Shining/Polished/New vs Worn/Weathered/Used Armour

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

A couple of months ago we encountered the 501st Legion at an Earth Day event in San Diego... 501st Imperial Storm Troopers ... and a number of guys had "battle damaged" their kit.. blaster burns, dents, charred bits, imbedded shrapnel etc etc. and they got the most attention... One fellow's helmet with electronic enhanced voice had static!

It all has its place.

Are you on parade? Is the "governor" coming to inspect? Or is it 2 days past the last battle? Or maybe you've been diggin' road bed all day for the last 6 days.... Buit then there's nothing like ANOTHER 50lb block of sandstone hefted up on the sholder to tear up a lobate hinge!

lol.... got to love those guys! Like I said though, the army spent only a fraction of its time parading during triumphs or being inspected by the governor (I suspect daily, weekly or monhly kit inspections by Centurions would have been more lenient but still tough). Perhaps we focus too much on the ceremonial aspect rather than day to day 'facet' of the army.

[Hibernicus]

Here are some excerpts from our CODEX HISPANA by way of explaining how we look at things:

"An important aspect of our Philosophy is how the Kit is made. We prefer Kit made with hand tools rather than power tools, made more like the historic Romans would have made it. In most instances the effects are noticable even to the untrained eye. Not because some of us are inept at cutting straight lines but because too many modern replicas of Kit are machine made or machine assist and thus too mechanically perfect! Handmade gear looks, often feels and behaves differently than machine made equipment. "

"We like to say that for many Members of Legio IX Hispana half the fun is making the gear, the other half is using it. Collecting gear is not the goal. Putting the Kit you've made to the physical test is essential to understanding how it works and functions. Your kit should not be revered. Your Kit is a tool, to be used. It is not Art. What good is that Dolabra if you never use it to dig a trench or cut roots?"

"As a soldier or civilian in Legio IX Hispana you should not be afraid to get your gear wet, dirty, scratched, sweaty, muddy etc. How will you learn how it works if you do not use it? From a book? We are not armchair historians. We fight and dig, we march and train, build, work and play.... in sun, mists, rain, cold, snow, dust and blowing sands. Why? Because they did! ... and it's fun!"

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Your kit should not be revered.[/i]

That nails it on the head for me. Back then armour was for use not display. If we concentrate too hard on display only, surely we are missing a vital part of what it is to BE, and portray romans.

[Matthew Amt]

But I don't think most of us try to show only the ceremonial! In Legio XX, our usual focal point is 43 AD, the invasion of Britain. So we *are* "on campaign". You might think of us as showing the look of a legion just going into battle, perhaps. No one that I know of portrays soldiers just coming OUT of a battle, with arrows stuck in their shields, hastily-dressed wounds, weapons and hands caked with enemy gore, and even a few urine-soaked tunics. I think that could slide into Hollywoodisms WAY too easily!

Here's a shot from Roman Days a few years ago:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/march5.jpg

At least 4 different groups are present, yet I think it's still a pretty good overall portrayal. No uniformity at all! Sure, it's likely that we should have more helmet and armor covers, but we lack good information on such things, and it's quite possible they'd be removed for battle anyway. (I mean weather covers, not the natty decorative ones from Holland!) I really don't see that some rust spots and surface scuffing is going to change the look of a group like this significantly.

I think this is a big part perhaps of why many people feel dissapointed when they see romans in films, and then see re-enacttors.

"Many"?? Not in my experience! WoadWarrior was about the first I'd run into who had a real problem with that. Anyone else who as asked about the differences between us and the movies, over the years, has been satisfied with the truth: We're right, and the movies are wrong. Simple.

Perhaps we are too 'new' and 'pristine', much like a ceremonial army perhaps.

Nah, not really. Like I always say, the reason the army issues armor is so that the soldiers will have something heavy to wear, and something to CLEAN. They learn how to clean it Day One, and they'll be keeping it clean on a daily basis until they leave the army. Yes, even on campaign with the enemy not far away, oiling or greasing the metal for the night, and knocking any orange spots off the next morning, would be more common than a hot breakfast.

Now, there is still some debate about satin finish versus high polish, and both sides have merit. I prefer a satin finish for iron/steel and high polish for most brass (though my lorica fittings are satin at best, like the rest of it). Sure, a group with a few new guys in the ranks won't show much in the way of stains, dents, and grime. On the other hand, I see all too many reenactors with things like belt plates gone brown--shine 'em up!

Do you have a picture of your lorica? I would much like to see it

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorB1.jpg
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorlace1.jpg
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorBdet1.jpg

These are from a few years ago, but it hasn't improved with age! You can see a few replacement rivets here and there (the originals are all domed brass), and the marks on the front are pretty clear.

And I DID patch my subarmalis last week! Patches are *authentic*!

Valete,

Matthew

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

"Many"?? Not in my experience! WoadWarrior was about the first I'd run into who had a real problem with that. Anyone else who as asked about the differences between us and the movies, over the years, has been satisfied with the truth: We're right, and the movies are wrong. Simple.

Yes, you are quite right, I agree movies are nearly if not always wrong, and I am not trying to defend hollywood here. Perhaps it is just a teenage thing, but most of my friends and some acquaintances say that for some reason hollywood 'looks' more realistic. When I went on to ask why, they practically unanimously agreed it was because of the 'worn out' look. I still prefer the shiny/polished look to hollywood, but all I am saying is that the public seem to have an easier time with the weathered looks.

Nah, not really.

My point is an old/repaired/seasoned and clean, polished and shiny-but-not-as-shiny lorica will look different to a straight from the Fabrica one.

Yours actually fits the bill perfectly, it looks used. Its beautiful :wink:

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

I ... movies are nearly if not always wrong...

and ...

hollywood 'looks' more realistic. ...because of the 'worn out' look.

And movies have budgets of $100,000,000 plus... which is probably more than the Roman sections of half the museums in the US and/or Europe get.

Last time I asked my wife for a $100,000,000 for a few worn out looking suits of amour I got a cold and firm "No".

Ralph

[Casmin]

Gosh, an old WoadWarrior thread! I miss him..

I guess somebody has to :lol:

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I ... movies are nearly if not always wrong...

and ...

hollywood 'looks' more realistic. ...because of the 'worn out' look.

And movies have budgets of $100,000,000 plus... which is probably more than the Roman sections of half the museums in the US and/or Europe get.

Last time I asked my wife for a $100,000,000 for a few worn out looking suits of amour I got a cold and firm "No".

Ralph

Hmmn. Like I said in that sentence, I am not defending hollywood, nor do I believe they portray Romans realistically at all. I was just raising a point about how WE portray them in relation to hollywood.

Also, its surprising they don't get it right with that kind of budget. Clearly, an excess in money does not mean accurate films. We on the other hand seem to do just fine with what we have.

If we can ask our wives for $2000 for polished suits of armour, im sure they can put up with worn out looking ones for the same price tag :wink:

[Casmin]

I think this is a big part perhaps of why many people feel dissapointed when they see romans in films, and then see re-enacttors. As 'WoadWarrior' said, we do not look 'epic' (that always makes me laugh...) Perhaps we are too 'new' and 'pristine', much like a ceremonial army perhaps.

I think the clean, shiny reenactor armor looks more glorious and better fits the archetype of Rome. Just my opinion.

[A_Volpe]

Just from *wearing* my lor. seggie over the years have lead to lots of rust spots, broken pieces, chips, scratches, gouges...you name it.

My Aquincum/Gallic I that I have been wearing for as long as my Seggie also is covered in [abuse]. I myself *like* that look - and it's nearly impossible to avoid any kind of rust or dings or scratches when someone is transporting, wearing and using armor over the years.

(and really, metal on metal means scratched metal...that's the way it works!)

My Montefortino got a nice little dent in it the *first time* I wore it, because I was showing what happens when a sword hits it. What do you do? Can't cry about it!

I personally think Romans did try hard to keep their armor as good a condition as possible, both for showing off/pimping it, as well as just good maintenance. (besides, if it's nice and clean, your Centurio won't beat new dings and scratches into it for you to clean, right?!)

It will come down to what YOU want to show. All of my kit started off 'brand new' at one point, and is now seen lots of use. I think that is both realistic and accurate. When a piece of kit becomes a total loss, wouldn't the replacement likely be the newest piece off the shelf? It could just as likely be a slightly beaten hand-me-down from the armory and now you're stuck with it.

There is that Montefortino helmet from an Urban Cohort that has what, 3 names on it from 3 owners? Can't imagine it went through 3 people and not get a ding it in somehow.

At the same time, I don't see the purpose of 'pre-damaging' your gear to make it look used when you just finished making it. Why go to the trouble to damage your brand new piece of work? Why not let it get dinged up from use over the years anyway? That's just my feeling on it though.

I just can't imagine a Roman legion looking all spiffy spanky shiny new. The gear has to come from somewhere, and it's gotta get used sometime, and that always leads to damage. Even just wearing or adjusting it. That to me speaks accuracy and realism.

Your brand-new, off the shelf piece of gear will never be 'new' after the first day of use, and you'll never get it back to being "new" no matter how hard you try. ;D

[Sean Manning]

I'm reminded of armies of the 16th and 17th centuries. On one hand, soldiers were encouraged to wear whatever finery they could obtain, since it was felt that they would be encouraged by it and would be more intimidating than troops dressed all in one dull colour like shopkeepers. On the other hand, after a long campaign soldiers were often barefoot and dressed in rags, and I doubt that their arms looked factory-new. So anything from clean, brightly-coloured clothing to dirty, faded gear could be appropriate, as long as (if you are reenacting good soldiers) your arms are kept in good shape.

Doesn't the Strategikon say something about whether troops should look shiny or dull?

[Magnus]

Sure Matt, post the picture of my unfinished scutum without the boss on it!

My seggie looks like I put it on and rolled down a hill with it...lacing loops are all mishapen (though mostly cuz I made'em that way), dents and some rust (I need to hit it with a scotch brite pad).

I think too Yuri that unless we've all just come from a battle, our gear as Matt said would be cleaned...otherwise with the materials it's all made from, it would fall apart and fail us (and our ancestral counterparts as well). But, that's not to say that plates didn't get dinged up and repaired, so even shiny armour would have some dents to it.

My next seggie and my current scutum I'm hoping to put some battle damage on it...

[Matthew Amt]

Glad you like my armor, Yuri! Strictly speaking, though, all my little pugio dents are NOT accurate, since armor really would not have been hit by points like that very often.

Perhaps it is just a teenage thing, but most of my friends and some acquaintances say that for some reason hollywood 'looks' more realistic. When I went on to ask why, they practically unanimously agreed it was because of the 'worn out' look. I still prefer the shiny/polished look to hollywood, but all I am saying is that the public seem to have an easier time with the weathered looks.

That's because Hollywood only shows armor as black or gray or brown! And most people only see armor in films and TV, so that's what they expect. Hollywood seems to have the policy of "The public is ignorant so we have to keep lying to them." (Mind you, at the same time they feel that everything has to shock the audience, though it never occurs to them to shock people with historical accuracy...)

Hmm, I guess you could partly blame museums, too, since the original bits on display are all corroded or green from thousands of years in the dirt, and too few places show a nice shiny replica in the same case. So a lot of general public, and presumably most movie makers, see the rust and patina and don't think any farther than "armor is brown".

My point is an old/repaired/seasoned and clean, polished and shiny-but-not-as-shiny lorica will look different to a straight from the Fabrica one.

Do we know that? Cleaning armor (especially brass) takes only a damp rag and some dust or ashes. My armor has had the same basic finish for 16 years. Modern Indian-made repros tend to be on the glossy side, but it's entirely possible that a brand new lorica in Roman times was LESS shiny than one that had been owned and scrubbed for a few months. Why should the armorers take the time to put a perfect finish on a lorica plate that is simply going to be cleaned to death for years? A fresh piece of mail is black from annealing, but use and wear it and eventually you see mostly bare metal. (Want to clean a piece of rusty mail? Hand it around a school full of kids! Comes back all shiny, and all you have to do is add a little oil.) There are surviving helmets that still show hammer marks--I'll bet they didn't get issued as glossy as a Deepeeka brass helmet! And yet very few surviving helmets that I know of show a lot of little dents and dings from being mishandled, though I suppose a lot of that could have been erased by corrosion or restoration.

Also, wouldn't a veteran of 10 or 15 years be better at keeping his armor clean than a raw recruit? He'd know all the tricks by then. Two or three weeks on campaign, and the recruit would learn most of those tricks as well! I'm still not seeing any reason for the armor and helmets of soldiers on a long campaign to be visibly degraded compared to those in garrison. Shields could certainly take some abuse in battle, blood and mud along with weapons, but the blood and mud will mostly wash off. Paint may fade a little in the sunlight, though that's what your shield cover will prevent. Tunics will get dirty, but how much of your tunic is visibly in battle formation?

Sure Matt, post the picture of my unfinished scutum without the boss on it!

Ha! If you hadn't mentioned it, most folks wouldn't have seen it! Which helps prove my point. "Get a boss, get a haircut!"

Valete,

Matthew

[Casmin]

I believe if keeping your armor clean was enforced then it was for practical/survival reasons and not just gloss and glamor. Imagine a lorica hinge breaking during a battle because it was too rusty. If the legionary could keep his gear from getting pitted or worse then he could rely on them when he needed to. Not to mention they'd last longer.

[Marcus Mummius]

I believe if keeping your armor clean was enforced then it was for practical/survival reasons and not just gloss and glamor. Imagine a lorica hinge breaking during a battle because it was too rusty. If the legionary could keep his gear from getting pitted or worse then he could rely on them when he needed to. Not to mention they'd last longer.

Both were probably important. A lot of military equipment was about show and fashion, sometimes without any (obvious) practical reason...