Why do 1st Century Roman groups avoid combat

[Statius]

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.