Auxiliaries Pic

[A_Volpe]

Wow!! Great drawing work, Travis!

Your middle figure, I don't believe there is any evidence for the manica arm guard until the 100's AD

And, to an extent I agree with (Graham) that Roman soldiers did not always wear armor all of the time, so having one of your figures in "unarmored" kit would be great to show.

keep up the great drafting work, though! Great poses and great attention to detail of the gear!

Also, the image in your Avatar - what is it from?

[Tarbicus]

I don't believe there is any evidence for the manica arm guard until the 100's AD

I'm fairly sure there's a British find from the 1st-C, and artistic representation of a manica from the Republican period. Jasper?

[Caballo]

I don't believe there is any evidence for the manica arm guard until the 100's AD

The manica is quite a bit earlier (see http://www.romanarmy.net/manica.htm ) . A Greek one dates to 150 BC , and literary and sculpted evidence goes further back.

AFAIK the earliest Roman evidence is in mid first century

"Further evidence- this time placing the metal manica firmly in the Roman army, comes from the tombstones of Sextus Valerus Severus and Gaius Annius Salutus, both from Mainz and legionaries of Legio XXII Primigenia, who were based in Mainz between AD 43-70. Their tombstones show manicae as part of the decorative border of weaponry surrounding the text of the tombstone. Severus' manica shows eleven plates and a hand shaped section of four plates (though it would be unwise to rely on this sculptural reference as opposed to the archaeological finds). However, this clearly places the manica as being used- although rarely- by Roman legions on the Rhine around AD 43-70."

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As usual, the Greeks came up with the goods first, cough-cough! :mrgreen:

[M. Demetrius]

As usual, the Greeks came up with the goods first

What?? You mean the Romans didn't invent Gyros and Spanatokopia??
I'm crushed.
Really.

[tDub248]

Wow, thanks for all the great imput! Lets see, to answer you guys:

Graham - I'd love to get a copy of that article! It's good to me you, I have a couple of your books!

Mathew - Well, I was talking to a Roman Historian and he was saying they could/would have used a lot of leather since it was easier to come by. And I saw a re-enactor pic with one of these and it looked cool and practicle.

M. Demetrius- Well, my goal (potentially), is replace all the props I made with real, more historically accurate, ones, since plastic parts have a lot of upkeep (recasting, resculpting, repainting), and they dont look as good...

Robert - Thanks! yeah, I forgot the pugio, it's also assumed that the quiver and gladius are on his right, though you can't see...

Dudicus- thanks, <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25476">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25476<!-- l --- this should explain

Thanks again guys! keep the info coming!

[Matthew Amt]

Mathew - Well, I was talking to a Roman Historian and he was saying they could/would have used a lot of leather since it was easier to come by. And I saw a re-enactor pic with one of these and it looked cool and practicle.

Oh, my poor friend! Do a search on this board on leather armor, and read for a few hours. Leather or hide armor of *some* sort did show up now and then, and the Romans did indeed use huge amounts of leather for tents, packs, shield covers, shoes, and other stuff. But as far as we can tell, Roman leather armor was rare almost to the point of "unknown", and we tend to run screaming when it is mentioned. (Not your fault!) If your historian friend can come up with more evidence, we'd love to see it! But never blindly trust another reenactor's kit. Even mine.

Vale,

Matthew

[Robert]

Coulston has agrued for the Roman archer to have a cylindrical shoulder quiver to carry his arrows in. Even IF it was suspended on the left, the fleching and bottom of the quiver would be seen, as belt quivers are slung almost horizontaly.
The backquiver is worn over the right shoulder. I can assure you drawing from such a quiver is possible but a major pain in the neck (literary!), so quivers were most likely used to carry the arrows, but were taken off when a firing position was reached and the arrows either left in the upright quiver or stuck in the ground, both in front of the archer. At least three arrows can be held in the bowhand, as one does not need a tight grip on a bow.

[tDub248]

Matthew - I shall do that (more research on that)! thanks for the tip. Could it be simply because leather doesn't last through the ages like metals? (I suppose that Q is mentioned on the other topics)

Robert - That's exactly the info I want to hear, thanks! Is there some sort of thumb ring that's involved with firing? how does that work?

[Robert]

There is some debate on the thumbring issue. There was a claim a thumbring was found in England, but the interpretation of that find is controversial. In Eastern archery, the thumbring is present, but in early archers, I would very much favour the Western style draw, using three fingers on the string. There is another way, pinching the arrow and using two fingers on the string. The bow was used in Europe for a very long time without the use of thumbrings, many recruits were European, the bow was a weapon in which the common miles recieved training (documented) and detachment of archers could well be classed as light infantery and be equiped as such. I do a first century archer impression and pretty much walk the talk, though still working on the equipment. I make my own arrows as well. Lethal!

[A_Volpe]

Manica can be seen back into the mid 1st century

OOOOOOH!! Awesomeness!

That head-to-toe segmented Gladiator is Totally Nuts

Thanks for the links and info - You learn something new everyday!!

[M. Demetrius]

One name for those fully armored guys was "Clibanarius", which sorta means "Oven Men". Imagine standing in the sun, and then fighting for a half hour clad in energy absorbing, non-porous iron plates. You can lose weight faster that way than with Acai berries!