VEMBRACES

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Garrelt,

From that Period on there is some clear evidence of Splinted protection.

Is it not telling that as soon as we changes in the swords (quillions?) we also begin to see clear evidence of wrist protection? Of course I agree with you and Matt about evidence and the absence of it, but I think this development also tells us a lot.

What is also a little bit strange is that there is evidence of lower leg guard(s), written and Archaeological, from the whole Roman era but so little from protecting the lower arm/hand.
This is also strange because the bones in the lower leg are almost the same length as those from the lower arm, so a lower leg guard could easily be fitted to the lower arm.

Exactly. We do have evidence of shin protection (ocreae), yet no vambraces. I would say that this indeed points to a different sword technique, where the shield offers enough protection for the sword arm. Apparently the shield was not dropped to protect the leg, especially the left leg which was often in front of the right one (manuals tell us that at least the left leg needs to be protected).

Now, can anyone explain to me that while the arm did perhaps not need protection, but the leg apparently did, why the feet were not protected at all? hock:

There are more scratches of weapon contact on my Vambraces than on my lower leg guard. Same goes for my metal Manica that I use as a Gladiator.

Wel, this is telling us much about your fighting technique then? Apparently, your outstretched arm is in front of your shieldrim, and perhaps Roman legionaries fought in a different manner.

After Wolin my protective glove had to be repaired after being in contact with a 2 handed axe and my lamella needs a complete rebuild a lot of the Rawhide, which hold the plates together, was broken due to the impact force of the fighting.

I guess this happened a lot to every soldier in battle.

[garrelt]

Robert

Outstretching the arm has also something to do with the length of the weapon used.
The shorter the blade the closer you have to be.
Also the size of the shield can force you to overstretch.
Sometimes in a fight it is hard to estimate the distance to an opponent, obstructed field of vision by a helmet ,shield or the weapon lengths of the opponents.
I also use the Manica as an weapon arm shield to block the opponents weapon before I hit him with my shield.
In a full battle you also have to watch the other players on the field.

Come to think of it I have never seen you fighting a real Duel.
Well you know where to find me if you want some basic training. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Garrelt,

Outstretching the arm has also something to do with the length of the weapon used.
The shorter the blade the closer you have to be.
Also the size of the shield can force you to overstretch.

Oh, it was not meant as a critique, please understand me well, I just meant that you are fighting in a different manner than a legionary would have. The order would be much closer than you guys fight in, and the gladius would be shorter than your sword, plus the scutum would be larger than your shield. Just meant to say that you need a protection whilst a legionary may not have needed one.

Come to think of it I have never seen you fighting a real Duel.
Well you know where to find me if you want some basic training. :wink:

And you are correct in that observation! If you offer training I might well take you up on that. We wanted to do so years ago, but then you stopped giving training.

Any thoughts about the lack of foot armour?

[garrelt]

Robert

I have never stopped training, in fact I personally train about 4 hours a week.
Not including the events where I take the field.

Starting tomorrow in Archeon.
3 days of training and 2 days of 2 fight shows a day.

Foot protection.
Same as with the lower arm and the hands, no evidence.
No fun someone standing on your barefeet or your soft shoes with his hobnailed boots.
Also don't forget the antipersonal material like caltrops on the field.
Or an arrow coming down, or being stabbed with the swordpoint or a spear in your foot.
One of the fighters assigned to my team in Wolin broke his big toe, thanks to the simple fact that the carrying strap of his shield broke.

The smallest weapon that I use is a knife with a 12cm blade, length according to the smallest Gladiator dagger in Junkelmans Book, the longest weapon a 2,5mtr long spear.

The words clog/galosh referes to a "protective" overshoe.
It is thought that Galosh referred to a overshoe worn by the Gauls.
But how it looked like, your guess is as good as mine.

[Gaius Colletti]

This implies that the Romans and millions of other fighters from other cultures were unreasonable if they did not use arm protection. What is reasonable to us is not necessarily reasonable to someone with a different perspective. There is no evidence for Roman vambraces. For whatever reason they saw no need for them.

Disagree, simply because someone is not reasonable does not be they are completely unreasonable, please don't twist my words. Once again, I will say this, in all caps this time because everyone likes to misquote me I WILL NEVER WEAR VAMBRACES IN REENACTING FOR THE SIMPLE REASON WE DO NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE FOR IT. FURTHERMORE I DO NOT WISH TO BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, I AM A SIMPLE SUPPORTER THAT ROMANS AT LEAST SOME OF THEM, MAY HAVE USED SOME SORT OF ARM PROTECTION, SINCE IT IS A VERY VULNERABLE AND VITAL EXTREMITY. Simply because I'm not on your "Arm protection doesn't exist outside of manica, which itself was rarely used" boat, does not mean that I am on the "Romans wores vambraces just like in the movies.

