Authentic combat styles...

[Magnus]

It all of a sudden hit me for some reason. I'm going to stir the pot a bit here, but I think this point needs to be addressed, so try not to get too defensive, rather, I'd like to keep this in the confines of an academic debate.

There are no surviving combat manuals today which may be used as a guide on how the Romans fought, like Fiore's Flos Duellatorum . There are no instructors who have carried on a centuries old practice of teaching the methods and ways of Roman combat, as there are teachers of sword schools like the Yagyu, or Shinkage-Ryu in Japan, being centuries old themselves.

How then, does a reenactment unit, which makes any type of a claim to being authentic, use modern made practice weapons (Needlefelt), with purely speculative tactics and techniques? Where is the justification? The fact is we'll never know how they were taught...yes, we can stab like this, throw a javelin like so, but it's based entirely on how we think thay may have done it, 2000 years ago. That's not even touching on group tactics (which again, there isn't any evidence for before the 6th century).

I've seen groups stress the importance of accurate, authentic equipment and dress, as well as the desire to do "living" history events. To me, this is a bit hypocritical, for the simple reason that it's impossible.

Having studied a japanese sword art called Muso Jikiden Eishen Ryu which is about 450 years old, I understand all to well the high standards placed upon practitioners to maintain the traditions of the school and the art we study.

In that light, I then find the desire to "fight" as a Roman, in the name of it being accurate or for the desire to be a "real" unit a little....misplaced?

I think if it's going to be done, it should be done in such a way that it's made known that it is not an accurate account of how Roman combat took place. That it is, in fact, more of a modern anachronism that people do because some find it fun.

Discrepancies have already been discussed to death as far as equipment, drill commands, unit emblems, tunic colour, etc. etc., but this topic I think has not been addressed yet...

[Neuraleanus]

It's an unfortunate fact that the loss of information necessitates more speculation on how things were done. We only have bits and pieces of the puzzle. We have to use what we know to constrain the scope of possibilities. On the other hand, for me, this makes the hobby of roman reenactmenjt more interesting and fun. We each go on a journey of discovery. For example, in putting your roman kit together and using it, you discover what works and what doesn't. The same thing may be said with regards to fighting. We are constrained by the knowledge of the close formations that the romans used and by their weapons. The short gladius isn't very good at slashing, but works much better at stabbing. There is even some literary references, such as Vegetius's "Epitoma Rei Militaris", to back this up.

It also may be a mistake to compare roman military methods to those to those of the Japanese. It is my understanding the samuri tradition puts more emphasis on the individual, less on the group. Roman fighting does just the opposite, the group, comprising of the contrubarium, the century, the cohort, the legion, is upmost, the individual mile less so.

[Dan Diffendale]

We are constrained by the knowledge of the close formations that the Romans used

But... how close is 'close'? That's a big issue right there. How did the whole maniple-shifting system work, man by man or unit by unit? How did that evolve into the tactics used in the Empire --whatever they were?

As for not knowing how things were -- in my opinion that's all the more reason to be trying different things out. We'll never be able to say "This is how the Romans did it" but maybe we'll be able to say "This is (or isn't) a possible/probable way to do it." It's not about finding hard answers, but about refining the sorts of questions we ask... and maybe some answers pop out in the process.

[richsc]

Except that we are just acting, really. Take away the fear of being killed or horribly maimed and that really changes things, especially when considering just how you fight.

[ARudling]

As a group that does actually fight - with steel - we do exactly as stated above.
We tell the spectators that we can't fight in a genuine manner & then explain what we are doing and what to watch for in our fighting displays.

Also we do emphasize that our limited numbers force us to fight in a one on one style, certainly not what the average legionary would hope to do in a battle !

We also do show a line fight as a mini-section of a battle line to demonstrate the effectiveness of close order fighting with the scutum & gladius against our spear & shield wielding adversary's.

The crowd at our event over the weekend just gone seemed to really get into our little fights even if they did boo the Romans, but then we where in Wales & they are very proud of their ancient ancestors.......

[Magnus]

Lee, you said "It also may be a mistake to compare roman military methods to those to those of the Japanese. It is my understanding the samuri tradition puts more emphasis on the individual, less on the group. Roman fighting does just the opposite, the group, comprising of the contrubarium, the century, the cohort, the legion, is upmost, the individual mile less so.

I think you took what I was getting at out of context a bit. I was refering more to the manner in which they were trained as swordsmen, as opposed to unit tactics. Since there is no direct lineage or way to trace back to how they fought, it's nearly impossible to know exactly how they did it. My point was to contrast the existing Japanese styles of swordsmanship and how they've been passed on to modern times to the lack of Roman types, and how they're essentially lost.

And prior to about 1612, nearly all warfare in Japan was on the scale of massive battles, be it civil war or fighting off the mongols, in which the individual samurai became part of a samurai army, not much different than any other army that is well organised and considered a professional fighting force.

