Events that allow women portraying soldiers?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

People often find it hard to believe I'm 21.....

[P Sertorius Scaevola]

Let's cut the crap boys...it really shouldn't be done as a rule.

That said, it is the 21st Century and obviously it will be done. If so, it should be done in a manner that it doesn't show. As all man are trained to spot women, it will stand out if one acts as a legionary, so hide well or simply don't do it.
I do notice an increase in women influx in the cavalry and am even guilty myself there of breaking the/my rule, allowing my doughter to do a cavalry impression. Now hiding her femininity is a near impossible task but we'll see what can be done.

If women want a historical basis to portray female classical warriors I would be keen on seeing more amazons in the Greek sense. And more Xena based impressions in the beer tent :grin:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hey, speaking crap is the only fun I get.... :wink:

If women want a historical basis to portray female classical warriors I would be keen on seeing more amazons in the Greek sense. And more Xena based impressions in the beer tent

Now your being sexist Paul.... :wink:

[Nurglitch]

Let's cut the crap boys...it really shouldn't be done as a rule.

Yeah, because allowing girls to play with toy swords gives us cooties.

[Appius]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have to say that most posts here are exactly the kind of useless and/or insulting babbling I was hoping to avoid. I'm thankfull to those who've been sensible, but you're a minority. So let us try it again.

PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON THE ABILITY OR DESIRABILITY OF WOMEN PORTRAYING LEGIONARIES.
And if somebody can be actually helpful and point us towards events that allow (passable) women in military impressions, we'll be grateful.

You feel a need to tell us you do not want such women on your events? Do us a favor and vent your opinions in other topics. Feel free to ban them from the events you organize, or to share your preferences with the organizers of events you attend. But we were not commenting on your choices in this matter, so try to extend a similar courtesy to us. Comments that are worse than useless are, well, not worth your time or mine.

And please, even if some of your posts are helpfull but you swamp the topic with barely relevant chatter, it makes one grind one's teeth in frustration.

[Nurglitch]

I always assumed allowing women, or blacks, or Asians and so on and so on was the default mode. Meaning - if the event does not list any such prohibition in its Ts&Cs assume it allows girls.

[Epictetus]

But the fact is, we do have women in our group, and some of them prefer impressions of the military kind. So I would like to ask about people's experience with this topic...

Well, since a number of reenactors have posted, I can give a view as a spectator. (I've never done any reenacting, by the way.) I saw an event a couple years ago with an obviously female participant, and it didn't bother me in the least. It looked like she was having a blast, and more power to her. I learned a lot from the whole experience. I got to talk to reenactors about their equipment and camp life and everything that goes with it, and I didn't even give it a second thought that a woman was portraying a soldier. I didn't hear a single other spectator say a word about it either.

[Crispvs]

I can't comment on the situation in Europe or in the US, but here in Britain I don't recall ever having seen an event organiser specifying a policy of woman not protraying soldiers, although I have seen policies stating that women may portray soldiers if they can do so convincingly but that if they wish to speak to members of the public afterwards they must change into appropriate female costume first. Many re-enactment groups have their own policies which echo this view. This is of course easier for periods where the majority of the body is covered and clothing is not closely fitting, and thus it is very common to see women portraying soldiers in English Civil War and American Civil War period groups. Baggy jackets and trousers can hide much.

This is difficult to pull off convincingly for Roman re-enactment though. For a start, as has already been stated, women's legs are simply not the same shape as men's legs and so any woman would need to be able to completely cover her legs. For many women the shape of their rear ends would also be an issue to overcome. Also mail is a problem, as it hugs the figure and thus a woman's body shape is hard to hide. Scale is slightly less of a problem but it is still sufficiently flexible that an obviously female shape would still be hard to hide convincingly. Segmentata is the only armour type which has sufficient rigidity to hide female curves but in the case of a great many women it would have to be very carefully padded out so that it did not hang strangely on the body. Thus if a woman were to portray a Roman infantryman in anything even approaching a convincing way, she would have to be able to wear segmentata and bracchae, as well as learning to move like a man. Although there is now a reasonable body of evidence to support the idea of auxiliaries wearing segmentata, which would allow this combination. I doubt that most women would want the level of hassle this would involve though, particularly if they had to take it all off to change into female costume after each display.
I suspect it is easier for a woman to portray a cavalryman, although many women possess body shapes which would run into trouble with mail or scale as I mentioned above. Also, where a woman's facial features would be hard to disguise in most infantry helmets, as Olga's cavalry portrayal has demonstrated, a masked helmet can hide a strong element of a female identity.

I know you are interested in the events themselves, but I do think it really comes down to the groups that participate in the events and how they approach the issue. Most events are invitation only, meaning only the invited groups can take part and so any non-female policy an organiser might have will largely be seen to by the choice of the groups invited to take part. If the organiser does not wish to have women portraying soldiers, then he is likely only to invite groups who do not allow woman to portray soldiers, meaning that any policy which the organiser might hold will be invisible to most participants. After all, there could be many reasons why one group or another might not have been invited to an event. In our case, often when we are at multi-period events we are the only Roman group present. Why did the organiser choose us? Was it because we are a knowledgeable group and put on a good display? Was it because all of the other groups had bookings for that weekend? Was it because we do not allow Trooper helmets in the group or was it because we do not allow woman to portray soldiers? We rarely learn the answer to this question and to be honest, we would rarely think to ask.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well Appius if you refer to myself, perhaps you should look at the link on my signature and you will see that it leads to such a group....
Don't make the mistake of judgeing people with a sense of humour!
It's arrogant and rude! I love women, and have not made a disparraging comment...
You need to reassess your attitude I think, not mine!

One of the organisers of the group rides, and also the other leading member of the group
rides. I'll let you figure out their gender...

But to be honest, I really wonder why people would need to raise a topic like thisin this day and age...
The suffregettes made their stand over 100 years ago...things have moved beyond the days when women were kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen...at least in the countries I live in...

[Quintius Clavus]

As John Kaler mentioned earlier, a young woman has for a few years portrayed a soldier at the Lafe reenactment events. She does very well. In 2009 I marched behind her during our foray into the woods to attack the German village from the rear. She held up very well as we tramped up and down the ravines and through brooks and over a lot of downed branches due to bad ice storms just a few weeks previous. Her boyfriend is one of the principales - I don't exactly recall whether a tessarius or an optio.
Women really did serve, in disguise, during the 17th century so women portraying men at those reenactments is period-correct. Same is true of the American Revolution and the American Civil War.

[Appius]

Well Appius if you refer to myself, perhaps you should look at the link on my signature and you will see that it leads to such a group....

I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to you - I was not. Truth is your first post was of the kind I *hoped* to see here, even though you didn't list any specific events.

I'm sorry if I sounded too rude, not just towards you, but to other members as well. It was difficult to remain silent and watch the debate getting derailed and getting into the kind of controversies I hoped to avoid. I've met too many people who could get very vocal and authoritative on this matter, so I'm kind of oversensitive now. And I hope that those of you who feel offended and think I've been unjust will accept my apology.

American Civil War was mentioned here. As it happens, I do own a blue uniform myself so I can make a comparison. Yes, there's a difference in the fact that we do have proof that women served in the ranks during ACW. But that difference alone does not explain the much higher level of prejudice againt women I've been meeting with in the Roman reenactment. To tell the truth, I still find it difficult to accept how many people in the Roman reenactment community have problems with women in "male roles".

I would like to live in a world where what kind of genital plumbing one has would have little impact on what is essentially a hobby. The reality I've been meeting with is quite different. Maybe the situation is less widespread than I think, I do admit that those say ten groups I've had to discuss this with are not a statisctically significant sample. But that's hardly comforting. And this was my first post here under a new username (the old one died during a RAT upgrade) so I hoped I could avoid being seen as a flamebaiting troll - and when I saw the signs of what could evolve into a holy war I tried to get the debate back on topic. And even though it seems my method worked, I do apologize for being unnecessarily rude.

So if you still want to post on topic here, or to say a word or two more about my language, I'll be glad to see you to.

[Crispvs]

Martin,

I hear what you are saying but I suspect you did not read my entire post. If you do I think it may come close to answering your question. I don't think that there is any element of predjudice involved - it is a matter of coming as close as we can to a realistic portrayal and a matter of what event organisers expect and thus engineer, as I said in my earlier post. I am not sure if it is really possible to separate the two satisfactorily.

Crispvs

[Nurglitch]

I can't comment on the situation in Europe or in the US, but here in Britain I don't recall ever having seen an event organiser specifying a policy of woman not protraying soldiers

I doubt it would even be legal.

women's legs are simply not the same shape as men's legs and so any woman would need to be able to completely cover her legs.

Sorry, but the leg shapes don't matter squat. Pretty much none of us looks like a Roman. We live differently, we eat differently, we have 2000yr later fenotypes. If you are about to start picking apart such minor details as leg shapes, you should really start with the legionary Porcus Obesus who has ample presence in British events and is totally not what a soldier looks like. Make every such type loose 60kg and then start demanding standard Roman leg shapes.

For many women the shape of their rear ends would also be an issue to overcome. Also mail is a problem, as it hugs the figure and thus a woman's body shape is hard to hide.

Only if worn as ornamentation (which is unfortunatelly standard in Roman reenactment). If mail is worn as armour it has to have quite thick padded gambeson/aketon underneath. Chain by itself does not absorb blows, it just changes sharp trauma to blunt trauma. If worn properly as chain + gambeson it will distort the figure as much as you may wish.



And whence the assumption that women have to pretend to be men? I mean - hiding leg shapes, why not start using fake moustaches? We are not Roman soldiers, we are reenactors. We are XXc people wearing stuff that sort-of looks like what they wore 2k years ago. Experimental archeology can be done by men and women alike.

[kazeryu]

Piotr, I agree with you 100%, but I think you may be overlooking one possible explanation for the divide in opinion.

It seems to me that for some people it is not just about "reenactment" but more about "re-living". I think these people who go to an event in order to "become Roman" are bothered by women playing men because it breaks their suspension of disbelief, which means it is "ruining their experience".

I think it is OK if you want to really get into the spirit like that, but I don't think it's realistic for those people to expect everyone to see it the same way, especially at a large public event.

[Crispvs]

"Make every such type loose 60kg and then start demanding standard Roman leg shapes."

Actually I agree with you there. Unfortunately we don't feel we have the moral authority to tell people they are to fat to join. Fortunately it's not really a huge problem in Roman re-enactment on this side of the pond yet, although it is certainly something I notice when I observe Viking and World War II re-enactment. We seriously need to change dietary habits across the western world, but unfortunately unless you happen to be the chancellor of Germany from 1933 on or the leader of the Soviet Union during the same period it is something we would struggle to force people to do. You can lead a horse to water, as they say, but you cannot make it drink.

"Pretty much none of us looks like a Roman. We live differently, we eat differently,we have 2000yr later fenotypes."

Very true, but one thing which has not changed is that there are still two distinct sexes and most people are pre-programmed to recognise both of them pretty much instantly. What is perhaps at issue is whether those people see it as a problem. On a practical level though, while we cannot force a volunteer (which is what re-enactors are after all) to lose or gain weight (or get a period haircut for that matter), but we can at least acknowledge who is a man and who is a woman.

"Sorry, but the leg shapes don't matter squat."

Well you are entitled to your own opinion but most people instinctively recognise the difference between a male leg and a female leg, regardless of weight, even if they cannot express that understanding well in words. Few things shout 'woman' more than a pair of female legs walking amongst men's legs, hairy or not.

"Only if worn as ornamentation (which is unfortunatelly standard in Roman reenactment). If mail is worn as armour it has to have quite thick padded gambeson/aketon underneath. Chain by itself does not absorb blows, it just changes sharp trauma to blunt trauma. If worn properly as chain + gambeson it will distort the figure as much as you may wish."

I am well aware of the necessity of padding under mail (as a search of my posts will show) and have been actively encouraging the use of subamali / gambesons by wearers of mail for years.
As to a subarmalis disguising the female shape, I have to disagree. My first seven seasons of re-enactment were in an eleventh century group which included a number of women who dressed as men and which engaged in full contact steel weapons fighting. Most of them fought as peasants and made no effort to hide their femininity but one of them portrayed a Norman knight and went to great effort to try and disguise the fact that she was a woman. She had a 'boyish' figure so thus was not particularly curvy. She also deliberately built up the shoulders of her gambeson and wrapped a length of cloth around her waist to effect a masculine shape, as well as always fighting with her ventail up so only her eyes were visible. Despite all this effort however, no member of the public was ever fooled and she used to get very tired of admiring references to 'Xena'. I don't know if anyone could have done more to disguise her shape by the use of a gambeson and layers of cloth than she did and I don't think any woman could have been much more 'boyishly' shaped than she was, but no-one was fooled for an instant.

"why not start using fake moustaches?"

You are just being silly now. If we turned that around, would you see it as being just as appropriate if a man decided to dress in a female style of dress and portray a woman, a day or two's stubble notwithstanding? I suspect not. This is not really about whether we need to try to accurately portray something 2000 years before ourselves. At a basic level it is really about women wanting to fight or to appear to be soldiers rather than civilians. I don't think it is boring to try to depict a civilian and talk to people about crafts and civilian life but apparently some people do. Having fought alongside women in the past I have no problem with this in other periods but I just don't think it works for a first century infantry portrayal.

"I think these people who go to an event in order to "become Roman" are bothered by women playing men because it breaks their suspension of disbelief, which means it is "ruining their experience"."

Well, I don't attend events to 'become a Roman' and I can't think of anyone I know who does. I go to *depict* a Roman to the best of my ability. It is the watching public whose disbelief we seek to suspend for a few minutes, not our own. Also it is probably worth stating here that the sight of s trooper helmet or a dagger sheath with brass plates riveted to it will ruin my experience of an event somewhat more than the sight of a woman who is trying her best to depict an ancient figure.

I think it is fair to say that my thinking here is in line with that of Paul Karremans above.

Crispvs