You in particular Dan have a way of seeing that if someone doesn't share your beliefs, they obviously are completely and utterly against you. This is not the case

[Dan Howard]

All I have said is that there is no evidence for Roman vambraces. We can never know for certain whether something was practiced or not so all we an go with is the evidence. Empty speculation helps nobody. As soon as someone comes up with credible evidence then things obviously change.

[Magnus]

Yeah, +1 to what Dan said.

Matt, I see where you are coming from, but you are applying modern logic to a situation of which we truly cannot possibly fathom. It's like saying the Romans could have discovered electricity and made light bulbs, even though there is no evidence for it. Sure, they were smart enough....BUT....

It has nothing to do with respect, or misquoting. The point being is that it is difficult at best to assume the Romans did something without any shred of evidence. So pick your battles. Some things can be stretched, others not so much.

What is also a little bit strange is that there is evidence of lower leg guard(s), written and Archaeological, from the whole Roman era but so little from protecting the lower arm/hand.
This is also strange because the bones in the lower leg are almost the same length as those from the lower arm, so a lower leg guard could easily be fitted to the lower arm.

It's not strange...it's a matter of technique. And your viking-era training is taking over too much of your thought process. It's quite simple and obvious. If there is no direct evidence of the Romans wearing lower arm protection than something made it possible for them not to need it. If you do not thrust your sword guard past your shield rim, and you should not have to when in combat, then the shield protects your arm!!! We have proven this time and time again at Lafe.

There are more scratches of weapon contact on my Vambraces than on my lower leg guard.
Same goes for my metal Manica that I use as a Gladiator.

And the tactics and shield shape are clearly different. They are apples and oranges, and makes any comparison irrelevant.

Garrelt, I have no doubt you are an accomplished fighter for your Viking era steel and wood combat. But I must respectfully point out that the style of combat is very far removed from that of Roman. I must humbly question what relevance any of it has to this discussion.

[Cerco 21]

@ Magnus: you belive that an 60-80cm simple blade reach was enough fighting in formation, and that the closed ranks never opened enough for you to reach your hand /arm out?

I must say that I've tried to fight like that and found it very limiting. Modern predjudices again.

Do you fight in formation as such, and can you land enough killing/debilitating blows?

Your units are able to maintain close formation and never break it?

[kranger3]

I just want to add food for thought.

An article by Philip Sabin, The Face of Roman Battle, does bring, I think, an interesting view about what a battle involving close combat would actually look like. The hack'n'slash we usually see in reenactments, according to his interpretation, would be out of the question. And I challenge any reenactor to hack it out for 6 hours in full gear... You have to conserve your strength in battle and this means fighting a certain way.

The Roman equipement has a very defensive value, which can be turned out into an offensive tool if used the right way. I think most reenactors want to be warriors instead of soldiers, in the sense that their own willingness to get into the fight (knowing full well that they won't die) takes precedence over discipline and cohesion (and the reality that in real fighting, you could die). Don't forget that a Roman army was no more than a mob if it lost its discipline. Discipline and cohesion were its strength, not individual combat prowess nor its weaponry.

A lot of argumentation I've read here, although valid in some ways, totally ignore the self-preservation aspect of a human beings engaged in combat. One wants to survive first, and as a second priority, to defeat his opponent. In that order! Ask any person who has been in real combat, and that's what he/she will tell you. The stage combat that is happening at reenactments is fine for entertainment, but has no relevance to actual combat. If you are in formation, are discipined, and fear that any opening you allow could cost your life, you will still fight, but much more defensively. And that's where the tower shield and the short sword shines. You wait for your opponent to make a mistake, and then you go right in. You then end up with a kill, including few or no scratches. Patience and discipline, that's what win battles.

And I don't need vembraces to take down an opponent who commits himself without thinking about his defensive stance. And if I'm "killed" or "wounded" during that first contact, then that guy will be wide open to my fighting buddy on my left, on my right, and behind me. And if that opponent forgets about them, he's the next one going down.

My two cents.

[Magnus]

@ Magnus: you belive that an 60-80cm simple blade reach was enough fighting in formation, and that the closed ranks never opened enough for you to reach your hand /arm out?

Yes to the first part...but the second bit about the closed ranks never opening up was your comment, not mine. The front rank that is engaged in combat is not, I repeat, not static. They don't sit in one spot and stab like robots. Combat is fluid. You always, always always lead with your shield first...using it to disable or confuse the enemy. Then you slide in behind your shield, and give a nice short stab to the target area. If you have to slide step ahead a few paces beyond the line then that is fine. Most of the time when this happens, the entire line surges ahead as well, which helps to keep you protected from a counter attack. OR as you move forward, the enemy moves back...in which case you return to your line and await your next opportunity. Patience is a virtue.

I must say that I've tried to fight like that and found it very limiting. Modern predjudices again.

