Reenactment Legion Uniformity vs Variety

[jkaler48]

Perhaps local shortages of armor sometimes led to some (esp the new recruits) being unarmored.
(This is often reflected in reenacting with the new guys not having armor
the first few events)
Also some individual assignments may have made wearing armor at times undesirable. I can think of slingers, couriers, scouts and historical accounts
of hasty river crossings as some examples.
Having your camp overrun in the middle of the night or otherwise might cause some troops to have to escape with what they could grasp quickly. Perhaps just helmet scutum and gladius.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Perhaps local shortages of armor sometimes led to some (esp the new recruits) being unarmored.
(This is often reflected in reenacting with the new guys not having armor
the first few events)
Also some individual assignments may have made wearing armor at times undesirable. I can think of slingers, couriers, scouts and historical accounts
of hasty river crossings as some examples.
Having your camp overrun in the middle of the night or otherwise might cause some troops to have to escape with what they could grasp quickly. Perhaps just helmet scutum and gladius.

Errrm... nice ideas, but shouldn´t we stick to real evidence, instead of making up our own? :wink:

[jkaler48]

Perhaps local shortages of armor sometimes led to some (esp the new recruits) being unarmored.
(This is often reflected in reenacting with the new guys not having armor
the first few events)
Also some individual assignments may have made wearing armor at times undesirable. I can think of slingers, couriers, scouts and historical accounts
of hasty river crossings as some examples.
Having your camp overrun in the middle of the night or otherwise might cause some troops to have to escape with what they could grasp quickly. Perhaps just helmet scutum and gladius.

Errrm... nice ideas, but shouldn´t we stick to real evidence, instead of making up our own? :wink:

Yes whenever possible. But a little educated speculation and fill in the blank logical choices ought to be allowed. It is of course up to the individual reenactment units and their members to decide using their best judgment. RAT and this sort of discussion is a valuable resource for reenactors and everyones opinion (and evidence) should be most welcome. And of course there is the old truism: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Gaius_Calvus]

I have always been a fan of Matt Amt's guidance on re-enactment:

""Burden of Proof"--It is up to you to provide historical evidence for any item or technique you wish to use which is not covered in the Handbook--you may not use something just because it cannot be proved wrong!"

As you say, John, it's up to individual unit leadership to make determinations for the group, but absence of evidence should not be a banket to cover uninformed conjecture.

Finally, I don't understand the provenance of your statement:

"RAT and this sort of discussion is a valuable resource for reenactors and everyones opinion (and evidence) should be most welcome."

I did not see anyone attempting to stop the discussion -- Christian merely expressed an opinion, as I am doing now. As a fellow re-enactor who is also the leader of a re-enactment group, I think that we have to be very careful about conjecture in this hobby, since what seems "logical" to a 21st Century American may have been completely "illogical" to a 1st Century Roman.

Edge

[jkaler48]

I did say "Educated Speculation" I suppose an example might be Scutum covers with Legion A and Legion C numbers on them have been found so
a Legion B scutum cover with it's number could be reasonably assumed.
Other things might be a bit more speculative. Say for example an Elephant
on a Legio V Scutum cover. No known example exists but the variety of gear found customized to the individual legion member tastes would have made such an item possible as the elephant was an Emblem of the Fifth. I feel where that there are gaps in the record a little interpetation is ok until better evidence is found. However to be on the safe side it wouldn't be a good idea to invest a lot of money or effort into items that may later be found to be wildly incorrect.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Basically yes. It was more about the method, what I said. IMO it makes more sense to first look at what evidence is there, and then make educated guesses. Here the question was:

"Why would there be soldiers that have no metal body armour?"

The first logical step would be to look at literary and pictorial sources, and to try to find an answer. If you make up ideas first, then you will find yourself hunting for proof for these.

