THE REAL ROMAN ARMY vrs. the renactments

[Marius_Ursus]

I forgot this.

one other thing wrong about the movie though, how did cassius make his voice project so loud over the colloseum?

I've seen at least two documentaries about gladiators and colisseum extravaganzas in which the narrator has said that the colisseum was constructed with such superior accoustics that a man standing in the middle of the arena could speak in a normal voice and be heard clearly in the highest tiers.

[tlclark]

I forgot this.

one other thing wrong about the movie though, how did cassius make his voice project so loud over the colloseum?

I've seen at least two documentaries about gladiators and colisseum extravaganzas in which the narrator has said that the colisseum was constructed with such superior accoustics that a man standing in the middle of the arena could speak in a normal voice and be heard clearly in the highest tiers.

Years ago, at the theater at Philadelphia (now Amman Jordan) we demonstrated this to great effect. A person sitting at the top of the theater could hear a person in the orchestra talking at a normal tone of voice. This effect was probably amplified by the scenae frons and presidium which are no longer there, but it was pretty hit and miss. If the speaker moved four feet, you would lose him, then pick up again after he moved another two. There were great hot spots all over the theater, but no one place where you could always hear everything.

The ancients obviously had only a trial and error knowledge of acoustics and not a scientific knowledge. One suspects that this is why Greek drama had a lot of repitition and chorus, so you could pick up the thread of the narrative the second time around if you happend to be sitting in a dead spot.

I imagine that in the colosseum, as long as you could get the roar and yelps of the animals and the victims, that would be good enough.

[stevesarak]

’some one said that some roman soldiers used pants and war paint is this true/?’

What I meant is Rome fought some primitive tribes, some of whom didn't use armor and only wore pants and painted themselves for battle (Blue I think). When defeated, sometimes they would be used by Rome to fight other of their countrymen. It was an easy way of getting recruits or auxiliaries. When you browse the internet looking at reenactors, keep in mind that some of the pictures are of reenactors portraying allies and enemies of Rome. If you see one in garb that looks totally unrealistic or way off, it’s possible they are portraying a tribe or possibly an auxiliary rather then a Roman soldier.

[drsrob]

Salve

There are three examples that spring to mind regarding Romans polishing their kit: Josephus mentioning the parade during the seige of Jerusalem. Also the Velsen belt plates had been re-silvered at least two times, and the centurion's Gallic 'F' from Sisak had been resilvered three times. Silver dosen't ware away on its own!

Vale

Celer.

"a centurion's Gallic F from Sisak"? Please enlighten me!

[Matthew Amt]

actually i would love to be in one of those renactments, i couldnt tell u how much i would want to do that that would be really awesome just to wear that armor.

Oh, it is!!

but i thought catapults (onagers) could have been used on field battles
didnt the romans use flaming ammunition, like those terracotta bombs?

Smaller versions of the ballista, called catapultae or scorpiones, were used in field battles. They shot short heavy arrows. The big stone-throwers were mainly for sieges. I don't know if they ever shot fire-bombs--Greek fire was indeed used, though much later than the second century, and I thought it was generally squirted out of a pump like a flamethrower. The problem in Gladiator was that the Romans were shooting flaming arrows at guys in damp wool tunics, which is silly--regular arrows worked just fine. And their catapult fire-bombs set fire to a wet forest, creating a wall of flame which their own cavalry then had to ride through! Dumb...

what make up was used on the soldiers in gladiator besides fake blood?

Lots of mud.

but what about the shileds, didnt the ones in gladiator look more realistic? i mean the renactors shields looked so red, like paint red, and it gladiator it looks like leather and wood, what did u make ur shields out of ?

The shape and size of the shields in the movie was actually one of the few things they got right. They even had good brass rims, nice bosses, and the back bracing. BUT they were too dark, dirty, and dingy! Actual Roman shields that have been found by archeologists are brightly painted, and made the same general way we make ours today: wood covered with leather and/or fabric, and painted. We are even trying to use the same kinds of paints the Romans used, in many cases. And some of us have made leather covers for protecting our shields while not in use. That means that the Romans in Gladiator would have had bright clean shields at the start of the battle, since the covers would have kept all the mud off until then.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/scutum.html
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/scucvr.html

ok so take one roman soldier from the gladiator movie, and tell me what is wrong, and not histrorically accurate with him? why is it not possible that the actual rome could have those kinds of soldiers.

Oh, boy, it's been years since I saw it, luckily I've forgotten most of it. Helmets: Should not have been dark/rusty (we covered that already!), neckguards way too big and "swoopy".

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/helmets.html

Armor: Seemed to be some kind of imitation lorica segmentata that was open at the sides, getting narrower in width from top to bottom, not at all like a real segmentata should have been.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorica.html

We already discussed the shields, and I don't remember too many other details about the belts, footwear, etc., though I do recall seeing too many ragged tunic hems. And they all had big leather armguards tied to their forearms, which simply was not done in ancient times. The Praetorians were all in black, making them look like evil Darth Vaders or something, which is just silly. The officers all wore their armor to the after-battle feast, which was ridiculous--Commodus was wearing his to do paperwork!

do any of u have any reccomendations for movies that display a historcially accurate rome>?

A visually accurate portrayal of clothing and armor? None that I know of! Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is one of the best for capturing the spirit of the era. "Gladiator" actually had great sets. "I, Claudius" is fabulously done, though the costuming and armor in that is pretty typical Hollywood stuff, too.

ok this is what i think about ur renactment soldiers, they have the right equpiment (gladius pugio) but it well once again hard to explain, it doesn`t look like your helmets could have actully protected u , what i mean is in the gladiator, they put some clothe on the helmet so there head wont be touchiing bare metal, and they did this for comfort, and REAL protection,

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

That's my helmet, and the lining in the photo is literally rotting away from use. (I did replace it eventually!) Most reenactor equipment is actually better made and often thicker and heavier than the original gear used by the Romans. It will protect very well!

what i mean is your people dont look like they could be dead in a few hours in a battle. its hard to explaIN i guess i just mean that u dont look like a true disciplined roman, and well of course i wouldnt either , i would put on that armor and laugh, and smile and totally not act like a roman, etc. etc. etc. and its just that in the movies they kind of do act roman and serious.

I see what you mean, but hey, real soldiers laugh and smile, too! And real Romans enjoyed going to war and fighting, so I think many of them would look happy before action. Most of them were counting on making the *other* guys end up dead. You should read a few Roman comedy plays--they were definitely not serious folks all the time!

i would like to see like a clip of ur renacters marching or something

Here's a 500-K mpeg of us charging the fence at Roman Days a few years ago. Notice the kid in the white cap getting up and backing away! We seem to have made a decent impression on him.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/charge02.MPG

so once again whats wrong with gladiator, did they display the city of rome right?

Looked great to me!

thanx for reading, u probably think this whole topic is stupid, but dont let this post, judge me right away.

Nah, you're all right, you just have a few strong preconceptions to work around. We're all here to learn!

Vale,

Matthew


PS: One thing I will pick at, gently--it's really hard for me to read the "text-messaging" abbreviations. If what you have to say is worth saying, take the time to write out the words, please! Thanks from an old fuddy-duddy.

[Felix]

...
your right holly wood is not history and im aware of that, and u made me understand that alittle more.

so having said that
few more questions

i understand obviously and the one thing i dont like about gladiator is hw they didnt throw their pila.
but i thought catapults (onagers) could have been used on field battles
didnt the romans use flaming ammunition, like those terracotta bombs?
what exactly do u mean that the romans horses are to big?