Must be. We use it at Lafe, we train to fight this way and it is extremely effective. And this is a bunch of week-end warriors with very little training. Trust me, we get lots of moments of discipline break-down. :grin:

Do you fight in formation as such, and can you land enough killing/debilitating blows?

Absolutely. BUT if the celts are smart they will not close within range of us...they will try and keep us back with spears and have skirmishers pick us off with missile weapons. Of course, in theory we'd have our own support troops to counter that. But, in full out engagements, so long as our discipline doesn't break down and we maintain a line, we usually come out on top. Any "deaths" are usually due to these break downs and lack of skill. But it's amazing watching it and seeing how things may have worked.

Your units are able to maintain close formation and never break it?

LOL...like I said, that's giving us a lot of credit. If we trained day in and out, we'd probably be unstoppable. As it happens we die (hits are based on the honour system, so we try and keep things fair). But most of the time it's due to people not staying in formation...it's funny how quickly the advantage turns to the celts when our line does in fact break. But when we can maintain discipline and patients, we tend to win.

Hopefully there is a DVD coming out soon showing some of the combat at Lafe from this year...maybe that will have some good illustrations of what we did.

[Gaius Colletti]

Hopefully there is a DVD coming out soon showing some of the combat at Lafe from this year...maybe that will have some good illustrations of what we did.

I would love to get that DVD, especially since I will not be able to go to Lafe next year, please keep me posted on that. I have so much about Lafe, but have only see very little of it

[Cerco 21]

@Magnus, I see your points. We are very very few with even less full kit at most we had 4, so in our very limited experience when we practiced thrusting from behind the shield we DID overextend our arms (considering your reach), even those of us very used to sword and shield (which was my case).

So do you believe that battles against a legion would be longer (over the day) than latter medieval battles? Would that be due to effective/patient fighting?

On the re-enactor side you feel that the use of wrist protection is unwarranted?

[M. Demetrius]

The combat Magnus is describing is done with soft swords made from wool needled felt (in Europe, evidently, they use if for carpet padding)so even a hard hit to the hand/arm doesn't cause injury. I can see making the concession to safety if the "combatants" were using wood or blunt metal swords, mostly because not many people today train well enough/often enough to make that work. A medium force stroke with a 4mm metal sword blunt can easily break a wrist bone. We consider this recreation, and a trip to the orthopaedic surgeion doesn't factor in most of our plans.

Maybe if we used harder weapons, we might SCA it up. But we don't, so we don't. The real warriors DID train often, and their tactics were set in muscle memory. Part of the reason the curved scutum is so successful is that it can shield such a large portion of the body that the soldier doesn't have to work very hard to stay protected. Waiting for an opportunity, keeping an eye on opponent on the right makes the "stay in line" work just fine.

We probably fight in closer order than the Romans did. But once you're inside the reach of a spear or longer sword, all the advantage falls to the Roman style.

[Magnus]

+1 to what Dave said. And don't get me wrong...there are times when I have extended farther than maybe I should have...I just dont' like doing it because I'm exposed.

As for your question of battle duration...well that is debated by the experts, but I don't think they were quick affairs. I think in ideal conditions, there would have been "fresh" troops in the rear ranks that may not have seen action until minutes, or hours after the battle had started, just because they are in the rear. But who knows.

For us, as Dave mentioned, the weapons we use are pretty safe. Wooden shield edges and bosses pose more of a danger to us than anything. The needlefelt weapons are rather unique...you can swing with just about all your strength and hit someon with it, and it doesn't hurt too much. So we don't need much beyond our shield, helmet and body armour.

[Sean Manning]

@ Magnus: you belive that an 60-80cm simple blade reach was enough fighting in formation, and that the closed ranks never opened enough for you to reach your hand /arm out?

Yes to the first part...but the second bit about the closed ranks never opening up was your comment, not mine. The front rank that is engaged in combat is not, I repeat, not static. They don't sit in one spot and stab like robots. Combat is fluid. You always, always always lead with your shield first...using it to disable or confuse the enemy. Then you slide in behind your shield, and give a nice short stab to the target area. If you have to slide step ahead a few paces beyond the line then that is fine. Most of the time when this happens, the entire line surges ahead as well, which helps to keep you protected from a counter attack. OR as you move forward, the enemy moves back...in which case you return to your line and await your next opportunity. Patience is a virtue.

Although the odd thing is that Vegetius explicitly says that soldiers should have their right foot forward in hand to hand combat (Vegetius 1.20.23). I wonder if this reflects changes in martial arts in the late empire; it matches some 16th century advice on fighting with a long, agile sword and round strapped shield, but it certainly doesn't fit the "Roman guard" which we see in art from the high empire, or common sense about how to use a heavy shield.

I would be interested if you ever produce a DVD.