Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shining/Polished/New vs Worn/Weathered/Used Armour
#1
OK, so inspired by this rather entertaining thread, I have decided to expand on one of the points the author raised.

I always have been rather curious about this, and will try not to be as blunt and critical as the other guy. That being said, please forgive my said ignorance and inexperience when asking this question.

Anyway, it was said that any good soldier takes care of his armour and does not let it rust, corrode, degrade and so on. That much is pretty obvious and common sense. In that thread, 'WoadWarrior' raised a point that the soldiers in 'Gladiator' looked more 'Epic' ( Confusedhock: Big Grin ) than re-enactors do. He went on to say re-enactors armour was too shiny and so on. Would there perhaps be a point where, no matter how well looked after and maintaned your armour is, it would still not look like the same piece of armour, but straight out from the Fabrica? Especially after a few battles, patrols, marches, wind, snow, rain and so on.

Perhaps this is just me, but does no one else get the impression that perhaps we are portraying more these newly raised and equiped soldiers rather than the veteran, weathered and battle worn legionaries (and their assorted armour which has gone through just as much if not more than they have). Why does modern re-enactment opt for the shiny clean newly fabricated look rather than perhaps a just as protective and well cared for, but older, more 'used' look to armour, helmets and shields?

I began to think about it after seeing these nearly identical auxilia shields, but with clear differences:

[Image: bothshieldsgs3.jpg]

Despite the fact both are authentic and made with the right materials, to the naked eye and to someone without any knowledge of roman manufacturing materials, the right one can almost pass as 'plastic' and the left ones have a more 'weathered' look to it that makes it 'feel' more like wood. There is also a clear difference in that one looks new and the other one used and worn out, but still battleworthy. Could this perhaps be what WoadWarrior meant by 'Epic'?

Now in advance I am going to apologise to those I may have offended, I sincerely state this has not been my intention. It is more curiosity, and sadly to make my point a comparison was necessary, but I do not mean to detract from either one, or anyones work. Like I said, both are authenticly made and researched, but I am curious as to the views and theories behind each representation and why each thinks its best to represent armour in that way.

PS: I am aware some hamatas and such are galvanised, others 'blue gunned' (or something like that), to make them look either shinnier/waterproof or weathered. But most re-enactment opt for a 'shiny' new look for loricas, helmets and shields. Question is, why?
Reply
#2
Actually Yuri raises a point. And this may depend on what perspective a group wishes to portray. I am going to comment less on re-enactment and more on the Archaeological perspective.

These are generalizations for the sake of brevity. Further, being educated in the American school of Archeology, I will have to defer to our European contributors because they have better access to original materials and sources that I do. This is not a slap at anyone, but simply to point out the emphasis in the US is different, and archaeological inference and analysis is geared more towards pre-history than in Europe.

As such, I am guessing. but forums like this are where initial ideas are tested and developed.

Miles, (soldiers in general) were more differentiated by dress at a time when dress indicated social position. Rome did not necessarily distinguish between the modern functions of the Military and Police. Often a career in the Army was a move upward in social mobility, and it can be expected that this would be displayed when social differentiation was desired, or necessary. To this end, garrison or peace time soldiers would probably keep equipment, when worn, and especially clothing, in a higher state of appearance that when in the field.

However, since equipmment was, paradoxically, more a product of function than overt display, a modern "spitshine" approach to maintenance was probably not used. Modern military systems can take appearance to the extreme and even inhibit the original function. Platform jump boots with side zippers that are not allowed to be jumped with for an example. Starched and pressed flame resistant flight suits that destroy the flame resistance for another. Since economic functions as well as practical usage in the ancient world were different, pragmatism was probably the deciding factor. This may be especially true when the "logistical tail" was much smaller than modern times. The army was comparatively more expensive in an agrarian society than an industrial one, and the percentage of the army participating in field operations was significantly higher than modern times. Discipline was more a function of coherent unit cohesion than a D&C "Don't you know there is a parade on?" mentality. Field operations means wear and tear, and no modern army ever seems to live up to its prescribed appearance in the field, much less in combat operations. (At least when I was in. How things are now I don't know.) I think it is a mistake to assume any modern model, by default, must have been standard in the ancient world, including mine. However, "uniformity" as we know it, as concept and as a consequence of a non-industrial society, simply could not have existed.

R. Izard
Reply
#3
Straying off the point slightly, Looking at the three shields....

The one on the right was made by me, and yes, it IS straight out of the fabrica! It was completed the day before this photograph was taken.

Also, It looks rather like the shields on the left have been used for mock combat, whereas in our group we do not engage in mock combat. We look after our kit! :wink:
Reply
#4
I personally don't like shiny segmentata's, but that doesn't say it must be rusted brown, that I also hate. So maintance is good, but I don't polish it after every event, just refresh the protective layer of oil/wax. Same goes for my legionairy helmet.

But for my face mask that should be shiny all the time, as this is to impress my opponent. This could also be done with 'new looking' scuta and so one, and I admit that I've a special scutum for combat, to spare the more ornate painting that should be on my normal scuta later next year.

It's more what you want to show the public. If you're showing your gear into marching camp in camping season in rainy waether, this add to the point of being not so shiny. If you want to show a victorious army on the way to be honored, all the soldiers should probably take care of their equipment. So, I think it's also a point of having time to clean your gear. In the middle of barbarians, under siege, and so on, would you really gonna sit down to clean your gear? Or are you just fighting, sleeping or doing other more important tasks?
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
#5
Aside from the very good points made in the thread, I think another question is simply what people we mean to reenact. We know from written sources that Romans valued shiny metal on their troops (and the way their weapons are made also indicate that - there simply is no objective need to put that much shiny stuff on belts, scabbards and shields). It is quite likely that whenever they had the time, they would have seen to it that they glittered and jingled (not perhaps the best example, but if you look at native sowar caalry under the Raj, they were under no obligation to keep shiny and flashy but they did out of pride and habit). Taking the example of Caesar giving his troops elaborately decorated weapons, they seem to have appreciated the gesture rather than resented it (give a modern infantry unit chrome-plated parade helmets and watch their reaction).

This is, of course, no military obligation, but a matter of personal and group habit. That is not to say it couldn't have been enforced at the end of a stick - traditional societies rarely distinguish clearly between custom and law - but it is not necessary to imagine a centurio calling the men on parade to check the shine on their helmets. It would just happen (except, of course, where circumstances militated against it). In fact, I sometimes get the feeling from Late Republic/Principate sources that the upper crust had a conception of simplicity equalling virtus (in others) while the common soldiery - distressingly - quite liked their bling. It may help if you think of shiny armour and polished belt plates not as a duty, but a privilege.
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!

Volker Bach
Reply
#6
As much as I appreciate the lived in, fouhgt in appearance.. and promote it as part of Legio IX's "persona" I know first hand the affect having clean armor and kit has on an opponent.

When we step out on the SCA battlefield on day two and day three we go out with cleaned kit.. dust wiped off of shields, re-oiling and cleaning metal, clean tunicas.... nearly everyone else is dusty and stained from one or two days of combat sccenarios. It is disheartening to an opponent.
Hibernicus

LEGIO IX HISPANA, USA

You cannot dig ditches in a toga!

[url:194jujcw]http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org[/url]
A nationwide club with chapters across N America
Reply
#7
Hibernicus seems to be making the very valid point that, in the midst of battle, a "shiny" warrior looks like a "fresh" warrior, especially when his opponent is dirty and worn down.

On the other hand, there have been plenty of veteran units in various armies that take some degree of pride in their battle scars. Besides that, living in the field for weeks and months would inevitably result in stains and dings on armor, shields, and clothing. So an army living in close proximity to battle, or under rough field conditions, would doubtless show some wear and tear -- no matter how well oiled and polished the armor is.

Referring to the shields above, we should also remember that a shield is -- to the ancient fighting man -- basically a disposable piece of kit. Sure, you want to go into a battle with as good a shield as you can find, but in the course of fighting, it's the shield's job to take the beating rather than your body. After any battle, many of the shields would doubtless be damaged beyond use, and replaced, while somebody would probably be assigned to salvage the reusable parts for future shields.

So an army on parade would probably show an array of shiny new shields, but an army in the field would probably have a mix of used-but-usable and new replacement shields. I think, in an extended battle or campaign, it might not be unlikely to see some rebuilt shields rushed into service unpainted.

In general, I think we need to carry that distinction further: disposable vs. durable. Swords are durable, expected to last for years. Pila are disposable -- toss it once, and forget it -- you'll get new ones later. So a sword would be maintained as wellas possible, but the soldier's pilum would probably always look fairly new.
Wayne Anderson/ Wander
Reply
#8
Gosh, an old WoadWarrior thread! I miss him...