What you're refering to is the era of peace that existed after the Tokugawa shogunate came to power...where most of our ideas about the samurai stemmed from, since one on one dueling came into prominence, aside from the odd revolt or rebellion.

Mr. Rudling, I like your idea: "As a group that does actually fight - with steel - we do exactly as stated above.
We tell the spectators that we can't fight in a genuine manner & then explain what we are doing and what to watch for in our fighting displays."

A great way to balance things out.

[richsc]

I agree with that caveat. I think the photo of the melee with the needlefelt swords that was posted some months back is what I was thinking would give onlookers (and participants) the erroneous thoughts that this is how it actually was.

[GaiusManliusMagnus]

This is ultimately the best part of the Needlefelt idea. If fully realized, we can tryout different tactics and see what works and what doesn't. Probably just like the Romnas did, except we collect bruises for failure instead of corpses.

This is a perfect example of "experimental archeology" in action. Develop a theory, try it, blow holes in it, modify it, try it again, and then present hypothises as to what might have been. We'll never know for sure without someone inventing time machines, but we can narrow down the field of thought through systems like this. Eventually, we'll be able to show the public a pretty consistant "best guess." The trick will be in presenting it as educated speculation instead of gospel truth.

Like Ulpius said this is about refining our questions. And having fun.

[Caius Fabius]

I have looked over 2-3 hours of videos shot using needlefelt combat at Lafe, (different angles and photographers). Of course, there were no where near enough people to represent a large group action, but the Keltoi fought with spears and swords, while the Romans used gladii and pila. Roman reenacting soldiers instinctively started using a line defense, and the Keltoi reenactors used the run-away defense.

The throwing of pila was interesting, but caused very few actual casualties to the loosely formed Keltoi. They saw them coming and moved out of the way. or deflected the slow pila with their shields. The Keltoi looked for Romans who got out of the line, and picked them off, the Romans who worked together, didn't have to stand shield to shield, (no barbarian archery was used), but they did have to protect each other. The slashing of longer swords was usually easily blocked with the Roman shields, but when the Romans could get the Keltoi to close with the line, one would flank the unlucky Kelt and stab with the gladius, point thrust, and another Keltoi was down.

Keltoi spears were not very effective against a slightly open, buddy protective system, Roman formation, but one on one, the Roman had to use excellent shield-work to prevent his leg, shoulder or head from receiving the spear-kiss. Just this example is not enough to prove any tactical style, but some other scholars also have supposed that the Roman formations might have normally been looser than Holly shows them, and still been effective. If you have a buddy system and several ranks, you can have more fluidity in the spacing, and still be able to protect each other, while letting mad charges come into the formation, and get slowed and stopped by 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank troops. We need to look at many variables, and we can't model actual combat, but we can see different possibilities when using needlefelt, that I would be unwilling to test with live steel pila and swords.

I have used live steel, both spontaneous, (with some scars) and choreographed (with other scars) so I am not a complete novice to that style of recreated 'combat". Needlefelt doesn't recreate hand to hand combat any better than the pugel-sticks and sandbag drills of the Infantry basic training, but it is as close as we can get without bleeding a lot more.


CF

[Neuraleanus]

I have looked over 2-3 hours of videos shot using needlefelt combat at Lafe, (different angles and photographers)

Are these videos online for all of us to view?

[Opifex]

This is a perfect example of "experimental archeology" in action. Develop a theory, try it, blow holes in it, modify it, try it again, and then present hypothises as to what might have been.

Yehhh you got the sentence I just would say.
Experimental Archeology.
This is what we can do to find out how the equipments worked. Unfortunately there is no video about a 2000 years old battle, or a real gladiator fight. But we have mosaics, statues, embossments rusty swords and willingness to reconstruct as much as we can.
How it works? It is easy but painful. Let's say you have your "authentic" equipments.
1. Take the sword wear the armor, and run 5 miles in it. You will have water/blood-blisters everywhere.
2. Modify your armor to have less blisters.
3. Try to fight with needle felt weapons. But use exactly the same size/weight/material as the original one is. wear your armor during the fights. and....You will have water/blood-blisters bruises everywhere.
4. Modify your equipment and review your fight tactics.
5. During each modification try to use authentic materials, and keep the look/shape what you found to be the original/authentic.

After that you will se how dangerous the pilum is. How pilum could blocks a wood shield. You will appreciate the collar of your helmet when it saves your neck against the stabs come from above, you will enjoy the size of your shield when you can "hide" behind it etc...

So try what you imagine could work, and the life will tell you if it did or not.

[Caius Fabius]

The various videos of Lafe are not online, and there is no place that I know of to put them online. They are mostly filmed on VHS-NTSC. I could probably put them on a DVD. Some others are in MPEG style, but the files are huge, 10-15 minute segments. I doubt they will be put online anytime soon.

CF