Female reenactors as soldiers?

[Caius Valens]

I agree with Casear,That women as miles should not be done. It was not done in the Roman Army it should not be done in reeactment. After all we are try to do living history not rewriting it. Women have a place as camp followers. Sorry but thats how it was. However in fairness if a women really wanted to be a roman reenactor, I wouldnt have the heart to say no.. :roll:

[John Conyard]

I think past discussions have highlighted the fact that the majority of male re-enactors are unfit, the wrong body shape and too old to portray Roman soldiers. That women are often the right size, fitter and have a better body shape. People have commented that female re-enactors should make efforts to look more like men, and that male re-enactors should try and look more like Roman soldiers.

In the cavalry photo above I’m wearing short hair and beard, fashionable a generation before the period I’m trying to portray. However the long hair of some riders is correct for 400 AD.

[attachment=0:1sprzn6q]<!-- ia0 mrp09100.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:1sprzn6q]

However all of this is overshadowed by equal opportunities legislation. If a woman wants to portray a legionary she has every right, and should be helped and encouraged to put together a good impression. Just like any other new member, she should be treated with equality and fairness.

Single women do join Comitatus. As do single men and families of all ages.

That much is just common sense. But on a more controversial note I do wonder what we are sometimes trying to achieve. If we want to reconstruct military equipment and find out how it performs it doesn’t often matter who is using it, male or female. If we are trying to dress up to look and act as Roman soldiers, perhaps make up and acting classes would be appropriate.

I’m off to put on my mascara…….

[arklore70]

I think it is largely a personal decision of each group and history certainly shows that women did not serve in the Roman Army as far as we know at this time and point.

However, when claiming a 501c status and other tax exemption statuses as a reenactor or group it might be worthwhile to read the fine print to ensure that any decision made does not conflict with local, state or federal statutes or that if it does, that you are prepared to mange the risk appropriately.

R/

[Ammianus]

*sigh* So this topic has come up...
I'm going to stick my neck out and I hope not to offend or annoy anyone too much in the process.
Looking beyond the "you have to because of equal rights"...

I joined Comitatus because I had an interest in Late Roman miltary history. I wanted to learn about using the equiptment and I also generally wanted to start reconstruction/re-enactment. And I am female. Well that's a setback for a start!
I was plesantly suprised when I found out they allowed women to portray legionaries. I work very very hard at shows to appear like a man. I never take my helmet off in a show. When talking to public just after we have finished a show I have found that often people do not realise I am female until I take off my helmet/hear my voice when I talk to them. Or if they are aware and ask the inevitable "did they have female soilders" then I explain it to them. I am always aware of my actions and how I carry myself - I have to be.
In the evenings when the shows are over I change into my dress and enjoy the evenings being my born self around the fire. On top of infantry I am now working on cavalry - training with a new horse for the group next year. I am down at the stables every week in the wind and the rain. It is not something I take lightly.

I completely understand why people argue that it would not be authentic to let women join in,and if women are doing so then you cannot be truely authentic. I sometimes have an argument within myself as to whether I should do it or not, but at the end of the day it's something I enjoy and I want to learn more through experience as well.
In some ways portraying Late Roman legionary is easier for a woman than an Early Roman - I wouldn't consider doing that. Even some men don't seem to fill the armour! (sorry!)

I would argue that if a woman can competently use the weaponry and artillery, whilst portraying a male figure (not fantasizing about being a female warrior) then I don't see why that can't be done.

This is a never-ending and hard question of debate that comes back time and time again, and I've probably phrased things badly! :?

From what i have heard most women in most groups are romantically involved with a member of that group...not many singles joining re-enactment groups if you ask me...

I joined as a single female interested in the history, not becuase of any romantic involvement :lol:
My partner doesn't do re-enactment. Simple.

Sorry if I've rambled. Cheers.
Amy


PS. spot me :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Can't argue that it is easier to disguise yourself in later kit!
btw,
1. on the left.
2. rider with back to camera
3. second from the left
4. left sword weilding soldier
5. Smiling soldier on horse back maybe?

But like you say, an earlier impression is harder to get away with. the legs would probably be a give away!

There are females who reenact, that is life, but on the whole, I don't think even at 21 ermmm 47 that I am too old to portray a legionary
or a centurion for that matter.

Like I said, I certainly would not give the option of playing a woman to a man, pc crowd regardless.
I am certainly not a male chauvanist, but there are some things tha tjust wouldn't work.
For instance, we are in some instances required to wear unarmoured dress....

I hate to sound as if I don't like women in kit but, well, some things just wouldn't work. :roll:
BTW. I think your late cavelry impression looks excellent!

[John Conyard]

Good stuff Byron. It’s relatively pointless to discuss the average size of Roman soldiers, or the average age. However I suspect that both you and me are too old, and the wrong shape to represent the norm. Legs can be hidden by leg wraps, but I’m trying not to mention your head size………

Please forgive me pointing out that while women may not look like men in undress, only in armour, often men do not look like “Roman soldiers” in undress or armour.

Anybody who can do ten events a year sleeping in a dog tent, look convincing in their equipment, do marches to test themselves and equipment, learn to ride (sort of!), and use various sharp weapons on foot and horse back, makes a good Roman re-enactor. In comparison their sex is unimportant

[Ammianus]

I hate to sound as if I don't like women in kit but, well, some things just wouldn't work.