As far as reconstructions or reproductions are concerned:
IMO it is always better to look for originals and try to copy these. Within certain lines one can make slight alterations, to make the object fit the complete impression. An elephant on a shield cover would be e.g. out of line IMO, a tabula ansata with different letters or numbers than on found examples wouldn´t. In this way you are able to save a lot of money, since often the "made up items" have to be tossed out after a while, when new proof shows up. If you go to public events, made up items are IMO irresponsible, since one has, whether one wants to or not, an educational function. I know there are other opinions about this, but this one is mine.


As far as uniformity is concerned: meanwhile there is really a large number of original items that can be copied (not for the Republic, O.K.), so the diversity can easily be displayed.

BTW: coloured shield covers, now that would be sthg. ... red, blue, green, or mixes. IMO many groups are generally too monochromatic, and all in all not colourful enough.

[jkaler48]

"Basically yes. It was more about the method, what I said. IMO it makes more sense to first look at what evidence is there, and then make educated guesses. "

You are right and discussion can spark someones memory and then
the evidence for or against is more widely known!

The first logical step would be to look at literary and pictorial sources, and to try to find an answer. If you make up ideas first, then you will find yourself hunting for proof for these.

Again you are correct in looking at the evidence, when available, first.
Sometimes looking for proof for a theory can cause a researcher to
be unable to recognize evidence to the contrary.


In this way you are able to save a lot of money, since often the "made up items" have to be tossed out after a while, when new proof shows up.

That is a excellent point!


As far as uniformity is concerned: meanwhile there is really a large number of original items that can be copied (not for the Republic, O.K.), so the diversity can easily be displayed.

You are correct that there are a large diverse number of the more durable items. I think there may be a few items that not many of have been found. For example Roman shovels, Tunics (for the color evidence - Please no color debate), canteens (or whatever water was carried in),
Bows, and whatever Roman soldiers carried their money in.

BTW: coloured shield covers, now that would be sthg. ... red, blue, green, or mixes. IMO many groups are generally too monochromatic, and all in all not colorful enough.

That is a really cool idea which just begs for someone to make an example or three of. I have only seen brown or buff color reconstructions. Some of the groups with different color scuta
or Auxilla shields could get matching color covers! Giving a Laude
on that one!

[Salvianus]

Here the question was:

"Why would there be soldiers that have no metal body armour?"

The first logical step would be to look at literary and pictorial sources, and to try to find an answer.

Of course, for the Late period, there is Vegetius (I.20), specifically contrasting the early Army with that after Gratian (367-383 A.D.):

"Circumstances dictate that we attempt to recount the types of weapons with which recruits were either armed or protected. But the ancient customs have been completely abandoned, for, although the example of the Goths, Alans, and Huns has been advantageous for cavalry weapons, infantry continued to be undefended.

For, from the foundation of the City to the time of the late Gratianus, infantry were equipped with both cuirasses and helmets. But when field training was ended through negligence and laxity, the equipment - which the soldiers seldom put on - began to be seen as heavy. Therefore they first requested the emperor to stop issuing cuirasses, then helmets.

So, fighting with unprotected bodies and heads against the Goths, our soldiers were often destroyed by large numbers of archers. And even after so many disasters, when destruction came to many cities, none of these troubles led to the restoration of either cuirasses or helmets. So it is, those who are unprotected in battle, exposed to wounds, do not think of fighting, but of flight. For what should the infantry archer do, without cuirass or helmet, unable to hold a shield at the same time as a bow?"

However, most authors I recall recommend taking Vegetius' handwringing with a pinch of salt, e.g. as perhaps referring to equipment shortages after Adrianople. It certainly doesn't settle the matter.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Salvete,
I've followed this thread for some time with great interest and want to add my two pence now.

If you make up ideas first, then you will find yourself hunting for proof for these.

Christian, even though this is sadly an often recognised phenomenon within scientific communities in every disciplin, one cannot say that one or the other method is better, if both are excercised properly. In fact the scientific system generates theories for hundreds of years with deductive (roughly theory-based) and inductive (experimentally/artefact-based) procedures. Its a special problem of natural sciences and also archaeology - due to its nature of course - that it is way too much focussed on the inductive approach. From a statistician's POV for example all finds being made have hardly ever turned up in (statistically) significant numbers, so as to justify our believes about how widely things were spread back then. So generating hypothesis - within reasonable limitations of course - is perfectly fine and is just the way knowledge has been generated successful since ever. And sadly for 99-odd % of all what happened or was made in antiquity never any evidence will turn up. And a hypothesis (e.g. interpretation) can't be dismissed simply, just because there's no hard evidence to support it. Any hypothesis can and must be temporarily accepted as long there is no way to proof it wrong by contrary evidence. Its a basic rule of science. For example there is no way to proof an elephant enblem on a shield is wrong. Its simply impossible to falsify. I must admit here that some methodology scientist (e.g. Karl Popper) in the 80's argued that no hypothesis should be allowed that can't be falsified, but they are/were a minority and have no influence nowadays in the scientific community.
Another problem with the "artefact-based" approach is, that it can cause something what social scientists call path-dependency. Path dependency forces thinking in a subtle way into certain directions, which are hardly to overcome.

As to the uniformity of legions it's often argued that the uniform look on representations is propagandistic and wouldn't apply to reality. I don't agree here. If on all representation the empire wanted to depicted its soldiers as uniform, it surely made an effort to match up its troops in real as well. If it always reached this goal is another question of course, but generally it had the ressources to achieve this. Uniformity has further an important socio-psychological effect on humans, which is and was every hierachic military system based upon. De-individualisation. A very important factor in the enforcment of discipline. And discipline is that a professional army distinguishes from a bunch of mercenaries. Especially the Roman Army.
That in my opinion speaks further against a big diversity in appearance is the fact, that's even more difficult to produce a line of products (e.g. tunics, shields, helmets) that look different, than some that look the same. There may have been surely differences in details (e.g. color shades, enblems, ornaments on armour), but the overall-look was most probably uniform.

[jkaler48]

A laude for TIBERIVS for the excellent analysis of the scientific methodology
that is used in historic interpretation.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Christian, even though this is sadly an often recognised phenomenon within scientific communities in every disciplin, one cannot say that one or the other method is better, if both are excercised properly.

I didn´t do that, if you read carefully what I wrote. I said you have to look at the evidence FIRST. That implies that there is a step two.
If you don´t look at the evidence first, there, despite all methodological theory, a) is nothing to talk about, and b) hence no way you can make a hypothesis.
e.g.: If you don´t know Caesar existed, it´s going to be hard to put up the hypothesis that he was on a secret mission in Australia at the age of five.

In the case I was referring to there was no evidence used at all. Not just no "hard evidence", as you put it. The rest of what you wrote is not actually news, nonetheless well summarized. But it doesn´t really connect to what I said.

You cannot base a reconstruction or reproduction on hypothesis. It´s impossible by definition of terms.

That´s exactly why I took care to add the rubric:

As far as reconstructions or reproductions are concerned:

One can label such an object as a "hypothetical repro - or reconstruction", but that´s not what I´ve been talking about.

Uniformity has further an important socio-psychological effect on humans, which is and was every hierachic military system based upon. De-individualisation. A very important factor in the enforcment of discipline. And discipline is that a professional army distinguishes from a bunch of mercenaries. Especially the Roman Army.

That is a very modern (lit.) view.
Anyway, the material evidence of even small wholly excavated sites shows a contrary picture. As for larger sites, I recommend you look through the excavation cataloges of Dura, Nydam, Thorsbjerg etc., or look at the Greek armies. The Roman system was not able to generate a uniformity, just beacuse of the great distances that were lying between the different units. One unit singled out might show a tendency for having very similar items, but not uniform between the units, or even within the unit.
I´d go as far as to say that the term "uniform" shouldn´t be used in context of the pre-early modern world at all. It´s a modern term with a clearly defined semantic field, and it doesn´t fit to the ancient world. Not all soldiers in the Roman Army used buttons from the same dies, if you get me.
What you do in the argument above is IMO highly questionable. You know that such methods are good to maintain discipline. You know that (early) modern armies have used it and use it because of this.
De-individualization, however is something that is perhaps not a so necessary thing in the ancient world, as individuality was not such an extant mind-setting as it is nowadays. Another modern term that does not exactly apply for the Ancient world. Here one should again first ask if de-individualization was so necessary in antiquity as it is nowadays, before we conclude that it is the reason why the Roman armies must have been uniform.

but the overall-look was most probably uniform.