...
i am now convineced and wont argue any longer on the shiny armor part, but what about the shileds, didnt the ones in gladiator look more realistic? i mean the renactors shields looked so red, like paint red, and it gladiator it looks like leather and wood, what did u make ur shields out of ?

...

Hollywood is responsible for the fire and explosions. Every single battle in a Hollywood movie MUST (it seems) have fire or explosions. If it is a pre-gunpowder era, they put in flaming arrows, or catapult/ballista projectiles of some sort. This is true of Gladiator, Braveheart, Spartacus, and many other movies. Fire weapons were used in ancient warfare, but not, I think, nearly as often as in the movies.

Shields really were brightly painted. Here is a link to a real Roman shield, with the paint still on it, after 1700 years: http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... hield.html
Bare wood and leather weren't popular.

[Woadwarrior]

have you seen the new spartacus is that accurate?

[Magnus]

A laudes point from me Francis for having an open mind. 8)

[tlclark]

do any of u have any reccomendations for movies that display a historcially accurate rome>?

A visually accurate portrayal of clothing and armor? None that I know of! Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is one of the best for capturing the spirit of the era. "Gladiator" actually had great sets.

Actually, only the colosseum is anything like an accurate representation. I use it for my Roman class. Everything else is just awful. The Ludi is well known. You can see the foundations clearly even today. They simply made something up. Also, every time they pan away for a wide shot of Rome, everything is wrong. The topography is just fantasy. For the scene of Commodus' triumph, we see the Colosseum framed in the triumphal arch entrance to what is presumably the forum of Trajan. A view that is just impossible since the the Colosseum is off axis from the forum of Trajan. The interiors of the palace, and everything else is just pure hollywood.

Travis

[Narukami]

Matthew,

The video of the charge is great -- made an impression on me too.

Narukami

[hoplite14gr]

Years ago, at the theater at Philadelphia (now Amman Jordan) we demonstrated this to great effect. A person sitting at the top of the theater could hear a person in the orchestra talking at a normal tone of voice. This effect was probably amplified by the scenae frons and presidium which are no longer there, but it was pretty hit and miss. If the speaker moved four feet, you would lose him, then pick up again after he moved another two. There were great hot spots all over the theater, but no one place where you could always hear everything.

The ancients obviously had only a trial and error knowledge of acoustics and not a scientific knowledge. One suspects that this is why Greek drama had a lot of repitition and chorus, so you could pick up the thread of the narrative the second time around if you happend to be sitting in a dead spot.

I imagine that in the colosseum, as long as you could get the roar and yelps of the animals and the victims, that would be good enough.

Dear Travis
Ancient Greek Theaters like Dodona and Epidavros gave exelent acoustics results during modern theatrical plays and in the 80s some singers peroforemed without electronic gadgets. Ancient tragedy was played by modern actors without electronic aid from 1922 to 1986.
Only after 1987 that someone got a government contract, electronic thingies starte appearing in recent performances.
So much about acoustic hope it is not out of topic.
Kind regards

[Niedel]

have you seen the new spartacus is that accurate

The costumes in the TV Spartacus are as inaccurate as anything. The soldiers wear segmented (leather!) armour (not in use until the time of Augustus, 70 years later), etc.

The most authentic Roman costumes in film so far IMO are in the Polish version of "Quo Vadis" and in the 1964 production "Fall of the Roman Empire". While the costumes in FOTRE are not totally authentic, in my opinion they convey a good sense of heavier/later part of the 2nd century Roman armour.

As has been said before, apart from the Colloseum, the sets in Gladiator might have been stunning, but were totally inaccurate. Apart from what tlclark noted: the different domes etc. seen in the dawn scenes etc. are purely renaissance/baroque, not ancient Rome. Statues and buildings would have been painted in bright colors. The whole entrance of Commodus into Rome resembles more a Leni Riefenstahl scene (which I think it's supposed to) than anything in ancient Rome (what is that square when Commodus goes up the stairs? St. Peter's Square???).

[tlclark]

The most authentic Roman costumes in film so far IMO are in the Polish version of "Quo Vadis" and in the 1964 production "Fall of the Roman Empire". While the costumes in FOTRE are not totally authentic, in my opinion they convey a good sense of heavier/later part of the 2nd century Roman armour.

but Sophia Loren in a lime green body huggin stola! Or how about that red outfit she's wearing in commodus' triumph! Holy cow! She looks good, but totally inaccurate. The rest, not so bad.

Also, that movie was done on the cinecitta set which is totally authentic to that point, a great view of the forum and very accurate to the acutal forum, EXCEPT that it has the decannalia which is too early for the Antonine period. The date of the set is about 305-315. That same set has been used for many many productions, including HBO's Rome and most of the objects in it are post augustan, yet we see Septimus Severus Arch and the Temple of Vespasian as plain as day. Oy! That's like doing a movie about the American colonial period with the 20th C. Manhattan skyline in the background!

Scenes from the palace are awful in FOTRE, but Later scenes showing the interior of the Curia are very accurate.

The whole entrance of Commodus into Rome resembles more a Leni Riefenstahl scene (which I think it's supposed to) than anything in ancient Rome (what is that square when Commodus goes up the stairs? St. Peter's Square???).

If supposed to be the steps of the Basilica Ulpia, but why the heck did they pick that as the final destination of Commodus' triumph? FOTRE does it right and has Christopher Plummer wind up at the Capitolium which is accurate.

[Niedel]

but Sophia Loren in a lime green body huggin stola! Or how about that red outfit she's wearing in commodus' triumph! Holy cow! She looks good, but totally inaccurate. The rest, not so bad.

That's why I wrote not TOTALLY authentic ;-) )

Also, that movie was done on the cinecitta set which is totally authentic to that point, a great view of the forum and very accurate to the acutal forum, EXCEPT that it has the decannalia which is too early for the Antonine period. The date of the set is about 305-315. That same set has been used for many many productions, including HBO's Rome and most of the objects in it are post augustan, yet we see Septimus Severus Arch and the Temple of Vespasian as plain as day. Oy! That's like doing a movie about the American colonial period with the 20th C. Manhattan skyline in the background!

Actually not true. FOTRE was not shot in Cinecitta, but in Spain (about 20 miles from Madrid. On a Spain trip, I once drove by there in the mid 90s to see if anything was left of the set, sadly, nothing had remained). The whole set was built for this one movie and then fell into neglect. The only other movie which was shot in some of the remnants was "A Funny Thing happened on the Way to the Forum", I think.
The Cinecitta sets are a conglomeration of different productions at this point (notably the Julius Caesar miniseries, "Augustus" etc.). However, the set for HBO's Rome was newly built for the series (which makes it even more annoying that it's so historically inaccurate, given how much they hyped the series' "historical authenticity" beforehand; although at least they tried to bring some color in, graffiti, etc.).

[tlclark]

but Sophia Loren in a lime green body huggin stola! Or how about that red outfit she's wearing in commodus' triumph! Holy cow! She looks good, but totally inaccurate. The rest, not so bad.

That's why I wrote not TOTALLY authentic ;-) )

On no, in that outfit I could tell. Sophia Loren is 100% authentic. They don't make women like that anymore.

Actually not true. FOTRE was not shot in Cinecitta, but in Spain (about 20 miles from Madrid. On a Spain trip, I once drove by there in the mid 90s to see if anything was left of the set, sadly, nothing had remained). The whole set was built for this one movie and then fell into neglect. The only other movie which was shot in some of the remnants was "A Funny Thing happened on the Way to the Forum", I think.

No way! I thought for sure that was cinecitta. Oh well. The decision to put the arch of augustus in the HBO Rome set is simply inexplicable. It's one thing to have to work around an existing set, entirely another to put in inaccuracies intentionally.

Oy vey!.

Thanks for the info.

Travis