main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor

[Caius Fabius]

Of course, many modern re-enactors have never been soldiers, but on the other hand, many of us have. Soem are still on active duty with their country's military, such as a great majority of the LEG XIIII GMV group from Fort Campbell. Even modern soldiers are different from their anci9ent roman counterparts.....

"Here are some of the other differences that separate our soldiers from the First Century AD Roman soldiers.
1. He had no home to come back to. Upon joining the Roman army, he had been ripped from the system of Pater Familius whereby the stricture of Roman family was made into law. The oldest surviving male head of household had always run his life, even to choosing his schools, friends, and deciding whether or not he could buy something. This was true even of choosing a wife, and the married son, even in his middle age was still subject to the Pater Familius, as were his own sons. But on joining the Army, he was removed from the system. He could make his own contracts, and be responsible for his own life, within the structure of the military. However he could not marry, and could not legally have a family during his term of service. If he did have children, they were still under the control of the Pater Familius. Joining the Legion usually dissolved marriage/engagement contracts. Brothels were legal.
2. He stayed in the combat zone until the war was over. Or until his unit was destroyed, or rarely, sent to a different front. There were no 12 month, 18 month, or 3 or 4 year rotations out of the “zoneâ€

[madoc]

Personally, the vast majority of re-enactors portraying roman soldiers in this country (UK) can not use the weapons that they are carrying and it shows.

It shows in the way in which they carry their weapons about, how they are sited on their belts and more importantly in the way in which they "pretend" to use them (on an imaginary opponent).

I honestly believe that everyone should at least be taught the basics of using their weapons, be able to manage at least 20 yards with a pila or 30 with a javelin and have spend some solid time at the post. Of course, I'd like to see more actual weapons practise so that when these people "pretend to fight" then there is some fluidity to their movements.

To my mind, an experienced re-enactor with years of using weapons puts over that casual, off hand facility with his weapons. He also looks comfortable in his kit.

I've also noticed that older re-enactors often never carry their swords about, unless they are actually going to use them. This I think is the same attitude that the real roman soldier would have to his weapons. They are tools and he has nothing to prove by having it strapped to his side all day.

[Robert Vermaat]

I've also noticed that older re-enactors often never carry their swords about, unless they are actually going to use them. This I think is the same attitude that the real roman soldier would have to his weapons. They are tools and he has nothing to prove by having it strapped to his side all day.

Hi John,
Although that's what I seem to do as well (I'm 42 but I'm only re-enacting for a couple of years), I still have a bit of problems with that last statement. Would that not depend on where the Roman soldier was? Why would he leave his sword when there could be a moment during the day when he would need it? Or are you referring to off-duty soldiers in areas far remeoved from any enemy?

[Tarbicus]

I've also noticed that older re-enactors often never carry their swords about, unless they are actually going to use them. This I think is the same attitude that the real roman soldier would have to his weapons. They are tools and he has nothing to prove by having it strapped to his side all day.

More likely he wouldn't wear armour outside of the fort or camp during peacetime, but I can only think he would wear his sword. Bandits would attack anyone unarmed given the opportunity, and even civilians were often advised to be armed when travelling.

[Matt Lukes]

ok I am going to ask just a quick question, and then ou can continue, I love reading all your replies.
Has anybody seen Rome enginneering an empire? (i know I asked this before but i truly tried re searching this, and got no answer) It was a big two hour special on history channel. say yes if you have seen it

Oh GODS no Francis- not that again PLEASE!! :lol:

[Matt Lukes]

It is quite possible that a lorica may see several owners

Absolutely- I don't think we need even look at near-modern examples to demonstrate this, there are real artifacts that have several different names marked on them (one brass helmet comes to mind immediately as well as the Guttmann gladius) certainly showing that arms and armor had different owners over time.

[Woadwarrior]

so about rome engineering an empire, and titus vienne?

[Marcus Mummius]

so about rome engineering an empire, and titus vienne?

I don't understand your fascination by Titus Vienne...

I don't know him but you can read in the thread he posted his pictures in that he went to the event without his own equipment. The things he is wearing in the picture he borrowed from the loaner-gear Daniel Peterson brought to that event.

Vale,

[Woadwarrior]

and rome engineering an empire, is the armor color (wear and tear) acurate, especially in the part of trajans conquest of dacia

[Robert Vermaat]

Yes.

[Matt Lukes]

and rome engineering an empire, is the armor color (wear and tear) acurate, especially in the part of trajans conquest of dacia

It's only a possibility Francis- it's makeup for the production so isn't likely even real rust or whatever, it's probably paint. All you need do is imagine GOOD reproduction armor and equipment, then imagine it a bit dented, a little rusty and dirty and you've probably got it. At least for a specific point in time- for all we know they cleaned and repaired everything quickly after a battle and it was a hell of a lot better in just a couple of days.

Now you've really got to get this- without direct evidence, ANYTHING is just speculation. We know what objects looked like in form because we have artifacts, how they'd look at a particular point in time is a guess. We can guess based on what we know to happen in battle or whatever- just picture a soldier at the front during WWII... you know I think I wrote all this before when you asked this exact same question... :lol: Skip it.

[Matt Lukes]

Actually, I wonder if the armor in the show was even accurate- if it's based on that shown on Trajan's Column it's of dubious authenticity- no artifacts exist to support the twin straps on the chest, the round-bottomed shoulder plates, etc.- THAT is what you should be more concerned with when evaluating the show. If it's a mixture of Newstead and Corbridge cuirasses, that's a different story...

[Caius Fabius]

Modern re-enactors = alive
Ancient Romans = dead

[Matt Lukes]

Very true

Real Romans (Imperial)- pagan
Reenactors- mostly monotheic, agnostic or atheist

[Magnus]

And some of us become Jedi when the sun goes down...