Well I can't say I didn't try - I've agured my point, and I am sure there are many more sides to this
This is a question not easily answered.

Thank you John - haha yes I have come to know my dog tent very well.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Okay... to oil the fire.....

FAT re-enactors should be banned from displays, wether male or female, it was NOT done !(unless in the role of fat patrician villa owner or tax collector or obese senator eating fat meat dripping fat all over themselves)

Midgets (or to use the correct name, little people) should NOT be allowed to join in the ranks, except when in a circus or variety role.

Ah yes, and did i mention all Greek re-enactors should be homosexual and engage in homosexual, bisexual and pederastic acts?

some examples from other eras (not to insult too many large people on here)







(actually, this WAS done in the German army of wwII : )



some other FAILs :







PEOPLE!! we live in the year 2009 !!!

we have women's rights these days, and human rights.
Those who want to do the hobby, are allowed to do the hobby.
whatever creed, colour, sexe, sexual orientation and what have you.

to be historically correct is to have historically feasible and scientifically researched armour and equipment.

to be historically correct means also you should not re-enact, since the Romans did not either re-enact.
(unless you want to portray some big fights in the Arena, or even on lake Nemi)

The Romans are and have been dead for centuries.
Why then bother?

Its a hobby! and it should be entertaining and educational to the public and yourself, wether you are from Mars or Venus, or inbetween...

M.VIB.M.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Women have rights? Wow, who knew?

Look, no offense John, but I know there were soldiers of our age and older serving in the Roman army.
So we wouldn't be disqualified.......and my head size would be a great advantage back then too.....more room for gray matter. :wink:

But I will still argue the point that then you also have to allow men to pertray female roles? (We all know a there is a large section of the population that would line up for that one!) Personally, I would find it distasteful to do that in a public display for families. But, they have rights too, so there you go!

It is fine to say legs can be covered by wraps. Good for some of the time!

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

A lot can be covered by wrapping, and thats often a good thing indeed... :lol: :lol: :lol:

M.VIB.M.

[John Conyard]

No offence taken Byron. I’m sorry if I sound confrontational. This is an emotive issue so people will get upset. I’m trying hard not to preach, but I suspect I sound as if I am. I’ll retreat back into my position of women in Roman re-enactment should take the trouble to look like men, and men should take the trouble to look like Roman soldiers. We should all enjoy the hobby, and not exclude anybody.

Now I’m off to ride a horse in the rain.

[Tita Iuventia Martia]

Salvete omnes,
I also try to add my personal opinion about this delicate theme... Yes, I am female and I am also the reenactor, I portray a Roman soldier. I can understand those who say that the Ladies simply can not portray soldiers because they are the ladies and Romans did not have female soldiers, but...

People, we we are in the 21 th century and we are not real Romans, but we are history lovers, we admire our ancient ancestors, because of their sence for the high level of the organization, their discipline under the arms, their skills, their profesional army etc.

I have no problem with female in a male role, if she is able to disguise herself. Forinstance, If I am wearing my two tunics, you can not tell I have female chest. . I have short hair, so there is no long hair jutting out from under my helmet. When I am wearing oll my kit, one has to stand really closed to me to be able to tell that I am a woman.

It is up to each group, whether they accept female soldiers or not. I personaly think, that the spectators know that we are not real Romans and they also know that women could not has served in the army. So I think that a well disguised woman with a good kit is more informative, than a man with a bad kit. It is better to have to imagine a man using that correct kit than to see a man wearing a wrong kit and get wrong information. So I would hope I would be judged based on the quality of my impression, not based on what sex I am.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would not argue against your right portray a Roman soldier. I am only arguing the case for the groups that chose to have only men
portray Roman soldiers, and woman portray the female roles of Roman society.
It would get really messy if we went right down the route of applying equal rights to the letter of the law...... :oops:

Ammianus, you never told me if I got them all right or not?

.....take the trouble to look like Roman soldiers. We should all enjoy the hobby, and not exclude anybody.

Now I’m off to ride a horse in the rain.

Speaking of horses and on another track.....where is the horse that goes with my cavelry hemet? :o shock:
I checked the box inside and out, and couldn't find a trace of it!!
How can you have a cavelry helmet without a horse? It just becomes a piece of metal on your head without the horse! :roll:

[Tita Iuventia Martia]

Salve GAius,
Excuse me, I did not want to squabble about. I only wanted to explane my opinion... I get that sometimes it is a bit dificult to understand, what I wanted to say, because my English skill... :oops:

Well, I do not want to dispute a claim of each group to say: "Sorry, we do not accept a woman soldier, try to contact the other group.". It is an unexceptionable right of each reenactment society. No problem about it.

I only say that well disguised woman with correct kit is well acceptable. What is really important, IMO, is the endeavour of right impression (wearing correct armor, helmet, sword, belt..) and also the personal interest in this nice hobby.

vale

regards

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I didn't think you were squabbling at all. Far from it, I respect your rights and interests in the hobby.
It is just difficult to defend the position from the side I am with out sounding as if I dissagree with woman
in reenacting.