VEMBRACES

[Magnus]

Yeah...almost everyone uses their left leg to help brace the scutum...right foot forward would mean you would likely end up on your ass.

[M. Demetrius]

No, we almost never bring donkeys.
Oh, wait, you meant...
Yep.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Matt, what do you base the dense formation on?
As I said above, Polybios states clearly in 18.30:

ἵστανται μὲν οὖν ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι·
τῆς μάχης δ᾽ αὐτοῖς κατ᾽ ἄνδρα τὴν κίνησιν λαμβανούσης διὰ τὸ τῷ μὲν θυρεῷ σκέπειν τὸ σῶμα, συμμετατιθεμένους αἰεὶ πρὸς τὸν τῆς πληγῆς καιρόν, τῇ μαχαίρᾳ δ᾽ ἐκ καταφορᾶς καὶ διαιρέσεως ποιεῖσθαι τὴν μάχην,
προφανὲς ὅτι χάλασμα καὶ διάστασιν ἀλλήλων ἔχειν δεήσει τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐλάχιστον τρεῖς πόδας κατ᾽ ἐπιστάτην καὶ κατὰ παραστάτην, εἰ μέλλουσιν εὐχρηστεῖν πρὸς τὸ δέον

Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth,
but as in their mode of fighting each man must move separately, as he has to cover his person with his long shield, turning to meet each expected blow, and as he uses his sword both for cutting and thrusting it is obvious that a looser order is required,
and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank and those in front of and behind him, if they are to be of proper use.

This goes well with the relief band on the Arch of Orange, as I said earlier.

[attachment=1539]orange1.jpg[/attachment]
Similiarly the augustan fresco from the Esqiline tomb / Statilius Taurus:


[attachment=1545]statiliustaurus.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1546]statiliustaurus2.jpg[/attachment]

I would not go as far as to say that the latter are really realistic, but they show some kind of consistency, which hints towards a much more open order, especially in comparison to depictions like this:

[attachment=1542]DSC05830.JPG[/attachment]
So what I am trying to say: The Romans were familiar with the mode of depicting deep close formations, but they never used it for their own troops. They rather show pairs in a sort of individual combat or a throng.

See also Aemilius-Paullus monument:
[attachment=1543]1169634880_pydnamonumentfrieze22_20051104_-565027280.jpg[/attachment]

So this is what I would bring up for a loose formation from at least Polybios up to at least Tiberius. Do we have evidence or hints for a denser formation than that described by Polybios?
The Maiden Castle skulls also make the "just stab out behind your shield" - thing rather improbable. Also, Polybios clearly states "cutting & thrusting" (above). At least four of the skulls were chopped by cuts during combat. (P2, P12, P27 and P34) and altogether at least nine were killed by cuts to the head. (Maiden Castle was taken by troops under the command of Vespasian somewhen between 43 and 47. The skeletons found on the war cemetary were from the slain defenders.)

[attachment=1544]Foto.jpg[/attachment]Maiden Castle, Skull of P34

So 1st-century-ish I rather don´t see such a dense formation which just pokes out their swords. But I am willing to be convinced of the opposite. With sources, though, please. ;-)

[Magnus]

Are you talking to me Christian? There are more than a couple "Matts" posting on this discussion. If you are...then a couple things. First, I didnt' mention the distance between troops when I discussed our combat techniques at all. Irregardless of the distance, to remove the requirement for further arm protection you shouldn't be extending your arm past your shield rim. So I am not sure why you posted all of that...because I didn't mention anything about loose or tight formations. In fact, I expressly stated that combat was fluid, didn't I?

My sources? I guess experience doesn't count in your eyes, but then again, I don't care if it does or not lol. It's not my job or my desire to convince anyone of anything. If you don't believe me, you are always welcome at Lafe to come try out the various theories on combat (which we do often).

However, if you reeeeaaaalllyyyy want sources on how we fight, the Lafe manual has some excellent ones. Give it a read if you haven't already. But i'm not re-posting any of it here, that is a waste of my time. Sorry.

Lafe Manual

[Magnus]

Oh and your forensic evidence means absolutely nothing. There is zero context to show exactly how the wounds were received. Whether they were "chopped", "slashed", "bashed" or "stabbed" is completely irrelevant. How it happend is another matter.

And if you are assuming that I believe or stated that ALL the romans did was little pokes behind their scuta, then you must take me for an absolute retard. I must admit, I'm a little hurt by that.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Are you talking to me Christian?

Matt, yes :-)
I was going from the numerous pics from Lafe here on RAT and all over the web. It seemed to me that the space you give each soldier is less than what we have from Polybios, which would be roughly 180 by 180 cm.

The rest was mostly a general question to all board members.

And if you are assuming that I believe or stated that ALL the romans did was little pokes behind their scuta, then you must take me for an absolute retard. I must admit, I'm a little hurt by that.

Must not be. :-) This simply derived from your description of making only stabbing attacks and always leaving the hand behind the shield. I certainly don´t take you for an idiot.

I just think, if one looks carefully, there are some hints about how the Romans fought at that time. These hints suggest a lot of space for each Roman soldier (1,8 by 1,8 meter), and a mix of "cutting and thrusting". So, if these hints are not considered, empiric studies and arguments are basically worthless.

