than a Dark Age one. Also, if you make your own equipment, your less likely to want to have it smashed or broken, considering the time you've poured into it.

On another note: In the UK, is it true that Health & Safety groups don't approve of Roman re-enactors dispatching their pila in the general direction of others? I'm sure they even banned Neil Marshall from using them in the film Centurion.

[Robert]

As a Health & Safety professional, gunsman and archer, I would myself also take a very dim view of people discharging lethal weapons (amongst which I do also class pila) in the direction of others. Or even pointing a drawn bow with a nocked arrow in the general direction. This view has however nothing to do with the excistance of regulations prohibiting it, it is a well understood aspect of common sense. Watching programs like Jackass however prove time and again this is a somewhat rare commodity at times, so it would seem.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As the saying goes, "Common sense is .....not...... very common". :whistle:

[Agricola]

I can certainly see that throwing a sharp piece of metal on a stick at someone could be considered dangerous. :wink:

It makes me think of some scenes from old films such as Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) where extras had javelins thrown at them as they charged down a hill (in the battle in Germania scene). I wonder how much the extras were payed to film such hazardous scenes. Apparently in the film The 300 Spartans (1961) a guy cops a javelin right in the face. :o

[M. Demetrius]

a javelin right in the face

Yikes! That could spoil your whole day!

[Appius]

Throwing (replica) spears in mock battles would be a show of stupidity, I think the majority of us would agree on that. However... Who says you have to use those?


Have two sets. One for parades and displays, one for mock battles. Use light wood, soft and large-enough padded tips, shafts covered with tape to limit splinters. Train people to cover their heads with shields to avoid head injuries. Forbid everybody to throw one without being ordered to and make sure the people who give such orders know when it is safe to give one. Use a few more precautions and you can lower the risks to somewhere near lightning strikes levels.

Sure, it will not be 100% safe. Nothing is 100% safe, not even typing the posts in this thread was. Everyone has to decide what kind of risks they are willing to take.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I agree! In my career, I spent long periods undertaking high risk
Tasks, routinely!
Far higher than this mock battle lark! However, some people who consider themselves
Highly trained(which usually means they attend a training session once or twice a year)
actually seem to think they can get away with cheap shots, (and then
come up with some BS reason why it is the opponents fault)
When they can take as good as they can give, I'll be interested! 8-)