Reenactment Legion Uniformity vs Variety

[jkaler48]

Reenactment Legion Uniformity vs Variety

A few items should be the same within each century (reenactment group)
Tunic color
Scutum size and painting pattern (Minor shape variations and trim details should be OK)

Variations:
Should have a few different helmets in use but not too many.
A lot of different Pugios, belts and personnel items should be worn
Gladius - At least some variation is good but I don't think everyone should have a different Gladius
A mix of Armor should be worn with percentages reflecting the period portrayed.

Discussion?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Viva la Di France!

The uniformity of certain kit is effective in making a good impact on the public, but there is room with in that for variation in details.....
If all the legionaries wore the same kit and the Auxilliaries looked too similar, I would get bored as a viewer! It's when I see a group that has diversity in their appearance, it adds to the impression of authenticity. But that is just my 2 obols worth. (I'm cheap)

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

At Legio Prima Germanica, we bet for diversity:

[jvrjenivs]

Reenactment Legion Uniformity vs Variety

A few items should be the same within each century (reenactment group)
Tunic color

Why? I really don't see why tunic color should be uniform. We don't know anything about this. But I don't want to get into a tunic color debate again.

Scutum size and painting pattern (Minor shape variations and trim details should be OK)

I would agree with this, but I don't mind different designs within a legion, as for the first century, which I'm portraying, we don't have something such as the notiatia dignitatum.

Variations:
Should have a few different helmets in use but not too many.
A lot of different Pugios, belts and personnel items should be worn
Gladius - At least some variation is good but I don't think everyone should have a different Gladius
A mix of Armor should be worn with percentages reflecting the period portrayed.

Here I totally agree, but I would mention, that in my opinion we you don't need a centurio with a more ornate helmet then a milites. Certainly not the better pugios for the officers and simple ones for auxilia and such re-enactment stereotypes. I think the more variation the better, but remember the items people use, must fit into the period portrayed, so, unles most of you would have custum made stuff, you simply get uniform dressed people.

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

We can't prove that there was a uniform tunic color! The Romans were very fashion-conscious and they may certainly have followed colored fashions at some times and under some circumstances. But even in any one legion the men were from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and we have nothing to suggest a *regulation* for colors or shapes of tunics. We DO know that the legionaries who entered Rome during the Year of Four Emperors were not recognizable as such to the local residents!

Likewise, it is entirely possible that shield size was determined by body size. In Legio XX, I recommend a height from shoulders to knees, so that it does not interfere with pack or legs when slung on the back on the march. The shields found at Dura Europas were different sizes.

It is generally believed that each legion had its own shield emblem, but even that is hard to prove. The exact shades of each color must have varied, and certainly the quality and details of the work had to vary. Plus there were different shapes in use at the same time, different styles of boss (and in iron or brass), and probably different materials used for the rim. Bottom line, no real uniformity even if the emblem was basically the same.

There are only 3 or 4 basic styles of gladius from which to choose, but also a variety of hilt materials, and a large number of surviving scabbards from which to choose. Plus different options in colors for the leather, plain brass or tinned, etc. So yes, everyone's sword can still be different.

There isn't quite as much choice for armor, overall, though you can still get variations in the length of a hamata, or the shape of the shoulder flaps, style of chest hooks, and such. For lorica segmentata you have Corbridge A or B, or some interpretation of the Kalkriese style, plus a few options for tinning, but the differences won't be all that dramatic at a distance. Might be neat to see more scale armor showing up!

Strictly speaking, there is evidence that not all legionaries wore body armor! So you could throw that in as another option.

The thing to remember is that even with all this potential variation, a large body of legionaries could very well appear pretty uniform from any distance, at least if the basic background color of the shield is more or less the same. My wife has said that when a line of us are marching around the field, she can't pick me out of the crowd--and I'm usually the guy in command!

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/march6.jpg
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/rd02i.jpg

While I don't really feel that "what the public expects to see" should be much of a factor, I do agree that showing as much variety as possible can be more educational. It simply shows the audience that there WAS variety. So I'm not averse to possibly over-emphasizing variety for that reason. But from the standpoint of laziness, it's vastly easier to let everyone to be different than it would be to try to get them to look the same!

Valete,

Matthew

[Graham Sumner]

Hi
As I have pointed out in Roman Military Clothing 1&2 and will further develop in my latest book there is no evidence for a wide range of colours used. A small number of colours appear in consistent scenarios, throughout the Roman period. The third century tombstones show a very uniform appearance. However if by 'uniform' you mean everyone has the same shade of colour then I would certainly say no.