At a certain distance, yes, but we had that already. At a certain distance even the Greek Citie´s armies would have looked uniform, or a Samurai army. Uniformity as such, however is what you get in "Rome Total War". What you do here, is defining the term away from its actual meaning (extend its meaning, as is), and that doesn´t really help in this discussion. That last sentence doesn´t make a lot of sense. Either it is uniform, or it is not. By definition of term.

As far as the possibilty of producing different kinds of items is concerned: Of course you have limited technology. But here we´re talking of panoplies. Say you have 5 different makers available for each of the following options for one given unit: helmet, armour, belt, dagger, shoes, tunic, shield. Now calculate the number of possible sets. Then speak of a uniform army. :lol: :wink:
And even the products from a single maker will differ from piece to piece, since apparently industrial standards an quality control were not such a big thing in Anceint, Rome, even a constant supply of resources of constant quality was not given. Not exactly the right circumstances to create a uniform army. If you then take also into account that the Roman Army throughout its history often enough was one where soldiers bought their own equipment from craftsmen of their personal preference, the uniformity becomes even more unlikely.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hypothesis:

Many Roman legionaries did not wear armour, because the CREATOR didn´t allow his flock to do so. That´s also why pirates didn´t wear a lot of armour as well.

Disprove. :wink:

[jkaler48]

Here is a photo of a Roman Reenactment possibly in Jordan.
It appears that all have identical kit - uniform but not very interesting.

[Matthew Amt]

And of course there is the old truism: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Strictly speaking this may be true, but I usually hear it as a cop-out, by someone who is basically (and sometimes bluntly) saying "I can do what I want an you can't prove that I'm wrong". A much better guiding principal is to go with what evidence there is, whenever possible. Simple! You can use whatever you can reasonably document. If there is some vital gap in your essential kit for which there is no direct evidence, fine, fill in that gap with an educated guess. But I think you'll find that there is almost always SOME kind of evidence, however distant or indirect, which can serve to guide your reconstruction. There is almost never any need to hypothesize completely out of thin air.

Stick with what we KNOW.

So generating hypothesis - within reasonable limitations of course - is perfectly fine and is just the way knowledge has been generated successful since ever.

Well, that's fine for science. For historical reenacting, why not just stick with the evidence? If there's a question, good, do some research and try to find the answer! Don't just start brainstorming hypotheses, all they do is lead to some house of cards, or complete fantasy.

And sadly for 99-odd % of all what happened or was made in antiquity never any evidence will turn up.

True, but what we have is a good cross-section of what did exist. This sounds a little like a kid who used to be on this board who was really ticked at all of us for telling him the junk "trooper" helmet didn't exist--what if archeologists turned up one JUST LIKE IT some day?? Yawn.

And a hypothesis (e.g. interpretation) can't be dismissed simply, just because there's no hard evidence to support it.

Well, they certainly can in my unit! Far too many hypotheses that I hear are a lot of hot air. Skip it! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! Document it, and you can use it. Otherwise, you end up wasting all kinds of time, effort, and money, and end up getting frustrated when the Commander tells you "No".

Mind you, I look at all discussion like this from the pure application standpoint, making reconstruction for living history in front of the general public. If you just want to sit around a table and "scientifically" hypothesize your head off, go for it!

Valete,

Matthew[/quote]

[jkaler48]

So lets consider the case of the shovel. Very few have been found /published in Roman contexts and I think none that can be linked to the legions for sure.. So should a reconstruction based on one of the few period examples be "banned" from reenacting until one is found in a Legionary context or allowed under a "known tool must have been used sometimes
premise" Opinions?