© 2009 Richard Pallaziol, Weapons of Choice ™- all rights reserved
In portraying characters of other times, we run into the problem of how to recreate the style of the period. Not only to breathe life into the characters we portray, but also to convince the audience that they are witnessing a slice of history come to life. Too often, the actors views this as simply adding on mannerisms that they have been told are right for the time, without understanding why the character would have moved or even stood in a certain way. So in addition to having the right costume for the character, the actor needs to have some understanding of the way that people viewed themselves and the world they lived in. The study of how the external aspects of a people develop out of the historic underpinnings in which they lived is called period style. For the purpose of this book, I’m centering our focus on those elements relating to how a society demonstrates violent actions.
Obviously we’re going to have to stick to broad generalities in this book, so the specific trends that might have also occurred in any given century or decade will not be mentioned here, although it might be critical to the play you could be working on. So don’t think that by reading an applicable section in this chapter you need not do your regular homework in preparing for a specific play. Even so, it is important to know the general pattern before one can appreciate the variations.
Also, I’m trying to provide information for the shows most likely to be seen on stage in the United States. For that reason, while an in-depth study of Jivaro headhunters is fascinating, this section is heavily Euro-centric.
For deeper information, try to find source material from the time you are studying. Newspapers, photographs, diaries of course, but for earlier times a careful examination of visual art can lead to clues as to the way people moved and stood. Make sure that you are viewing as close to original source material as possible. A painting about an occurrence in 1252 but drawn in 1544 may tell you something about the 16th century but very little about the 13th. Also keep in mind that the artists may have their own idiosyncratic habits and may not be expert in warfare or period style. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the Norman Conquest of 1066, and was probably made only a decade after the event, but has many inaccuracies, so many that the work cannot by itself be used as a template of how soldiers fought or even what they wore.
Before we start, it is important to remember that whenever we try to re-create another culture or period on stage, we not only have to mimic those attributes which may be different from our own, but also cast aside those which are distinctly modern. We have many modern mannerisms that are so ingrained that we fail to notice them, so I would like to point out the most glaring ones that can interfere with trying to develop a period or character style:
- Voice – In the late twentieth and now twenty-first century we have become a more visual and less verbal society. Previous societies had the patience and auditory dexterity to follow long speeches and stories, even if they couldn’t read them. The wealth of vocabulary used by even the uneducated was also combined with a tendency to speak faster than we do now. Our daily speech by comparison is almost exclusively monosyllabic and bisyllabic, and we use a truncated, limited sentence structure. With only a rudimentary development of expression and limited pitch variation, our university graduates would be considered by other societies to be congenitally “slow”.
- Posture/Movement – Our daily normal stances and seated positions, unconsciously designed to make us disappear in a crowd, are best described as apologetic. They give the appearance of trying to withdraw from a room, seeming fearful of standing out and being noticed. Prior peoples had an open way of standing or sitting that freed them up to the entire space they were in, whether in or out of doors. A grouping of modern people by comparison usually looks as though they are each afraid that someone will call on them to perform some onerous task.
- Relaxation – We moderns confuse relaxing with collapsing; we slump into a chair, rolling the shoulders inward and retreating from the room. Prior peoples could relax while still staying open to the environment.
- Focus – More subtle is where we moderns direct our focus, not only where we look but how far we stretch our perception and our “energy”. We no longer enter and “take” all corners of a room with our presence. Outdoors we tend to look down and away from others, keeping our “essence” within a narrow circle a mere few feet around our bodies, almost as though we have something to be ashamed of.
These four aspects of our current body language and expression show up any time you work with modern actors. They are especially the hallmarks of young, untrained American actors, so working to clear these habits can improve the general polish of performances in any show, period piece or not.
Many times for one reason or another a director will try to set a play in what is variously called “no-period”, “universal”, “eclectic” (or, more honestly, “no budget”). When confronted with this lack of direction, actors would be especially well advised to work on the same four points.
I should be fair and point out that often the rationale for trying to set a play in “no period” is due to a laudable effort to strip away all of the time-sensitive cues that allow an audience to pigeonhole a work of art, separating themselves from the world of the play. By attempting a nonspecific period look, the hope is to present the play in a pure form, devoid of considerations of time or place. Laudable, but ultimately futile. The factors of what we call period style cannot be so easily erased. Every “modern” piece is itself set in a period, for the playwright and director cannot divorce themselves of their own history. Every actor cannot help but be a product of his or her upbringing, and all of this manifests on stage. There are tons of plays that have been performed on completely bare stages, with actors wearing all black and their hair pulled straight back. But in watching filmed versions, one can still narrow down when it was performed to within the decade. There are a hundred subtleties of expression, movement, posture and voice that shout out the where and when of every performance.
How this chapter is set-up
Where possible, and especially when looking at Western civilizations, each section will try to cover the following four categories:
Politics/Economics – an overview of the trends which place the individual in the larger society.
We make broad assumptions on what is “normal” based on the society in which we have been raised. We Americans especially have a hard time understanding the points of view that exist in other countries, let alone other periods in time. But a people’s assumptions about themselves are a result of their view of the universe, of power, of religion, of work.
Fashion/Style/Manners – the expectation of the individual when in the company of his peers.
For our purposes we are defining fashion in the broader sense, not as the seasonal trends that are on display at Bloomingdale’s, or a review of what has come down the runway in Paris. Rather, we’re looking for the longer baseline for “normality” in any given culture or subculture. One can dress away from that baseline and be considered abnormal, or blend in with it and be largely accepted by your subculture. In that sense, no one is more “fashion conscious” than the 14 year-old boy on the first day of the new school year. Every item of his couture is carefully calibrated to project the right image.
Clothing is an outward manifestation of the face we give to the world, but is also a reflection of how we feel about ourselves. Clothes may not make the man, but it reflects something of the thought process that both selected the items for purchase, and then selected which items would be worn on a particular day. Inside anyone’s closet the full range of articles to be worn for leisure, for formal occasions, for various social occasions, etc., represent the complete boundaries of that person’s self image. Indeed, we can learn volumes about someone by noticing what is not in his closet. Then, from that selection of the possible, each person daily selects what representation of himself he chooses to show to the world. The choice may not be conscious, but will reflect upbringing, personality, mood, social level, and aspirations.
Every shift in the cultural norm also includes a shift in the clothing choices that we make. Rarely are these new choices thought of as being made for their own sake, but rather as a break from the “old-fashioned” past. Every age thinks of itself as finally shedding the artificial restrictions of their forebears and finally embracing what is “modern”. A good example comes from the widespread acceptance of a relatively new garment – blue jeans. These thick denim trousers are designed as work-clothes in job sties where regular fabric would quickly tear or simply wear out. In the 1960’s, during the youth movement, blue jeans were worn as a way of self-identifying with the working class. So intimately was this garment associated with the counterculture that it became almost part of the uniform of anyone under thirty, and then spread to be accepted by every societal strata. To this day, blue jeans are worn as a first choice for leisure activity and even for many business and formal social occasions.
If you ask someone why they decide to wear their jeans on any particular day, the answer is always the same: “they’re comfortable”. But we all know that they really aren’t, not when compared to regular slacks. Denim fabric is tight, restrictive, doesn’t stretch with movement. But we do feel comfortable in them. This has nothing to do with the qualities of the garments themselves but rather in the view we have of ourselves when we wear them. In that respect there is very little difference between ourselves and sixteenth century Elizabethan men wearing slashed jerkins and pumpkin breaches. Most of the “comfort” is in defining oneself non-verbally.
The same is true of the way we stand, walk, and speak. The choices are less obvious, and for that reason more telling.
Civilian Conflict – or, fighting off the battlefield.
This will cover both the dueling weapons and fighting styles of the non-soldier. While weapons for armies are usually a matter of improvements in technology, the choice of civilian weapons is much more restricted by social mores.
At the very end of the entire chapter is a section discussing Western police forces and the changes they have gone through.
Warfare – a look at the weapons and fighting methods for the soldier of the period.
The weapons mentioned in each section are meant to only give a quick overview of the most common weapons to which most combatants would have had access. That’s not the same as the date that the items were invented, for there is often quite a lag time between development of a weapon and its acceptance by the intended users. (Practical jetpacks have been around since 1960, and were invented back in WWII, but you still don’t see people commuting to work in them.) Naturally, when designing a show, it is important to remember that as new weapons are invented, the older styles don’t simply disappear, but often continue to be used for several generations.
Since most plays deal with the soldier who must confront another soldier on the field of battle, that’s what will be described. With few exceptions, the focus here will be on land fighters, not sailors or aviators. Interestingly, most armed confrontations throughout history are centered on the taking of a city or other fortified position, but there will be no discussion here on siege warfare, nor of bombardment. Those topics don’t provide enough helpful material for the actor trying to create a character, so we will concern ourselves with the frontline troops.
Frontline soldiers throughout history have had to face the same basic challenge – attempting to kill other human beings while putting themselves in direct and immediate danger of being killed. It shouldn’t be surprising that the response has been universally similar. Fear is pervasive. Training and experience can help deal with it, but it never disappears – everyone is afraid. The immediate motivation to stay in that madness always comes down to the camaraderie built between soldiers (“you don’t fight for your country; you fight for your buddy”). Other powerful motivations are often based on appeals to elitism (“the Few, the Proud, the Marines”) and also on precedent (what other soldiers have done in the past). And these qualities are often blended with a heady and romantic picture of military life.
Not all soldiers in the same army will fight in the same way, and their use in battle is traditionally prescribed by the best attribute which they bring as a unit onto the field. They fall broadly into one of two categories – infantry or cavalry, and each of these is further divided into light and heavy. Although any unit might find itself fighting against any part of an opposing army, each has certain inherent strengths and weaknesses that play an important role in how a battle is fought:
• Heavy Infantry – The basic foot soldier, the grunt, the dog-face. It is his job to take the battlefield. Soldier to soldier fighting is usually borne by the heavy infantry. He is effective when working as part of a large controlled group and while protected with armor and heavy weapons. Because of this he usually has limited mobility while engaged in the fight. Battles are won or lost based on the outcome of the fight of the heavy infantry. A traditional battle is not considered won until they can take and control the area. Heavy infantry can normally defend itself against heavy cavalry, but can be attacked successfully by light infantry or light cavalry.
• Light Infantry – This is another foot soldier, but lightly armored for better mobility, and instead of going toe-to-toe with the enemy he has some sort of longer distance [projectile] weapon. His job is to use his mobility to stay just outside of the fight, all the while using his primary weapon to attack and weaken the opposing heavy infantry. Light infantry can be used to defend against the light cavalry, but can be attacked by heavy cavalry.
• Heavy Cavalry – The horseman. Heavy cavalry uses the greatest available method of battle transportation and combines it with heavy armor and a close-in [“shock”] weapon. He can quickly take advantage of battlefield disorganization to move in and strike, although a united heavy infantry can hold him off. Heavy cavalry can rout out light infantry, but is easily attacked by light cavalry.
• Light Cavalry – He has even better mobility than the heavy cavalry, for his weapon and armor are lighter. Instead of closing in with the enemy, he has the more difficult task of using projectile weapons that are fired while moving. Light cavalry can stay just out of range of the heavy cavalry and infantry, all the while weakening them with their distance weapons. They can be kept at bay by light infantry.
Each division will have its own weapon system, different training, and different skills.
The Types of War
War is physical violence between two politically recognizable groups. The reasons for war are varied, but we are concerned here only with how, not with why. We’re going to use some terms and loose definitions to try to categorize different forms of warfare that have sprouted up through history. This is not exhaustive and certainly not definitive, but is used here to suit our limited purpose of understanding how different societies have fought their battles.
- Raiding – A sudden surprise attack on an unsuspecting settlement, usually with the intent of driving off or stealing from the defenders. More rarely seen is the raid with intent of annihilation or extinction of the settlement.
- Ritual – The combatants conform to a carefully prescribed set of actions in which the winner is determined without the majority of combatants ever having to come to blows.
- Champion – Battle between opposing warriors of similar high standing. The outcome of their battles in some societies was enough to establish victory for the entire group, but not always. The battle of champions could also be found in either ritual or as part of decisive warfare.
- Decisive – The pitched battle, in which all forces are brought to bear with the purpose of killing as many of the enemy as possible in order to secure victory. It is the type of warfare with which we are familiar. Indeed, most people in the world today are unaware of any other style of fighting.
- Provocative – Attacks meant to bring about a political response, usually from a larger or more powerful opponent. We are currently living in a time in which we are seeing a general shift from decisive to provocative warfare.
These differing styles are not mutually exclusive, and one style is not necessarily less bloody than another. In the West, since the time of the ancient Greeks we have thought of war as being only the decisive variety. (Champion warfare is almost unheard of in Western history, and yet is the common convention of stage and cinema representations of real battles). What some sociologists refer to as “primitive war” is usually a combination of the first three forms, but is also a group fighting style which emphasizes using missile weapons (arrows and thrown spears), only limited hand-to-hand engagement, and retreat when convenient. “Fighting to the last man” as an honorable outcome is a purely Western idea, and (with the exception of the Japanese) has no parallel in other cultures.
When portraying soldiers or warriors onstage, it is helpful to remember that the most salient features of battle have changed very little in the large sweep of time. Fear is the constant companion of the warrior, the mouth going dry, the heart racing, the urge to void the bladder all too commonly unsuccessfully controlled. Universal conscription was only seen in a small blip in history, primarily during the French Revolution and the wars of the 20th century. Both before and after, warring was primarily the activity of a few powerful leaders and a large collection of the poor and powerless. Up until past century, far more soldiers died of disease and hunger than of wounds sustained in battle. And when battle did engage, a soldier fought not for king and county, but for his fellow soldiers: the handful of men with whom he ate, slept, and shared every privation.
* * *
Pre-History [Before Metal Technology]
Obviously anything that we might say about the earliest cultures is purely based on surmise, but the best thinking on the subject suggests that personal disagreements as well as tribal conflicts were found even at the first stages of human development. Indeed, even baboons and chimps will attack other “tribes”. So it is very likely that the early hominids did the same, and used stones and sharpened sticks, progressing to the stone ax, and for some societies the sling and bow and arrow.
It has until recent years been common in anthropology to take a look at previously isolated but still living “untouched” tribal groups and assume that they provide a glimpse into the lifestyles of the earliest humans. Unfortunately, it has become apparent that in almost all cases, these primitive tribes have been found to have not had a completely isolated lineage. Most were originally part of larger bronze-aged (and in Africa, even steel-aged) kingdoms. When the larger units fragmented, some of the smallest clans drifted off to the outskirts of the kingdom, slowly reverting to a simpler and impoverished state. They can hardly be considered to be representative of an “unspoiled” past. How the earliest humans regulated their societies and fought their battles must still be largely left to guesswork.
Permit a slight digression. It is usually assumed that warfare began as an extension of hunting, as both are concerned with killing. Most anthropologists are now questioning that position. Hunting large game for food throughout the world usually has had the following characteristics: tracking a herd, identifying an easy target, separating it from the group, allowing the group to disperse while the individual target is trapped and killed.
Battles are another thing entirely. The group to be attacked has a home location which is well known, the specific target is the strongest individual instead of the weakest, and then the target is killed or separated before the main objective can be reached, which is the containment of the group to either capture or kill as many as possible. These are not the skills learned by hunter/gatherers, who actually do very poorly in traditional battles. No, these battle skills seem far more closely related to those involved in the domestication of herd animals. A group of farmer/pastoralists that can surround and contain a herd, isolate and capture its alpha leader, and then dominate the remaining members has learned all of the basics of battle. Also, hunting best takes place with few members. Every additional member added to the hunting party increases the chance of spooking the quarry without increasing the chance of success. Capturing and controlling a herd, on the other hand, can use all of the available manpower working in concerted union. This requires discipline and a certain command structure, and so is also excellent training for war.
Additionally, weapons development and construction for hunter/gather societies are very simple, and usually the spear heads, arrowheads and knives are made of stone, flint, or obsidian. Nothing more is really needed to bring down even large game. Farmers, on the other hand, need much stronger tools in order to break and till the soil. Hoes must be made of metal, so as societies move to agriculture they need to invent new technologies to create strong metal tools. When primary arable land becomes scarce, ever stronger tools are needed to work ever tougher soil. These same tools and materials, only slightly modified, are the ones we see used as weapons on the battlefield.
The hunter/gatherer usually does not consider land to be ownable in the Western sense. Indeed, it is most often a part of his mythos that the natural and spiritual world are indivisible, and that one can no more possess a patch of ground than one can own a portion of sky. But a plot of land cultivated for food production becomes valuable if for no other reason than one has invested a year’s worth of time in order to produce a single harvest. Though the hunter/gatherer may prefer certain areas over others in his quest for food, strategic retreats to other zones do not impose a severe hardship to him. The farmer is much more likely to think of his land as worth fighting for.
This is not to say that agriculture created war. Hunter/gatherer societies were just as capable of killing their neighbors as brutally as any modern army can. It matters not whether the society was technologically primitive or advanced nor what type of social structure they followed, nor where or when those societies existed. Throughout time and geography, every society has either fed or had to forcefully repress its continued desire to bring violence to another. But with very few exceptions the pre-agri groups limited themselves to raiding and ritual rather than to decisive warfare for material gain. What distinguished the agriculturalists was their innovation of weaponry and finally their concept of what it means to wage war and how to define victory.
With the surplus in food that agriculture provided, societies could not only more densely populate a given region, but also afford to have some members of their group step away from the daily toil involved in food procurement. They could instead devote themselves as craftsmen, warriors, religious leaders, and finally as political leaders. It is at this stage, the final turning point from tribal chieftain to agriculture-based kingdoms, that the modern notion of war has its genesis. Kings could command others to die, and populations readily accepted the sacrifice, not for self-defense nor to stave off starvation, but merely so that the group could maintain or expropriate a particular plot of land. From that point on, land has had more value than the humans on it.
* * *
© 2009 Richard Pallaziol, Weapons of Choice ™- all rights reserved