08-07-2008, 03:39 AM
Actually Yuri raises a point. And this may depend on what perspective a group wishes to portray. I am going to comment less on re-enactment and more on the Archaeological perspective.
These are generalizations for the sake of brevity. Further, being educated in the American school of Archeology, I will have to defer to our European contributors because they have better access to original materials and sources that I do. This is not a slap at anyone, but simply to point out the emphasis in the US is different, and archaeological inference and analysis is geared more towards pre-history than in Europe.
As such, I am guessing. but forums like this are where initial ideas are tested and developed.
Miles, (soldiers in general) were more differentiated by dress at a time when dress indicated social position. Rome did not necessarily distinguish between the modern functions of the Military and Police. Often a career in the Army was a move upward in social mobility, and it can be expected that this would be displayed when social differentiation was desired, or necessary. To this end, garrison or peace time soldiers would probably keep equipment, when worn, and especially clothing, in a higher state of appearance that when in the field.
However, since equipmment was, paradoxically, more a product of function than overt display, a modern "spitshine" approach to maintenance was probably not used. Modern military systems can take appearance to the extreme and even inhibit the original function. Platform jump boots with side zippers that are not allowed to be jumped with for an example. Starched and pressed flame resistant flight suits that destroy the flame resistance for another. Since economic functions as well as practical usage in the ancient world were different, pragmatism was probably the deciding factor. This may be especially true when the "logistical tail" was much smaller than modern times. The army was comparatively more expensive in an agrarian society than an industrial one, and the percentage of the army participating in field operations was significantly higher than modern times. Discipline was more a function of coherent unit cohesion than a D&C "Don't you know there is a parade on?" mentality. Field operations means wear and tear, and no modern army ever seems to live up to its prescribed appearance in the field, much less in combat operations. (At least when I was in. How things are now I don't know.) I think it is a mistake to assume any modern model, by default, must have been standard in the ancient world, including mine. However, "uniformity" as we know it, as concept and as a consequence of a non-industrial society, simply could not have existed.
R. Izard
These are generalizations for the sake of brevity. Further, being educated in the American school of Archeology, I will have to defer to our European contributors because they have better access to original materials and sources that I do. This is not a slap at anyone, but simply to point out the emphasis in the US is different, and archaeological inference and analysis is geared more towards pre-history than in Europe.
As such, I am guessing. but forums like this are where initial ideas are tested and developed.
Miles, (soldiers in general) were more differentiated by dress at a time when dress indicated social position. Rome did not necessarily distinguish between the modern functions of the Military and Police. Often a career in the Army was a move upward in social mobility, and it can be expected that this would be displayed when social differentiation was desired, or necessary. To this end, garrison or peace time soldiers would probably keep equipment, when worn, and especially clothing, in a higher state of appearance that when in the field.
However, since equipmment was, paradoxically, more a product of function than overt display, a modern "spitshine" approach to maintenance was probably not used. Modern military systems can take appearance to the extreme and even inhibit the original function. Platform jump boots with side zippers that are not allowed to be jumped with for an example. Starched and pressed flame resistant flight suits that destroy the flame resistance for another. Since economic functions as well as practical usage in the ancient world were different, pragmatism was probably the deciding factor. This may be especially true when the "logistical tail" was much smaller than modern times. The army was comparatively more expensive in an agrarian society than an industrial one, and the percentage of the army participating in field operations was significantly higher than modern times. Discipline was more a function of coherent unit cohesion than a D&C "Don't you know there is a parade on?" mentality. Field operations means wear and tear, and no modern army ever seems to live up to its prescribed appearance in the field, much less in combat operations. (At least when I was in. How things are now I don't know.) I think it is a mistake to assume any modern model, by default, must have been standard in the ancient world, including mine. However, "uniformity" as we know it, as concept and as a consequence of a non-industrial society, simply could not have existed.
R. Izard
