Female reenactors as soldiers?

[Iagoba]

There is a fast way to find what Roman soldier is a woman: probably they are the only one with depilated legs, even if the historical accuracy dictates that men should do it too :lol:

Anyway, they can choose to go as rude soldiers of ladies, and that it's not possible without hilarious results for the men of my group, mostly bearded... :roll:

And for those worried by historical accuracy, those older than 40 years should give their kit to us the 16-25 years old levies, not? :wink:

[Catherine aka Flavia]

Yes, even John can do passable leatherwork. But men in general just lack practice in stitching. As you say Byron, a woman could probably help you out with your soft kit. And others could benefit from such help as well.

Women have to bring a very professional attitude to the hobby. They have to change several times a day between male and female impressions, practice twice as hard with weapons, and often have to take care of a family. And Comitatus riders are in effect professional re-enactors who put in a lot of practice. I know Amy is currently putting in at least three hours a week training a new horse. And John is doing even more training a very nervous stallion for next season.

Now I have to get back to the real world. Although a thread on if men should be allowed to portray Roman soldiers is tempting, and perhaps more relevant than this thread.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

And for those worried by historical accuracy, those older than 40 years should give their kit to us the 16-25 years old levies, not? :wink:

What version of accuracy are you looking at there? It only says the enrolement age would be ideally in that range....
How do you imagine you would stay that age during a 25-30 year stint of service? :wink:

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Surely the question must be if some men be allowed to portray Roman soldiers?

True. Being a male - a necessary but not the only requirement for a Roman soldier.

[M. Demetrius]

Do requirements for enlisting in the Ancient Roman Army equal requirements for joining a Modern Roman Reenactment group? :? roll:

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Do requirements for enlisting in the Ancient Roman Army equal requirements for joining a Modern Roman Reenactment group? :? roll:

Perhaps they might if you decide to play a centurion's wife :lol:

[Caballo]

Iagoba wrote: And for those worried by historical accuracy, those older than 40 years should give their kit to us the 16-25 years old levies, not?

To quote Leonidas at Thermopylae, Mol?n labe! (????? ????) ......(Come and get it.......)

[Astiryu1]

Very true! I myself am only 26 yrs old and do not own any land for myself. In most circumstances I'm out as well. Besides 26 back then was middle aged.

[Salvianus]

Interesting. Having thought about it (in't RAT BRILLIANT! :lol: ) I don't believe that I normally think of the quality of a re-enactor's impression, how convincing it is in terms of approaching what I picture as authentic, as being a qualifier for participation, only at worst an urgent call to improve it. After all, I tolerate for myself long hair without worrying that someone will think I'm a girl from the back view (which has happened in modern civvies!) or to worry that I don't get to explain the plausibility for our period if they think it a modernism but don't ask.

On a different tack entirely, I thought I'd say what it's like to experience standing shoulder to shoulder with women in the line or in the testudo, for those men whose groups don't do it.

It's like standing shoulder to shoulder with men.

[Astiryu1]

Everyone can hold a spear or sword! It always kind of irks me in movies when men fight to the death and women just stand there. I am fairly sure females in the human race can defend their young as well as any animal. Most would do much better.

[Kineas]

I am always delighted to see and experience a good historical impression, in any period, from anyone, regardless of all the claptrap we use to divide ourselves up--and that includes gender. By the same token, I'm always annoyed as heck when I see a crap impression.

I'll admit that I have a slight preference--but only a slight one--for women portraying--and glorifying--the role of women qua women. Despite the best efforts of male historians, it often turns out that women had more to do with armies than cooking the food and providing sex. But I now accept--and enjoy--women protraying men, as long as they do it well. And so many of them do it well that I think it would be foolish of me to have two standards, so I try to limit myself to just one--enjoy a good impression, be sad to see a bad one.

Further, as a person who has run a group with a membership over 50 for twenty years--most groups without women as FULL PARTICIPANTS--not hangers on, not "girlfriends" and not second class citizens, but fellow living historians with valued roles, and sometimes leaders--such groups seldom grow very large or last very long. This is not the real army, and the dynamic social stresses of the "real world" often take single men right out of the hobby--if their women aren't happy in it.

I'll further note--and I do hope I irritate a few of you--that historical groups that actually "live the life" instead of dressing up and playing it cannot function long or well without women. Our groups go out for a week--sometimes longer--in fairly adverse wilderness conditions with nothing but period equipment. If you can cut wood with an axe and cook over an open fire in freezing rain, no one really gives a crap about what gender you carried in--just whether you carried you share of the rations.

Twenty five years ago, I was a young man who believed that such wilderness adventures were "for men." I was wrong. i hope some of the folks posting on this list learn the lessons I learned, in the military and out of it, and take them to reenacting. Women belong any place they want to be and can earn a place in--just like men, no better and no worse.

[John Conyard]

The view that you have to be a man to portray a Roman soldier in re-enactment dates from the 1970's, and attitudes and legislation have moved on.

The idea that you need to be a certain age, or shape, or fitness, etc etc . are interesting but are hardly aimed at making the hobby inclusive of fun. In part they mirror worrying trends in society about just who is considered "British" or allowed to enter and live in the UK.

A convincing impression is all that matters. Which means excellent kit and equipment, and perhaps the ability to use it.

Excellent equipment is a good start. And it is of course easier to portray a low status soldier well than a high status soldier badly. But that equipment needs to be used, and given time to develop tell-tale wear marks and patterns that show it is fit to be used and lived in. You need to learn simple basic skills to make the armour more than fancy dress. Learning how Roman equipment is used and functions gives our hobby a "higher purpose", hard data that can be used to further knowledge about the period.

There endeth the sermon. But I couldn't resist. Now I think Mrs. Conyard wants to tell you how girlie you all are. :roll:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Wow, who knew that women were required to make society function..... :twisted: :lol:

Can't say there is anything being posted here that I would disagree with on the roles etc.
In our group the women seem to prefer to take the roles of women, and I dare any man to question their right to do that either! :wink:

Saying that, the younger lassies have voiced the desire to form a combat function...they are possibly interested in Gladiators tho',
So they seem to have no real issues with idea that the men play the roles of men, women, women....and I cna say I have not personnally met a more talented bunch of the members of the opposite sex! I have yet to meet any of the ladies posting on here!

[Caballo]

A convincing impression is all that matters.

I think thats right- and its probably also the case that it is much more difficult to disguise the physiological differences in Greek (those short chitons) or first century kit than in later kit when arms/ legs etc can covered up. I've seen very convincing female reenactors in Late kit- Amy being one who is more convincing than most men- but I'm struggling to think of a convincing first century female impression of a soldier. Happy to be proved wrong of course.

The late kit with the baggy tunics is also more forgiving of those of us blokes like me whose six-pack now lives in the fridge with ring-pulls on the top........ :roll:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thats the point I was making, Caballo!
Of course, I can't relate to the six pack issue, what with the herculean physique what I got an' all! :wink: