maybe just a little bit

[Caballo]

One thought- an impact from campaigning that would be seen despite cleaning is the cannibalising of equipment (e.g. lorica bits combined) , and mended equipment generally.

IIRC, didn't Mike Bishop give a lecture on the Carlisle manicae called "Ubendum wemendum" illustrating this?

Regards

Caballo

[A_Volpe]

Woad -

Engineering an Empire - Yes I saw it, and several members of my Legion group, Leg. III Cyrenaica, were part of that filiming, as well as Legions XXIV (in PA/NY) and XXX (Canada) were part of the Caesar's Bridge segment.

The desired look by the director for that shoot was gubby and grimey. There is evidence that Romans took particular pride in looking spiffy and shiny when the oportunity allowed. For instance, Josephus wiritng about the Jewish Revolt (c. 60-70 AD), mentions Pay Day for the Legions, I believe 2 or 3 Legions were being issued thier pay, and it took over 3 whole days to hand out the money to the troops, and every one of them took the time to shine up thier armor and gear as best the could to look damn good to the enemy, and that of course was done on purpose - The Romans are here, they can take the time to make themselves look outstanding, to parade for each other AND to get paid over the course of a few days, in full view of the enemy.

many of us Reenactors like looking very nice with our expensive, and easily rusted, armor and gear, some even further in "parade" dress as it were; but there are others who like to show a soldier "in the field on campaign" and to look as grimey and gritty as possible. There are others like myself who just try to look like we're somewhere inbetween. Any of these are entirely acceptable and accurate portrayls of ANY soldier in ANY timeperiod during ANY war (or peacetime for that matter)....It all depends on what context you're looking to convey. Would a soldier looking spic and span look out of place in the middle of Cannae? Would a soldier covered in rust, grime, blood, torn and bruised, look out of place during Caesar's march on Rome?

I'd also like to ask you to try to do more searching and reading of other posts that will probably answer your questions. And, instead of risking of asking a question that's already been answered, why not ask if there are other threads or posts that you could read?

Also, please try to stop using shorthand, it looks sloppy.

Have a blast in Egypt.

[Woadwarrior]

Okay Francis- all you seem to want is to hear that many reenactors' well-kept gear isn't reminiscent of soldiers with years and years of service- is that it? Then yes, this is indeed the case. In fact most of what people have is far too nicely-made too; real artifacts show a workmanship spectrum from quite poor to extraordinary. Do we know anything for sure- well the very first reply you got was right on- WHO KNOWS? You keep asking specific questions and the answers are usually, we just don't know. How did the Romans clean their armor and weapons? We don't know. Is the stuff portrayed in that TV show accurate? We have no idea. How could we possibly know for sure? You seem to want hard facts about things that have none whatsoever- you're going to have to start dealing with that- the majority of this subject is only fragmentary evidence filled in with a lot of theory and speculation based on the best information at hand. As I already said.

If all you want is agreement then you've got it. What I and others have tried to do is point out that your premise is flawed- that most people aren't even TRYING to be 100% accurate, or to portray a soldier who's been in service for years and years or has been through battle after battle. Your error is that you're being excessively specific- and that just doesn't apply unless you're looking at a single individual who has made certain claims about what his kit is supposed to be.

If, however, all you wanted to know is whether or not the TV show did a reasonable job at portraying reality, well again the problem is that no one can truly answer that question as none of us was there, there are no photographs, etc. The tiny sample of artifacts isn't sufficient to truly illustrate anything for sure, so it's a question without hope of a proper answer. All we can say is this seems reasonable, that sounds right, etc. And if you want people to not take offense or say 'oh God another post by Woad', you might want to consider thinking about how you phrase questions and replies so as not to sound like you're insulting anything or just ignoring the answers people took time to write. Repeating the same question again and again is a really good way to demonstrate the latter unless you point out specific things that you feel didn't quite address what you wanted to know.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

francis, many reenactors (no offense to anyone) dont seem to get it that the romans didnt have brasso, and didnt get to go home to wash up in their hotel room at night, in other words, your post may be the most sensible post i have seen in a long time.

I have lived in my armor for long periods of time, running in it, exercising etc., and no matter how hard you clean it with what they had (olive oil, sand etc.) it WILL NOT, and NEVER WILL look like many reenactors.

look at ANY picture of soldiers serving in a muddy area, and you will see clothing and gear noit quite as clean as it should be,

http://katardat.org/russia/russia-in-pictures.html

start with the antifascist war pictures here.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

and yes, some of those pictures are even in leningrad garrisons

also, lorica would not be pitted and rusty, but it takes on a nice gray look with olive oil.

i actually dont have a copy of josephus, i do need for my files that bit on the parade, does anyone have that? not the english translation, the original.

[Tiberius Claudius Vindex]

I've got to back up my commander here (and not as a toady I might add.)

I would think that when on garrison they would try their best to keep their gear clean and in good shape. Granted though that keeping in a mirror finish without brasso or some other modern compound would be next to impossible. You can add to that factors like location, ie. Britian being wet and rainiy would make keeping off rust difficult or the grit of a desert envrionment eating away at gear.

On campaign though I can't imigine them spending more than a small amount of time trying to keep their gear polished and nice looking. They would have been marching 15-20 miles. After that they would have had to keep their eyes out for barbarian raiders or the like. Given that, if they spent hours polishing their armor and gear they would have never gotten any sleep or other duties done and their combat effectiveness would have been gone.

Another thing about damage to gear, if you look at most helmets found, they look like they've got battle damage similar to steel helmets from the 1st and 2nd World War. Though they could have taken the time to bang out the dents, they didn't seem to bother because despite the fact that it might be an eyesore, the helmet still works just fine.

[Matt Lukes]

Okay Francis- all you seem to want is to hear that many reenactors' well-kept gear isn't reminiscent of soldiers with years and years of service- is that it? Then yes, this is indeed the case. In fact most of what people have is far too nicely-made too; real artifacts show a workmanship spectrum from quite poor to extraordinary. Do we know anything for sure- well the very first reply you got was right on- WHO KNOWS? You keep asking specific questions and the answers are usually, we just don't know. How did the Romans clean their armor and weapons? We don't know. Is the stuff portrayed in that TV show accurate? We have no idea. How could we possibly know for sure? You seem to want hard facts about things that have none whatsoever- you're going to have to start dealing with that- the majority of this subject is only fragmentary evidence filled in with a lot of theory and speculation based on the best information at hand. As I already said.

If all you want is agreement then you've got it. What I and others have tried to do is point out that your premise is flawed- that most people aren't even TRYING to be 100% accurate, or to portray a soldier who's been in service for years and years or has been through battle after battle. Your error is that you're being excessively specific- and that just doesn't apply unless you're looking at a single individual who has made certain claims about what his kit is supposed to be.

If, however, all you wanted to know is whether or not the TV show did a reasonable job at portraying reality, well again the problem is that no one can truly answer that question as none of us was there, there are no photographs, etc. The tiny sample of artifacts isn't sufficient to truly illustrate anything for sure, so it's a question without hope of a proper answer. All we can say is this seems reasonable, that sounds right, etc. And if you want people to not take offense or say 'oh God another post by Woad', you might want to consider thinking about how you phrase questions and replies so as not to sound like you're insulting anything or just ignoring the answers people took time to write. Repeating the same question again and again is a really good way to demonstrate the latter unless you point out specific things that you feel didn't quite address what you wanted to know.

[Woadwarrior]

wow thanx alot i have been waiting for a reply like that for a long time

[Magnus]

So basically you only take into consideration posts you agree with, based on your pre-determined, unswerving opinions about how a roman legionary should look?

hock:

That's close-minded. Why bother posting questions on an educated forum if you're not prepared to accept the answers?

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

matt L is right

the ONLY thing i can say with fair certainty (call it 85-95%) is that they would not have had a mirror finish with the technology available at the time. this is one thing ive been researching for an article on, and trying on different parts of my gear the only available compounds for romans.

ash- seems to work the best, does give a reflecting surface to brass that would correspond with a few accounts, NOT immaculate mirror.

olive oil and sand- also helps clean up corrosion, will add tiny scratches negating any and all possibility for a mirror finish.

animal dung mix- byzantine, but it is something available.......it gives a shine slightly less than some good polishing with ash, but still works, this one is better for iron, and yes, i used real sheet iron in all tests, as well as brass, bronze is yet to be done.

it takes a long time to polish well with all these compounds FYI.

for the rest of it youll have to wait a year or two LOL just a tease here.

[Matt Lukes]

wow thanx alot i have been waiting for a reply like that for a long time

hock: I point out that your question is fatally-flawed and you're happy? Well okay, I'm glad you got the answer you wanted :lol:

[Magnus]

Maybe he was thankfull for your reply? :lol:

[Woadwarrior]

so has anybody seen it?

[Petra Rocks]

I think the difficulty to answering this question is that it is so broad. How dirty did Roman soldiers get? "Roman soldiers" covers about 700 years and thousands of miles in many climates. Legionaries on a forced march in hositle territory would probably not be very well groomed and might well have made some unregulation repairs to their gear. People doing garrison duty in a town in a quiet zone like Spain would probably not need to modify their armour, and might well be able to make to the baths as often as anyone in town. It is really just a matter of applying a little comon sense. (Not trying to imply anyone here hasn't been :wink: )

[A_Volpe]

Woadwarrior...Beggars can't be choosers.

You keep asking about Engineering an Empire.

I suggest you go back and look at previous replies, because I answered you question on that TV Special.

I also would like to add that Roman groups all over the world set up and try to maintain thier own set of Standards, this dictating how a soldier "should look". Every group is different and bring a different view on what they believe a soldier ought to have looked like with the information they choose to research.

Does that make one group better than another? That's your own opinion to figure out....if there is a group out here that you think follows your set of standards and expectations for what you think a soldier or whatever looked like, then you ought to consider becoming a participating member of that group, but remember that we all have our own theories that does not make us "better" than another....As it had been said - sometimes we Just Don't Know. That is both part of the excitment of Roman Reenacting as well as a very Frustrating aspect of it. Believe me, every single one of us wishes we could either go back there or just know exactly what it was like and how it looked....Until you build a time-machine and offer us to use it...We're going to have to deal with "We Don't Always Know".

Also keep in mind that with the constant research and archaeological finds that we're still finding could re-write our standards or perceptions on the [Romans]. I know personally it has re-written my information several times in the 5+ years I've been into this. And I know it will probably be re-written again in the future.