Shining/Polished/New vs Worn/Weathered/Used Armour

[Carlton Bach]

Aside from the very good points made in the thread, I think another question is simply what people we mean to reenact. We know from written sources that Romans valued shiny metal on their troops (and the way their weapons are made also indicate that - there simply is no objective need to put that much shiny stuff on belts, scabbards and shields). It is quite likely that whenever they had the time, they would have seen to it that they glittered and jingled (not perhaps the best example, but if you look at native sowar caalry under the Raj, they were under no obligation to keep shiny and flashy but they did out of pride and habit). Taking the example of Caesar giving his troops elaborately decorated weapons, they seem to have appreciated the gesture rather than resented it (give a modern infantry unit chrome-plated parade helmets and watch their reaction).

This is, of course, no military obligation, but a matter of personal and group habit. That is not to say it couldn't have been enforced at the end of a stick - traditional societies rarely distinguish clearly between custom and law - but it is not necessary to imagine a centurio calling the men on parade to check the shine on their helmets. It would just happen (except, of course, where circumstances militated against it). In fact, I sometimes get the feeling from Late Republic/Principate sources that the upper crust had a conception of simplicity equalling virtus (in others) while the common soldiery - distressingly - quite liked their bling. It may help if you think of shiny armour and polished belt plates not as a duty, but a privilege.