Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news

[Tarbicus]

How can we imagine that the men cannot take turns in the fight inside the battle lines? While it is impossible to fight in first battle front line more than three minutes in complete armor?

I don't think that's the issue, it's about how the rotation was made. There are references from both Josephus and, IIRC, Plutarch or Pliny, saying they changed men at the front. However, the latter also points out that this was normal, for both sides to do so at the same time, and it was only those who fought like barbarians (Celts or Gauls are specified) that don't slightly withdraw from each other to get fresh troops in the front. If I am correct about the source, I'm left with the impression that combat was like a boxing match, and both sides took advantage of a brief period to collect themselves. It sounds outlandish, but in a way it makes sense to me, and is no stranger than formal single combat challenges.

So, ironically, it is in combat with the Celts and their like that the Romans probably would not get to rotate their men. The AD method is merely speculation but could be taken by many to be fact, and hence the need for people to keep reminding us that this is the case.

[Robert Vermaat]

Erm, folks, new thread maybe. Discussing this can be very interesting.

[Luca]

back to the topic: true combat or choreographies?

I subscribed AD's "federation" from 2001 to 2002 and I know something about them.
Yes it can be a true combat, they are able to make a true sport combat, but in front of the public they are pretty always choreographies, but not in the sense they do not combat for true (and they do it hard and bloody), but that generally the hits are more or less prepared in an ending sequence when one of the fighters loose. They teached us while making the legionary battles. But this is normal and acceptable, and it is the only way to produce a good and appealing combat for the public.
In this I think they are really the number one.

About their theories and research it different.

If someone would like to discuss the "front line change" (in Italy non AD people called it the "little train") take present it was very long discussed on the italian forums.

[hephestus]

Salvete I am here,
today me they are shrewed of this topic is continuous to remain astounded from the powder that is raised when it is spoken about lorica segmentata in leather and Ars Dimicandi.
Ars dimicandi does not produce loriche segmentate in leather (or Alba Iulia) in order to sell them. The experimentations and the searches carried out from our group have lead us to these certainties.
We do not want to discredit or to convince nobody. As with justice he says Luca in the forum Italian has spoken a lot about this argument (and confesses that me it is easier to express to me in Italian who English) and I guarantee you that to many they have come of the doubts. Our documentations are visible to all. Therefore I will not speak about lorica in leather!!

For Booker Andy:
In the topic about the “choreographiesâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Vincenzo,

Welcome to RAT.
A pity that yu won't talk about leather segmentata here.

To all who want to discuss troop rotations: DISCUSS IT IN THIS THREAD: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 83&start=0

[Tarbicus]

Ars Dimicando have maligned numerous other re-enactors and yet they do this manouevre which is purely conjecture, and for which there is no evidence, and claim others are unauthentic. Surely the rotation subject is a part of this thread.

[Robert Vermaat]

True.
And so is Ars Dimancia, and so is choreography, and so are leather segmentatas.
But we have another thread in which we discussed troop rotation, and besides that, troop rotation is not discussed as a re-enactment topic here.

I think it's an important issue, so let's not get a confused thread here.

[hephestus]

Salvete,
our equipment and our techniques of maneuver and combat are fruit of years
and years of experimentations and improvements. To we it does not interest
what they make the other groups. To we it interests to arrive to fight and
to maneuver as of the soldiers roman and for this we discard what
it does not work. I repeat that “mutatioâ€

[Tib. Gabinius]

@hephestus
with view to the moderators i avoid to answer here to your words to the work of your group.

But to answer in the topic:
i don't believe that the newsman pick up an own idea to write it under your words. I guess, some of you, perhaps your leader, told him what he wrote there.
And thats the hard and unbelievable thing.

Like i wrote before, its not the critic in itself, but its the way of and the place to do it.
Me, who isnt really often talking to journalists, avoid to talk to them about thinks i dont want to read in a newspaper.
Sometimes it can happen that someone report something you dont have to do with, but this time, this is a report about indirect speech of your group or someone who talked in the name of your group.


And by the way, "years and years of work" sounds strange, cause i know the foundings of leather armour out of ancient world and didnt find them in your work, and all here now the findings about loricae segmentatae and also no word....
but thats something for an own threat.
Here its your words which are an hit in the face of the european reenacters.

[Velite]

Salvete,
I’m a new enrolled to this forum, and I’m member of Ars Dimicandi.

On purpose of the article, we assure you not to know absolutely nothing of that one written. Nobody of our members has never said those phrases. The journalist has “colouredâ€

[hephestus]

I would want to be made excuses with moderators if we have faced arguments not inherent to the subject. I understand that the argument begins them was the journalistic article but about continuation you have spoken about all the problems that Ars Dimicandi represents for the world of the reenacment. This, if you allow me, and perhaps a blow in the face to Ars Dimicandi.
Tib. Gabinius, which threat speaks ?

P.S my desire to have one translation in corrected Italian, if possible, of the article in questione.thank
Hephestus

[Gaius Antinius Salis]

As a new boy/man on the block, I have to say that there seems to be a lot of holes in many arguments regarding body Armour. The fact remains that since only a fraction of what was in use has been so far discovered, there are probably many variations on all Armour types still waiting to be found. These may well change the way we currently think. In the mean time all of us are and should be able to try and come to a logical conclusion based on present evidence, this may also mean accepting varying points of view.

[Velite]

I agree totally with the thought of Gaius Salis, and this is the thought of Ars Dimicandi.
I think not useful to defend thought positions at all costs about the roman armors, thoughts that appear certainties today, but tomorrow they could be ribaltate from other archaeological discoveries.

It's a certainty that in archaeological field has not been all discovered, but what we know is only a part. The lacking part, in attended perhaps that it comes found again, we can try to discover it with the experimentation and a logic.

Many archeologists that I have spoken have confirmed me this thought.
Valete

[hephestus]

also I agree in full with Gaius Salis. The free exchange of information does not have necessarily to be crash..In name of the search
Valete
Hephestus

[Caballo]

But until evidence is actually discovered, surely we have to base our conclusions on what we know?

And as new facts emerge, we change our conclusions. I've always liked the quote from Keynes, when accused of inconsistency " When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

But, in the meantime, we should base our conclusions on the evidence. Anthing else would be supposition.

Regards

Caballo