The Maiden Castle skulls have been thoroughly examined and published. It is absolutely certain that the wounds were received through sword slashes. See:
R.E.M. Wheeler, Maiden Castle, Dorset, London 1943.
("The mutilations which many of the skeletons bear are of three kinds. There are several specimens with one or more cuts which must have been made by swords, and in the majority of cases it is clear that a very effective weapon was being used with the utmost force of a man´s arm.“ p. 351.)
(„Skeleton P2. Adult male, age uncertain. Height 5 ft. 4 3/4 in. [...] The skull shows a single cut extending across the frontal bone to the parietal dating from the time of death. The greater part of the left side of the cranial vault and all the facial skeleton except the mandible are missing. Pls. LIII, A and LVI.“ p. 352 and „Skeleton P 34. Adult male. Height 5 ft. 7 1/2 in. [...] A rondelle of bone had been cut from the frontal bone, probably by one terrific blow. [...] Pls. LV, C and LXIII, B.“ p. 355.) Cutting tests with a completely reconstructed blade conducted by my university earlier this year, and to be published this fall, have also shown that injuries like those on the Maiden Castle skulls (and a series of others) are certainly conducted by "cutting". We have a few of the preliminary testing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqkuBPDshg0 until 1:45.

Two more thoughts: The blade form of the Mainz types is designed to cut. It has a leaf-bladed edge. So, maybe we can detect in the change to the Pompeii style also a change in fighting-style? Is this a change from "cutting and thrusting" to "thrusting"?

[Sean Manning]

Magnus, I see a lot of drill in the Lafe handbook but not a lot on fighting style (which I know is harder to describe in words and pictures, but people have been trying for a few thousand years). Am I missing something?

The defensive order with pila and scuta described by Caesar and others seems to me to be a "two cubits per file" order, but it does seem to me that reenactors often emphasize this order over the "four cubits per file" order described by Polybius.

The 13th-16th century solution to striking long while protecting your sword arm with a shield was extending your shield hand with your sword hand. While Romans clearly extended their shields from the guard position to strike with the boss or shield rim, I'm not sure how well defending your arm that way would work with the odd horizontal grip on a scutum. I need to make a cheap scutum and play with it one of these years!

[Tarbicus]

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:

Caligae have that raised ridge for most of the full length of the foot, which may have offered some protection from being stomped on. I'll also dig out one of the latest Osprey Roman books showing sturdy boots worn on one foot only (can't remember the source but it is attested to in the primary sources), the other foot bare, which IIRC was later practised by peasants.

[jkaler48]

The "Lafe Handbook" aka the TACTICA drill manual is a work in progress with additional content being worked on (Including testing under simulated combat conditions I believe).
There is a little additional material in draft form posted in the Ludus Militis website.
(link below)

[M. Demetrius]

There is a supplemental pdf called Tractus ut Contactus, which is perhaps useful to the question
about the fighting styles.

[Sean Manning]

Ave Marce Demetrie,

Is the Tractatus a seperate document, or an appendix to the PDF? The versions of the Ludis Militis tactica at http://www.ludusmilitis.org/articles/LM_...y_2010.pdf and http://www.ludusmilitis.org/index.php -> Publications -> "Tactica" don't seem to have it.

If they got a hundred or so 1st century Roman reenactors at this Lafe event it seems like they could have had a good time experimenting.

[garrelt]

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.

In which way is there a difference between "Roman era fighting or Viking Era fighting"?
If you mean here, the just for show entertaining the public, Long hard blows you are correct.
But if you mean here the close combat fighting with a 45cm blade M-type short sword in combination with a 80cm round or a 70x50cm rectangular shield than it is a different ball game.
Well the discussion is still about Vembraces and not about Fighting styles or battlefield tactics, for this there is the combat section of this forum.

[garrelt]

Well I looked into the Lafe Manual.
Only one page about Close Combat, how to lay down a Pilum and how to draw a Gladius.
Not about how to use these primary tools of the trade.
The rest is just the standard formations and maneuvering.
As I stated before best to be placed in the combat section.

[Robert Vermaat]

[quote="garrelt" post=294319]
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. {/quote]

[quote="garrelt" post=294319]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.

In which way is there a difference between "Roman era fighting or Viking Era fighting"?
If you mean here, the just for show entertaining the public, Long hard blows you are correct.
But if you mean here the close combat fighting with a 45cm blade M-type short sword in combination with a 80cm round or a 70x50cm rectangular shield than it is a different ball game.
Well the discussion is still about Vembraces and not about Fighting styles or battlefield tactics, for this there is the combat section of this forum.

[kazeryu]

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:

I would think that's because aiming for the foot is generally a bad idea -- your weapon will almost certainly get caught (briefly or otherwise) in the ground, leaving you (or at least your arm) vulnerable. But I'm not much of a sword wielder, so...

The Maiden Castle skulls have been thoroughly examined and published. It is absolutely certain that the wounds were received through sword slashes. See:
R.E.M. Wheeler, Maiden Castle, Dorset, London 1943.

...etc.

I think the point Magnus was making wasn't that we don't know if swords were used, but what context they were used... Were these skulls damaged while fighting toe-to-toe with the Roman line? Or were they killed after the battle - deserters or prisoners, perhaps? Or maybe the badly wounded being dispatched?