Women in your groups?

[Martin Wallgren]

We will do Auxiliary at the end of the first Century AD! And our mainfocus will be to show marital training. So lots of wooden weapons and such when we present ourselfs to the public, with a clear focus on that we show the exercises of a infantery auxiliae around 80 AD. We will of course have kit and steel blades but this way we can fight full on without rules (witch we are accustomed to from ARMA ) and buy the nice Albion Next Generation blades and show the audience sharp swords. Our interesst is as I mensioned above to research REAL fighting techniques of a Roman Solider whit thier arms and armour.

[derek forrest]

The Guard have never had women dressed as men and I would oppose such a move as it is impossible for a women to disguise herself where the legs are exposed and indeed her walk gives her away. The public realisation that there are women amongst us would detract from the display. Ladies have their place but as females. In our case as the daughters and wives of Legionaries wearing the practical clothing of the Roman frontier.
I think our ladies have been underused and I have always been in favour of a bigger role but within the limitations of our period.

[Viventius]

There is at least one female early Roman soldier in the UK, and I doubt that the MOPS would be able to pick her out in a drill line. A woman in male kit talking directly to the public is another thing altogether.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
well, not all female legs are perfect and some male ones are far more feminine looking if they are shaved... :wink:
Were 'gay' or 'bi' Romans allowed in the Legions and would some of them
then be rather more effeminate in looks and action, when allowed.
According to Caesina Serverus (21ce): women "paraded among the soldiers" and that "a woman [Plancina] had presided at the exercises of the cohorts and the manoevers of the legions"
(source "Women in Roman Britain" - Lindsay Allason-Jones - British Museum Publications - 0-7141-1392-1)
There was also the Roman Commander's wife who rode into battle with him, dressed as an Equite.
Regards
Arthes

[richsc]

In Legio XX none of our female members has expressed any interest in armor, though we have decided it's nothing we would oppose, particularly as one is a good rider and our only chance at a cavalry impression.

Somewhere I get the feeling that folks are denigrating women's roles in Roman society, a subtle form of 21st century sensibilities. For that matter, non-military men's roles are underemphasized as well. But I think most of that is just that it is a lot easier to explain yourself as a soldier than as a banker.

[Viventius]

To be honest, I do the male soldier thing because I like having a run around! I'm not one for going to the gym, preferring to have some sort of interesting reason for moving :lol:

I equally don't mind doing the female side of things. I like wearing the peplos better than the male gear, and enjoy drop spindling and naalbinding. It's nice to be in a group where I have the choice to do either the male or female roles. People should be allowed to choose, and enjoy what they do, within reason - re-enactment is a hobby, after all.

[Alexius]

We have girls in our group, but none are “roman civiliansâ€ÂÂ

[Salvianus]

I wholeheartedly support female combatants in re-enactment. If people can cope with safety tapes and a centurion giving commentary with a P.A system, I think the theatrical roleplay is pretty easy to suspend disbelief over. I was just uploading my photo's of the 2005 Sheffield Fayre to my livejournal gallery and noted a couple of groups able to solve this one neatly;

The Vicus, 1st century Roman group portrayed female warriors in the Celtic group which clashed with their Legionaries and The Hoplite Association presented their female members as Scythian archers - although still very recognisable (see photo's [url:ctysj9su]http://pics.livejournal.com/salvianus/[/url]) as a punter I found this no more intrusive than when you get modern hairstyles or inapropriate beards/shaves.

[Aluscladiusmaximus]

Since the main point of re-enactment is to demonstrate as accurately as possible the life in ancient times it would be wrong to put women in men roles. I have yet to see a women in 1st century Roman military equipment who were not clearly women. Haircuts and beards can be either explained or hidden. being a woman cannot. Just because a woman want to be a legionary doesn't change the fact there were no women legionaries. Letting women be soldiers is more to do with not upsetting your girlfriend than worrying what the public think or want

Aulus Cladius Maximus.

[Tiberio]

Yes have to agree with Aulus Cladius Maximus!
Either you want to showhow people really lived then or you want to show 21st century roman costuming. You can not transfer certain 21st values and habbits into previous periods. As they did not exist then. That has nothing to do with me not liking these 21st cenutry habits and values, but they have little or nothing to do with the past. This is also nothing against the ladies, in certain fields there are far to few of them!
Martin

[Viventius]

We live in the 21st century, not the Roman era. Any woman seriously interested in Roman times is unlikely to flaunt the fact she a female in male kit.

There's also something here about underestimating the discernment of our audience, as well as stopping people from enjoying the hobby they choose.

I hope that your groups accurately reflect the age range and physical stature of the soldiers in the Roman army. No particularly plump chaps, for example. And I sincerely hope there are no knobbly knees on show; should be nice and muscular after years of marching :lol:

You are entitled to your opinions. Women who want to portray soldiers will doubtless not bother with the groups you are in :roll:

[FAVENTIANVS]

We have a girl in our group, and because we know her, we are sure she's willing to wear the armour, and of course she will wear it!
What we are portraying -at least in my group- is the evolution of the Roman soldier, and its equipment, so, people can easily imagine that girl in armour as a rude and tough legionary! And if somebody asks, we'd say: -"Yes, she's a girl. But imagine she's a boy!"-
All we are doing is disclosing.
In the same manner, we won't either discriminate a fat guy because we think that legionaries were in fit, so... IMHO that's my point.

[Aluscladiusmaximus]

One English group puts a 3 year old on the display field and then goes on to display cavalry using hobby horses. I think members of this group should answer these inaccuracies before they criticize the makeup of other groups.
I wouldn't mind the hobby horses if they had actually managed to hit the apples(on sticks) with their swords.

Aulus Cladius Maximus

[Crispvs]

Goodness Bernard, tell me who they are so that I can either go and see them and have a good laugh or avoid them altogether.

Like the ESG, we do not allow women to portray soldiers. It wasn't done in Roman times and no matter how chunky her legs, a woman is never going to look convincing as a man in mid first century AD kit. However, we have a very well organised and equipped civilian section which normally attracts as many members of the public as the soldiers do. Most of our female members are far too comfortable in their established civilian roles to display any envy of the military section, especially when we return from a display tired, sweating and dehydrated on a hot day (or blue and shivering on a cold one).

Crispvs

[FAVENTIANVS]

Lads & Gents, please, don't take it THAT far. Don't turn it into a fight here.