Female reenactors as soldiers?

[Tarbicus]

While I am all for womans equality in the modern world, our group does not allow woman to protray soldiers simply because it was not
done in the Roman army. There are other groups which authentically allow women to portray a warrior, such as cladiator groups etc.
That is the reasoning behind our groups decision. Authenticity.

How authentic is a lard arse, man breasts and a big beer belly?

If the group has those in its ranks, plus full sets of teeth, the group is on shaky ground methinks. :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hey, Gladiators were men too, so probably very! :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Well, a few gladiators were women. 8)

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, the man boobs are what differentiate....and maybe the beer bellies! :wink:

[jvrjenivs]

{off-topic mode}

Well, a few gladiators were women. 8)

No. A gladiator is male. Female would be a gladiatrix.

[M. Demetrius]

(hangs head in shame) Sir, you are right. I knew that, too. Sigh. :oops:

[Dominic]

Well, my experience hangs mainly in reenacting the American Civil War, but I'll humbly if I may share my experiences there.

I was at a very small unit back home early in my reenacting career. My own kit had much to be desired, but I was getting an eye for what was right and what was not. What really annoyed me was a Union artillery unit that had no less than three very obvious women in the ranks. Their hair was worn long (in one case in braids) and their clothing was form-fitting enough to be modern. This left a bad taste in my mouth, and that night as I was sitting around the camp fire I mentioned this fact to a gentleman on my left. His kit was (as far as memory serves) excellent, and while his hair was long it was cut in the masculine fashion and matched his beard. We spoke at length about improving my impression and he spoke with knowledge and patience and understanding and I learned very much. It wasn't till the next day after the battle that I went to thank him and noticed that his beard had started to come off at a corner, and "his" husband had to help "him" put it back into place.

From what I have been able to see women can very well pretend to be men. It takes effort and skill (and just a bit of genetic luck) to pull it off, but it can be done. I think what is a better measure is how authentic an impression you can manage. If you carry your spare tire in your belt, well, that might be a bit of a problem. Learn to conceal it or lose it. If you're too old find an acceptable impression or hide it. This is the modern age. There are all kinds of ways to shave a couple years off. Or pounds. Or curves. Like the rest of the impression one's gender can be altered to appear to suit the time with a little skill and effort. And now junior is going to go back to lurking. I know. Lurk moar.

[Tarbicus]

Well, my experience hangs mainly in reenacting the American Civil War, but I'll humbly if I may share my experiences there.

I was at a very small unit back home early in my reenacting career. My own kit had much to be desired, but I was getting an eye for what was right and what was not. What really annoyed me was a Union artillery unit that had no less than three very obvious women in the ranks. Their hair was worn long (in one case in braids) and their clothing was form-fitting enough to be modern. This left a bad taste in my mouth, and that night as I was sitting around the camp fire I mentioned this fact to a gentleman on my left. His kit was (as far as memory serves) excellent, and while his hair was long it was cut in the masculine fashion and matched his beard. We spoke at length about improving my impression and he spoke with knowledge and patience and understanding and I learned very much. It wasn't till the next day after the battle that I went to thank him and noticed that his beard had started to come off at a corner, and "his" husband had to help "him" put it back into place.

Happened in reality, too, including husbands joining up with wives and keeping it a secret. One woman was so highly thought of that after she was de-mobbed once exposed, she was granted her military pension by the President.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Secret+wa ... a095843735
http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... war-1.html
http://www.hallrichard.com/civilwomen.htm
http://civilwarwomen.blogspot.com/2006/ ... l-war.html

Disguised as a man (left), Frances Clayton served many months in Missouri artillery and cavalry units.
(By courtesy of the Trustees of the Boston Public Library)

http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... war-1.html

[Astiryu1]

Honestly the first pic fooled me! I have seen doc's on the female soldiers in the civil war. It didn't suprise me that a woman would want to throw down for her respective homeland along with her Beau. The Amazonians ( if fact ) had their own land for quite a while. Depending on the issue of possible male subjugation I would emigrate (if still around of course)!!!

[Chlodovicus]

Sorry to be late to this thread, but, as my opinion only, women re-enacting Roman soldiers is perfectly fine. Especially for the later periods (as so well done and explained by Amy Wallace), the usual dress does not demonstrate a feminine appearance at re-enactments. In terms of stature, women are more the height of soldiers of the time - perhaps moreso of mounted soldiers.

Also as mentioned, the women have the option of re-enacting both male and female roles. No one wants some 6' 3" guy trying to be Galla Placidia after all!

Well, anyway, for the 4th and 5th centuries at least, I think it complements re-enactment. For the high imperial periods maybe not so much. There would have to be a rule against polish on toes with those first century army boots.

[Dominic]

I think its more a question if your impression is acceptable. Wether tis nobler in the mind to have the 400lb guy in absolutely and completely authentic kit speaking period Latin about the politics of the year, or to have a physically able man in a trooper helm and ebay armour who knows barely the basics of D&C. How many of even the most correct troopers carry about proper digging and entrenching tools? And how many know the best brothels or even temples of the nearest roman town? I'm used to the five foot rule in ACW reenacting. If it looks authentic at five feet, it's good. Unless one is wearing trousers however I think that the imperial period would be hard to pull off. I'm fairly familiar (and admittedly fond) of the shape of the female leg, and I'm sure most adult men are fairly aware of the difference in shape. Being male I can't speak for the judgement of the fairer sex, but I suspect that they have atleast my degree of awareness.

[John Conyard]

I suspect it is impossible to get into the "mind set" of a Roman soldier. Let us stick to the equipment.

1st century female re-enactors can use socks, leg wraps and short trousers reaching to below the knee. Their legs could be covered easily.

[Marcus F.]

peopel can do what they want as long as they don't expect us, the audience, to pay for this travesty.

[Appius Solanius Pertinax]

peopel can do what they want as long as they don't expect us, the audience, to pay for this travesty.

Feeling like flamebaiting today, eh? Try to remember your manners, will you? There's a difference between voicing an opinion and being rude

So I'd like to use this opportunity to thank everybody who contributed to this debate, both for sharing their views and for keeping the discussion (more or less) civilised and on topic. My experience with organizers of various events is mostly that they don't want females in male roles, so I'm happy to hear that so many people here think it *can* be done. Maybe, as time will go by, the situation will develop in the direction I'd prefer it to.

[Marcus F.]

Maybe you just have a hard time to accept oppinions that don't sound very pc.