If you ever saw my poor old lorica up close, you wouldn't be asking a question like this! I keep most of the rust off it (on the outside, that is!), and once or twice a year I wire-brush the brass to get it back to a satin shine rather than "icky". The front is full of little dents, scratches, and gouges from stabbing myself with my pugio as a demonstration of how armor works. 5 of the main hinges have broken and their plates riveted together. Several hooks have been replaced, always with a different type or a different metal so that they won't match! The front horizontal strap and buckle is completely mangled, yet somehow still holding together after 16 years.

In other words, it is definitely worn and torn! But put me in a line with other guys, and as long as they don't have mirror-polished armor, you can't tell the difference.

I would suggest that those 2 "battered" shields are showing damage that might not have existed back then. Some reenactment groups whack at each others' shields with blunted steel weapons, such as the medieval groups that I performed with for many years. The shields end up getting very scarred up, but not with the sorts of "wounds" that SHARP spears, swords, or axes would inflict. Not to mention the fact that the whole point of swinging a weapon back then was to MISS the shield and hit the guy holding it, eh? So a shield with all kinds of dings and blunt-edge scars is not realistic. If you want realistic damage, put a few arrow and javelin holes in it, maybe bounce a couple rocks off it. I would expect that dents in the boss would be hammered out, and the metal kept shiny like the armor.

Remember that while marching was common (with at least the shield covered from abuse, and likely the armor and helmet as well), battles were quite rare. And most soldiers in a battle spent most of the fight sitting back at a distance and maybe throwing some stuff.

Caligae can get dusty or muddy, but most likely the men knew that giving them a good rinse and drying them properly meant more comfort and a longer life-span. A week or two on campaign may dirty up your tunic, but those can be washed, and we know they were replaced pretty frequently. And again, my tunic is plenty grubby! (And my subarmalis is literally rotting off me....)

From what I've seen, this isn't all that unusual among reenactors. Yeah, we don't spend weeks on end out in harsh conditions--it's a hobby, after all! But wear and tear IS visible on most of my troops. And we're certainly far from uniform. Considering how concerned the ancients were with their appearance, I don't think we're way off the mark, overall.

Valete,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#9
Quote: Pila are disposable -- toss it once, and forget it -- you'll get new ones later. So a sword would be maintained as wellas possible, but the soldier's pilum would probably always look fairly new.

Are they? We've found enough pila parts which shows that they were bent (probably by using them) and rehammered back into shape. So I wouldn't say pila should look 'new'.
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
#10
Jurjen: Good point; I stand corrected. Considering that, we can expect to see some new pila, but probably a lot of "recycled" ones recovered after the battle is over.

And, taking Matthew's comments into account, there would probably be some wear and tear on them from marching as well -- getting dropped before digging the ditches for the night's camp, etc.
Wayne Anderson/ Wander
Reply
#11
Double Post. The right one is at the bottom.
Reply
#12
There's a part to a military oath, swearing to not the break the line except to recover a weapon that can be used again, IIRC?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#13
Thanks for all your imput guys.

Quote:Field operations means wear and tear, and no modern army ever seems to live up to its prescribed appearance in the field, much less in combat operations. (At least when I was in. How things are now I don't know.) I think it is a mistake to assume any modern model, by default, must have been standard in the ancient world, including mine. However, "uniformity" as we know it, as concept and as a consequence of a non-industrial society, simply could not have existed.

R. Izard

Thanks Gaius. I do agree, the only point I have is that perhaps we look a bit too 'uniform' as you have mentioned, and some of our equipment may perhaps look to 'pristine'.

Quote:Also, It looks rather like the shields on the left have been used for mock combat, whereas in our group we do not engage in mock combat. We look after our kit! :wink:

Oh yes, I am not saying either one is not looked after, all I am asking is wether a well looked after, but still 'used' kit and a 'newly fabricated one' would look the same.

Quote:It's more what you want to show the public. If you're showing your gear into marching camp in camping season in rainy waether, this add to the point of being not so shiny. If you want to show a victorious army on the way to be honored, all the soldiers should probably take care of their equipment. So, I think it's also a point of having time to clean your gear. In the middle of barbarians, under siege, and so on, would you really gonna sit down to clean your gear? Or are you just fighting, sleeping or doing other more important tasks?