Matthew if you are in charge and your wife can not pick you out then I would suggest that your not wearing the right gear. I.E not flashy enough. Even if officers wore the same colours as their men their clothing material would be more expensive and they would use the more expensive dyes. The same would apply to whatever armour and equipment they were using. Incidentally my Gal could pick me out of the line up when I did my service, not by my armour but by my legs! :wink:

[Decimus Claudius Drusus]

To the tunic color debate. I know we have NO proof suggesting there was any uniformity within the legion, but do we have outstanding proof suggesting otherwise?

Army's today and for a few centuries recent have seen the benefit and perhaps need of having a somewhat uniformed troops. Are we going to flat say the Romans did not consider this, perhaps not in the tunic color alone, but it some way?

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Army's today and for a few centuries recent have seen the benefit and perhaps need of having a somewhat uniformed troops. Are we going to flat say the Romans did not consider this, perhaps not in the tunic color alone, but it some way?

Probably not, since we do not see what we would consider uniformed armies until the 16th/17th centuries.

[Decimus Claudius Drusus]

Army's today and for a few centuries recent have seen the benefit and perhaps need of having a somewhat uniformed troops. Are we going to flat say the Romans did not consider this, perhaps not in the tunic color alone, but it some way?

Probably not, since we do not see what we would consider uniformed armies until the 16th/17th centuries.

I wont argue the point, since there is no way to know and i could be very very wrong, i just have a hard time believing that such a professional army, that could be considered in ways more advanced than its medieval successors, did not value in some way uniformity, apart of the scutum design, if there was indeed uniformity in that.

[Marcus Mummius]

A

I wont argue the point, since there is no way to know and i could be very very wrong, i just have a hard time believing that such a professional army, that could be considered in ways more advanced than its medieval successors, did not value in some way uniformity, apart of the scutum design, if there was indeed uniformity in that.

I think we should not look for uniformity in the way how things looked, but rather look at the fact that almost all Roman soldiers were equipped with a helmet, armour, a sword, a shield, decent footwear etc... IMO this can be seen as a kind of uniformity, but on a different level. Most Roman soldiers were well equipped no matter if they provenated from simple peasant stock or from the upper classes of society. This is, I believe, one of the important advantages of the Roman army over other cultures in the same and other time periods.

I'm talking of the early Imperial period here, not republican times pre-Marius.

vale,

[Tarbicus]

We don't truly know, but even within Graham's point there's a latitude for variety of shade, hue, etc.

You also need to define "uniform".

[Ironhand]

We know the Romans valued strategy and practicality, but it is a bit of a stretch to apply modern concepts of uniformity to past armies without showing a definate specific need for this.

[Paullus Scipio]

Primus Paullus wrote:-

Probably not, since we do not see what we would consider uniformed armies until the 16th/17th centuries.

.....I would venture to disagree, depending on what you mean by uniformity !! Without wishing to start a tunic colour debate, but purely from the point of uniformly coloured tunics.....
The Spartan army, Xenophons Mercenary "10,000", the Macedonian Army/Hellenistic armies were all uniformly clothed - in shades of red !! ( so red for uniform military clothing had a long tradition, which carried on through the Roman period...a list of gear for a late Roman Emperor refers to a "Red Military tunic", IIRC).
By way of variety, Hannibal's Spanish mercenaries wore white, edged with crimson - but evidently uniform.....and we also hear of a Samnite army/body of troops uniformly dressed in linen ( bleached or unbleached 'white'), and those are just some examples I can think of, off the top of my head.....so the idea of uniform clothing for soldiers went back a long way, well before Roman times. D

[Salvianus]

The Late period is obviously a bit different from the first century - if you accept the identification of various Late pictorial sources of groups as soldiers and further accept that they are depicted as they would be on what we would consider 'active duty' (whether they had such a concept or not), then the evidence seems to support at least variety of decorative detail on clothing and probably tunic colour too.

However, I think you could always justify a widespread uniform colour in a unit on grounds of dedicated production in a linen factory etc and equally justify a varied look after 6 months on campaign.

It seems to me that the Intercisa assemblage of helmets indicates some individual variety within a clear style located in at least that time and place and, as Graham says, memorial reliefs show the same contemporary tunic lengths & styles of belt across the length of the Empire. I think what we re-enactors often lack is the hand-made look to equipment - which can be affected by attacking those overlarge neckguards etc with tinsnips: tinker with those helmets, gentlemen!

Not tinkle in them, that would be quite the wrong thing. :wink:

[Nerva]

Tunic colors aside, Matthew does make some interesting arguments. Take scutum size. We're a full combat group. I'm a small lad and have no problems in protecting myself with my 42" scutum. On the other hand, some of our lads are monsters, and require a much larger scutum. After Matthews argument we'll have to re-think our policy on uniformity of scutum design.