Quote:Aside from the very good points made in the thread, I think another question is simply what people we mean to reenact.

Both good points. Its just that say, in the future, a re-enactment society re-enacting 'Anglo-American' armies of the early 21st century would probably opt for a seasoned desert camo look, rather than our 'ceremonial' uniforms. Same goes for WWII and WWI re-enactors.

I think this is a big part perhaps of why many people feel dissapointed when they see romans in films, and then see re-enacttors. As 'WoadWarrior' said, we do not look 'epic' (that always makes me laugh...) Perhaps we are too 'new' and 'pristine', much like a ceremonial army perhaps.

I guess it all depends at what time you wan't to portray your group. A 'right back from campaign/fresh from battle' army would no doubt look dirty, battled, scarred and so on. A triumphal one would look like new, as its a ceremonial occasion and for romes people you would want to look the best. Pre-battle perhaps not so polished, but shiny nevertheless as you want to intimidate the enemy and 'look good' in battle. But as has already been said, the Roman army and its assorted auxiliaries spent very little time fighting and even less time parading.

So in the meantime, garrisoning forts, drilling, marching and so on, building, collecting taxes and so on, which is what the soldiers spent most of their time doing, would they really look so pristine? Would the look they have then not be the 'true face of the roman army' as opposed to the ceremonial one people compare us to? The 'never used' soldiers. Perhaps that is why people have an easier time identifying with hollywood soldiers (despite being wrong), which look old and worn out, than they do with us.

A nice analogy is pre-star wars sci fi films and after. Before, like Flash Gordon, the starships, bases, weapons and so on looked shiny, white and like they had never been inhabited or used. Star Wars came along and made a future so dirty, corroded and worn out it made it easier to believe it had existed for thousands of years. As a result, we identify more with it than we do with previous ones.

Quote:Gosh, an old WoadWarrior thread! I miss him...

If you ever saw my poor old lorica up close. The front is full of little dents, scratches, and gouges from stabbing myself with my pugio as a demonstration of how armor works. 5 of the main hinges have broken and their plates riveted together. Several hooks have been replaced, always with a different type or a different metal so that they won't match! The front horizontal strap and buckle is completely mangled, yet somehow still holding together after 16 years.

Hehe, I regret not being around when he was. Do you have a picture of your lorica? I would much like to see it :wink:

Quote:Jurjen: Good point; I stand corrected. Considering that, we can expect to see some new pila, but probably a lot of "recycled" ones recovered after the battle is over.

And, taking Matthew's comments into account, there would probably be some wear and tear on them from marching as well -- getting dropped before digging the ditches for the night's camp, etc.

Thats a good point. How straight exactly can a smith straigthen out the iron point of the pilla? Brand new straight or 'I can tell its been used a couple of times, bent, and then hammered back again' straight?
Reply
#14
Having done some blacksmithing, I can safely say that -- as long as you have a good anvil -- there is almost no operation easier than straightening an iron or steel shaft. You put it on the anvil and hammer the high spot, then rotate it and do it again, until it's straight.

Even I can do it. Big Grin

And as long as it's heated to a working temp, you don't need to worry too much about breaking it. It'll be fine.
Wayne Anderson/ Wander
Reply
#15
But off..... A couple of months ago we encountered the 501st Legion at an Earth Day event in San Diego... 501st Imperial Storm Troopers ... and a number of guys had "battle damaged" their kit.. blaster burns, dents, charred bits, imbedded shrapnel etc etc. and they got the most attention... One fellow's helmet with electronic enhanced voice had static!

It all has its place.

Are you on parade? Is the "governor" coming to inspect? Or is it 2 days past the last battle? Or maybe you've been diggin' road bed all day for the last 6 days.... Buit then there's nothing like ANOTHER 50lb block of sandstone hefted up on the sholder to tear up a lobate hinge!
Hibernicus

LEGIO IX HISPANA, USA

You cannot dig ditches in a toga!

[url:194jujcw]http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org[/url]
A nationwide club with chapters across N America
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Metal Armour-Polished or Dull? Sanvean 81 18,298 11-14-2007, 05:02 PM
Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS
  Were thin baldrics worn in the 3rd century ? Theodosius the Great 0 940 11-18-2004, 08:45 PM
Last Post: Theodosius the Great

Forum Jump: