Login

09-15-2003, 03:56 PM

I'm not a scholar, nor a re-enactor, and I hope therefore I'm fairly neutral in all this, but your last statements worry me: 
 
"Academia is way too hidebound... If I only wanted to know what "scholars" thought, I'd just read the books and not reenact." 
 
Surely scholars are experts, the people who have read the primary sources, viewed the art, and discovered as much as they can about the subject; written books (usually for love of the subject, not money) to put that knowledge into the public domain. Where would re-enactment be without such scholars? 
 
Surely the point of re-enactment is to emulate, to the best of the current state of knowledge, the practices and thought processes of people of the past? In the process, re-enactors (who are also often scholars themselves) feed back information to the scholars, testing academic theories and postulating new ones. 
 
But a re-enactor surely cannot run too far in advance of what is known or reasonably extrapolated from the existing evidence, because then they are not re-enacting, but speculating. So, for example, a re-enactor might well be able to suggest how a particular excavated artefact might best be used in the light of wearing a replica, but cannot invent a whole new artefact which "they must have used; my common sense tells me so." 
 
I am a teacher of ancient history; everything I say to a class is labelled either as supported by the primary sources, to which I refer them, or as my own unverifiable opinion. I cannot allow myself or my pupils to confuse the two. If being constrained by the sources is being "hidebound", then call me hidebound. 
 
Forgive me if I am being dense or missing something; as I say, I'm neither a scholar or a re-enactor. 
 
Shaun

09-15-2003, 08:32 PM

Shaun H. and Stormcat, 
 
I really have to second Shaun's objection to the blanket condemnation from D.M. Varianus of all scholars as hidebound. What a hidebound thing to say. Can you, Sturmkatze, name any? I can name a dozen or so, some of whom are my colleagues. But in comparison to the general public, my experience is that scholars are among the least hidebound segment of society; they cannot afford to be otherwise. Scholars work in evolving fields; the hidebound are the least successful. Scholars are driven by a fundamental desire to learn new things, even if the subject is ancient history. They often disagree, but that is what research and enquiry is all about. 
 
The field of historical reeneactment is relatively new, and its value to scholarship is generally unproven. It is, in fact, scoffed at in some circles. I have been dismissed at professional conferences as a mere reenactor. I don't get angry or insulted, I prove them wrong with the depth and quality of my evidence and the validity of my practical experiments. But witness the number of excellent scholars in this very discussion group. Some like Shaun and myself, new to this board, teach subjects which are enlivened by and in a constant state of revision because of the contributions of reeactors. We are members here because we love learning new things from those who might know more than we do and try to help from our own knowledge bases when we can. 
 
At my own university, the history department sponsors my presentations four times a year because it sees the value of making the ancient world come alive for its students. The student communicate the value to the administration and the public. The more progressive faculty members work with and act as advisors to local reenactors because of our access to resources. I don't need to repeat ad nauseum Shaun's caution that every piece of equipment or technique a reenactor does is rooted in scholarship and is, at best, an educated guess. Anyone can guess; it's the educated part that takes discipline (pun in Latin intentional). 
 
This thread has ranged far afield from the simple question that began it. The variety of positions, procedures, and methods indicates the difficulty of the task itself. I think that as long as reenactors and scholars dismiss each others' work and contributions, the aims of both will be more difficult to achieve. We should be natural allies, not enemies. The more able, already are. 
 
Wade Heaton 
Lucius Cornelius Libo 
[email protected] 
www.togaman.com 
 
P.S. Shaun: I used the imperial "we" here since you answered some of the Latin language questions before I got around to it. Are you in ACL, APA, or any of the regional orgs.?

FlaviusCrispus · 09-15-2003, 09:21 PM

OK, I'm back again. I wanted to wash my hands of this thread, but this post just demanded a response. Sorry. 
 
<<No, not at all, but from what I've read, quite a LOT of this art was done a couple of hundred years later, yes? I know you also do RevWar, so you tell me, how much artwork and stuff about RevWar is wrong today and that's what, only 228 years ago?? I am not calling these original sources liars, I am saying that alll of this is a perhaps, you are saying it is an absolutely NOT...>> 
 
(A) The art and literary alussions we're referring to are generally contemporaneous with the armor we're discussing. 
 
(B) The evidence is meager and subject to interpretation, but what does exist suggests one thing: The Romans preferred a bright, shiny surface on their armor. 
 
You can say "perhaps," to anything, but if you lack any primary evidence to back up your proposal, you're not theorizing or even properly speculating, you're fantasizing. 
 
<<Hell, in relaity, has anybody ever even found a complete set of Lorica??>> 
 
Um, yes. Many (nearly) complete sets. Haven't you yet heard of the Corbridge Hoard? 
 
<> 
 
That would make all of our jobs easier (but maybe a lost less fun?). 
 
<<Anyway, isn't reenacting more experimental archeology? I have always considered it thus and if you do, you try new and different things to see if it works. Academia is way too hidebound... If I only wanted to know what "scholars" thought, I'd just read the books and not reenact.>> 
 
It's because of the hard, painstaking archaeological and conservation work done by these "hidebound" scholars that we are able to even approximately recreate how Roman soldiers were equipped. 
 
Experimental archaeology is not remotely "trying "new and different things to see if it works." It is recreating things found in a historical context as closely as possible to the originals, utlizing all the best evidence available, and then putting them to use to gain insights into how the ancients might have employed them. 
 
What you are talking about is, again, historical fantasizing. If you don't like sticking to the known historical facts, try "reenacting" something like, say, Lord of the Rings. 
 
T. Flavius Crispus 
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis 
California, USA

Hibernicus · 09-17-2003, 02:38 PM

My concern with ?scholasticism? derives from interpretation. 
 
Example ?Did the scholars who translated the terms (previously quoted in Sander?s post) that describe the appearance of Roman armor have a knowledge of iron and smithing segmentata plates?? If they knew what we know about smithing iron (not steel) into segmentata plates would they have translated the terms differently? 
 
Did the ancient chroniclers who described Roman armor know anything about the manufacture and care of segmentata armor? If they did have such knowledge did polishing mean ?burnishing bare metal? or did it mean ?oiling and/or waxing?? 
 
When they describe shining helmets does that mean that segmentatas were also shiny or for that matter burnished to a bare metal finish? 
 
And we still don?t know if segmentatas were tinned.. or maybe the first segmentatas were kept forge black or that maybe some Legatus in AD 75 decided that he preferred burnished iron....??? 
 
Our reenactor experiences with burnishing and keeping steel rust free are essentially irrelevant. Until we collect a data base regarding segmentatas made of iron we can only speculate about the wear and care and appearance of them. 
 
Salvete 
 
Sean Richards 
 
Gaius Valerius Tacitus Hibernicus, Centurio 
LEGIO IX HISPANA COH III EXPG CEN I HIB 
 
Vexillatio I: Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, Camp Pendelton 
Vexillatio II: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska 
Vexillatio III: Washington, Okinawa , Northern California 
 
www.legio-ix-hispana.org 
 
619.563.5700 PST 9am- 8pm, most days

09-17-2003, 04:35 PM

Ok, are you LA Legions being affected by Hollywood's Black and brown Roman armour or what? 
 
Quote:<hr>Example ?Did the scholars who translated the terms (previously quoted in Sander?s post) that describe the appearance of Roman armor have a knowledge of iron and smithing segmentata plates?? If they knew what we know about smithing iron (not steel) into segmentata plates would they have translated the terms differently?<hr> 
 
Interesting, yet I don't know exactly how a car is made either. But because I live in contemporary times pertaining to when a car is made, I can tell you that they consist of an engine, carburator/fuel injector, alternator, uni-body frame construction, poly composite body parts, rubber tires, etc. etc. I can also give you a rough idea about the entire construction process, because I live in these times. My description, while not using jargon, but rather terms for a "lay man", would be fairly accurate. 
 
Quote:<hr>Did the ancient chroniclers who described Roman armor know anything about the manufacture and care of segmentata armor? If they did have such knowledge did polishing mean ?burnishing bare metal? or did it mean ?oiling and/or waxing?? <hr> 
 
For someone that studies military tactics (military historian) and has chronicled the battles, I'd say that it's a safe bet that a fair bit of knowledge regarding all things military would be a requirement, yes? Do you think these works then, if based on pure speculation and a lack of knowledge, would be at the forefront of Roman military history? I doubt if these were "shoddy" works, that their chance for survival into modern eras would be slim to none, simply because they would have no value. No one would have kept them. 
 
Quote:<hr>When they describe shining helmets does that mean that segmentatas were also shiny or for that matter burnished to a bare metal finish? <hr> 
 
I posted previously that a satin finish can have a great shine if it's a bright sunny day. I'd even say it has a light finish in little light. Apparently no one read that, so there it is again. There were also references to shining "Arms and armour", which I think we can all agree means the entire panoply, not bits and pieces. 
 
Quote:<hr>And we still don?t know if segmentatas were tinned.. or maybe the first segmentatas were kept forge black or that maybe some Legatus in AD 75 decided that he preferred burnished iron....???<hr> 
 
No we dont' know the extent of tinning yet. Too many maybe's in the rest of that statement though Sean...let's stick to what we know. 
 
Quote:<hr>Until we collect a data base regarding segmentatas made of iron we can only speculate about the wear and care and appearance of them.<hr> 
 
Partly true, because until we find evidence that says otherwise, we know without over interpreting the evidence, that the end result of the finish of the armour was SHINY. 
 
It seems to me that some people here are thinking too much about this. This creates a mini-story in one's mind, where all these fancy what if's and maybe's spring into being. 
Have a bit more faith in the literary/artistic evidence, until we otherwise are told or find something different.

Matthew Amt · 09-18-2003, 03:17 PM

Sean Richards writes: 
 
"My concern with ?scholasticism? derives from interpretation." 
 
Interpretation by reenactors is more of a worry for me... 
 
"Example ?Did the scholars who translated the terms (previously quoted in Sander?s post) that describe the appearance of Roman armor have a knowledge of iron and smithing segmentata plates?? If they knew what we know about smithing iron (not steel) into segmentata plates would they have translated the terms differently?"..."Did the ancient chroniclers who described Roman armor know anything about the manufacture and care of segmentata armor? If they did have such knowledge did polishing mean ?burnishing bare metal? or did it mean ?oiling and/or waxing??" 
 
Huh? When I look at a car and it looks green to me, I say "The car is green." Someone more poetic might compare it to grass, which we know can range from bluish to beige, but is generally thought of as "green". A physicist might point out that the actual pigments in the paint are not green, per se, but are simply absorbing light rays in the other wavelengths of the spectrum, reflecting more of the a few particular wavelengths back to the cones and rods at the back of my retina, sending electrical impulses to my brain which lead to the interpretation "green". 
 
So f*&%#@! what? It's a green car! Doesn't take a metallurgist to look at a piece of metal and say "shiny"! 
 
"Until we collect a data base regarding segmentatas made of iron we can only speculate about the wear and care and appearance of them." 
 
Lemme know when you determine that it is impossible to give forged iron a bright bare metal surface. 
 
If it has four legs, a mane, a tail, and says "neigh"--and no one has mentioned stripes--why insist on calling it a zebra rather than a horse? 
 
Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

Matthew Amt · 09-18-2003, 03:26 PM

Sean Richards writes: 
"Until we collect a data base regarding segmentatas made of iron we can only speculate about the wear and care and appearance of them." 
 
Wait a minute, I just realized that this sounds like you consider EVIDENCE of bright metal to be SPECULATION! The pictures the Romans left us SHOW bright metal, and their writings describe it, but that's "speculation"? Your own experiments and (debatable) conclusions will have more historic weight? I'll have to assume that I've misconstrued your logic or meaning, here. Because the reenactors with bright armor don't have to speculate at all, the evidence is firmly on their side. It's the ones with darkened armor who are speculating. 
 
Let's not twist words to support our arguments. 
 
Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

Daniel S Peterson · 09-21-2003, 06:01 PM

The summer campaigns are over and there's finally a moment to look at RAT again. 
 
Like the matter of tunic colour some of you clearly don't 'get-it' in this subject either. As Sean rightly pointed out, a helmet polished to a high 'matte' finish, using say a piece of very authentic pumice, still looks dazzling in the sunlight, and is probably what the ancient writers actually saw, if they were describing polished iron helmets and/or armor. I say this with the belief that Danikenesque ancient astronauts did not deliver high speed electric buffers to the Imperial Roman army, such as those in use by the various Roman 'display teams'. 
 
Basic technologies changed very little from the beginning of the iron age until the dawn of the industrial revolution. But bracketing it even closer, by studying the highly realistic, sometimes near-photographic art of the late 15th century masters, we can have a better understanding of the level of metal-polishing technology/profeciency probably available to the Romans. 
 
The renaissance masters loved showing off their skill in this competitive market, and if the opportunity presented itself to show say, an image reflected in a mirror, or armor poished to a mirror, fake Roman display team finish, they certainly would have done so. Yet why in all the paintings of full plate "white harness" do they appear, at best, a relatively matte finish? Yes, they still looked spendid in the sun, and we have far more accounts of shiny armor in this period, yet there is no evidence that the iron was polished to a mirror finish, for like the Romans, they too lacked electric buffers. Certainly, the lords who posed for these paintings had greater means than the typical Roman legionary to keep his armor polished, yet it appears no brighter than either my own Roman or Medieval armor in which I simililarly avoid modern mechanical means to artificially polish. So until we find those electric buffing machines in a Roman archaeological context, common sense should dictate that a Roman soldier could polish his armor no brighter than a medieval knight, and we have a good idea of this level from the many paintings of the period. None of which, to my knowledge having the artist attempting to depict a mirror finish. 
 
Interestingly, this argument seems to be divided along the lines of true living historian reenactors who actually fight and campaign in their armor and clean it under actual roman conditions, (opting for an authentic "pre industrial revolution" old masters oil painting armor shininess"), while on the other end of the spectrum, the "weekend in the park, non-fighting, talk alot display teams" ( I will refrain from the 'M'-word here), seem to prefer the "electric buffer look". I could be wrong, but I'm willling to bet that the majority of mirror-finish armor, electric buffer display teams tend to be the same ones who similarly believe in the equally improbable white campaign tunic. 
 
Dan

09-21-2003, 08:59 PM

Dan, so you are saying then, that a satin finish is what was the word of the day, right? Unnless I am mistaken, it was Sean that was in favour of blued/blackened, forged armour. For those of us advocating the "Bright, shiny" armour, we've done so at the behest of a SATIN finish. Not a tinned, silvered, or chrome look. The other side of the argument, is Blued, or blackened armour, being perpetuated by one of these "fighting" units you so fondly write of. 
 
We've described the method of cleaning the armour by scouring it and using olive oil to preserve it. Scouring by no means produces a polished look. Yet, it can still shine. In fact, your examples of medieval armour prove our point. As well, I thank you for pointing out the accuracy of medieval artisans in their portrayal of armour. It goes hand in hand with what I believe to be the Roman interpretation of armour. 
 
By the way, maybe you can get Deepeeka to stop putting these silly mirror polishes on their segmentata and helms? Last time I checked, all steel from india comes with a mirror finish, while every reenactor made segmentata has a satin finish. In fact, I removed the polished look from my Deepeeka Itallic G, and pugio, to make it more authentic. 
Also, I have seen the hand made segmentatas from Legio XX "Valeria Victrix" (Matt Amt's group), and they are all of satin finish. I've seen the ones from Legio XXIV "M A", Legio X, XII, and the XIV. The ones bought from India had mirror finishes, while the hand made, more authentic ones were satin. All because of how they take care of them. (Sand paper, scotch brite pads, pumice). 
 
I'd take a closer look as to what groups are advocating what, before you go drawing your infamous "fighing vs non-fighting" line in the sand, and correlating it to shiny vs satin finish. On the other hand, I am not really sure who's side you are supporting...lol. So if I have you wrong here, I truly apologize..heheheh. But I can speak for a few of the eastern North American groups which I have seen first hand, when I say that our hand made segmentata are satin finish. And yes, it makes total sense. 
 
However, what about the brass? Not sharing the same qualities of iron or steel, it is so much easier to shine. Same with bronze, and tin. Perhaps these could have been shined to a high polish? Or am I starting a new thread with this question? Anyway, if it is possible for the cupric alloys and tin to be of such a high polish, it would lend weight to the literary descriptions. 
 
Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"Lay your hand, or thy tongue against the greatness of Rome, and feel my wrath." - Matt Lanteigne 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248

Hibernicus · 09-22-2003, 09:39 AM

I believe that terms as "shining" as used by ancient chroniclers describing the look of segmentatas are subjective since we know that in modern experiments forge darkened iron can be polished with oil and/or wax and become reflective. 
 
Any conclusions drawn about how the surface of segmentatas were maintained based on experience with steel are speculative. 
 
Nor am I advocating that segs be left forge darkened. I am saying that it was a possibility. 
 
It seems to me that it is just as likely that segs were tinned as they were satin finished as they were left forge darkened. We just don't know. 
 
 
Sean Richards 
 
Gaius Valerius Tacitus Hibernicus, Centurio 
LEGIO IX HISPANA COH III EXPG CEN I HIB 
 
Vexillatio I: Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, Camp Pendelton 
Vexillatio II: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska 
Vexillatio III: Washington, Okinawa , Northern California 
 
www.legio-ix-hispana.org 
 
619.563.5700 PST 9am- 8pm, most days

09-22-2003, 01:25 PM

Allow me to clarify a term here: "Burnishing" does not simply mean "polishing." Jewelers use a tool called a burnisher to put the final polish on metal. It is a small, rounded rod of varying shape made of extremely hard steel. It is rubbed vigorously over the surface of the metal to smooth out those microscopic scratches that leave a matte finish. I don't know if the Romans had burnishers but Medieval people certainly did. Burnishing leaves a true mirror finish. The problem with burnishing is that you can only burnish a tiny area at a time. I once burnished a helmet to a mirror finish and my arm didn't recover for months. To keep a whole armor burnished, you'd have to have at least one slave who did nothing else, so if Romans had burnishers, only a centurion or higher officer could afford the process. In any case, the many overlaps of the segmentata would make it impractical to burnish. A muscle cuirass, however, could be burnished, and since they seem to have been made of bronze (assuming the Romans really used them at all) they could have been burnished, as might greaves and helmet, though the time required would have been great.

FlaviusCrispus · 09-22-2003, 05:25 PM

Dan-- 
 
You've picked the wrong argument, here. The debate on this thread is not whether the Romans adopted a matte or ESG-like, mirror surface. It's whether the Romans either "blued" their loricae or left them forge-blackened. 
 
If I may take the liberty to summarize everyone's take on this... 
 
Those advocating a forge blackened or blued finish believe the Romans lacked sufficient time, technology, or wherewithal to spend a significant amount of their days scraping or scrubbing their cuirasses to give them a "bright" bare-metal finish. They believe iron beaten into plate comes off the forge with a natural protective finish (either "blue" or "black") which retards rust accumulation, and think that the Romans were unlikely to remove this layer to create a white-metal or "silvery" look. They think the historical evidence is inconclusive as to finish and believe modern experimentation may be of greater value in answering this question than attempting to interpret the primary sources. 
 
Those who advocate a "bright metal" finish believe the primary sources in art and literature uniformly depict or describe bright, reflective and silvery armor. This does not mean "mirror polished," it could just as easily (and more probably) mean a matte or "satin" finish produced by repeated scrubbing with abrasives. Absent any descriptions or artistic depictions of blued, blackened or otherwise colored armor, they believe the existing evidence is sufficient to settle the matter, and that modern tinkering with blued or blackened finishes is just a form of speculation and serves no real "experimental archaeology" purpose. 
 
No one-- repeat, NO ONE-- is suggesting that the Romans gave their armor an electric buffer-like mirror polish. Those arguing against the blued finish (I include myself in this categoy) favor a matte or satin finish like that sported by you and your comilitones of XIIII GMV in "The Roman Legions Recreated in Full Color Photographs." 
 
<<Interestingly, this argument seems to be divided along the lines of true living historian reenactors who actually fight and campaign in their armor and clean it under actual roman conditions, (opting for an authentic "pre industrial revolution" old masters oil painting armor shininess"), while on the other end of the spectrum, the "weekend in the park, non-fighting, talk alot display teams" ( I will refrain from the 'M'-word here), seem to prefer the "electric buffer look". I could be wrong, but I'm willling to bet that the majority of mirror-finish armor, electric buffer display teams tend to be the same ones who similarly believe in the equally improbable white campaign tunic.>> 
 
You're wrong. To my knowledge, there are no "electric buffer" display teams in the U.S. I have spent time in three of the most prominant U.S. reenactment groups -- IX Hispana, XX Valeria Victrix, and VI Victrix Pia Fidelis (my current unit). None of them, to my knowledge, use electrix buffers on their gear or attempt to create a mirror polish a la the ESG. The "white tunic" unit is Matt Amt's XX Valeria Victrix; I seriously doubt whether an electric buffer has ever been within a Roman mile of any of their cuirasses. 
 
The rift between what you term "display teams" and "true living history reenactors" is not as apparent in the U.S. and Canada as it seems to be in Europe. Most of the North American reenactors I am aware of would welcome the opportunity to engage in mock combat; some (IX Hispana and VI Victrix [California] among them) actually do so regularly. Those that haven't are handicapped by the lack of numbers and of opportunities to interact with other Roman living history units, which are thinly spread over a very large continent. There are a few events upcoming which may provide the opportunity for some fairly large scale Roman-on-Roman or Roman-Barbarian mock combat. 
 
By the way, are we ever going to see a follow-up edition of "RLRIFCP"? Think of how much bigger it would be now! 
 
T. Flavius Crispus 
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis 
California, USA

09-22-2003, 10:02 PM

A nice "trick" to help keep your armor from rusting and somewhat "bright" is to lightly coat it with a dry lubricant. You can pick it up at any gun shop. I use it on all of my firearms and other non/unfinished gear. They have been through rain, sleet, mud, etc and not one speck of rust ever developed on my firearms. Since it is a 'dry' lubricant it doesn't leave a oily film and the clear 'film' is undetectable to the naked eye. Usually you just spray it on and wipe off any excess. I belive that Hoppes and Remington both make this type of lubricant. There are a few others but they all seem to work about the same. It will eventually wear off, so reapplication will be necessary. But it does work! OK, so it is not authentic Roman Army Issue, but since it is undetectable to the eyes, it can be your little secret to the public. Just a thought and hopefully helpful advice. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=optio@romanarmytalk>Optio</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/p51av8tor/myhomepage/optio1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US" BORDER=0> at: 9/23/03 12:57 am

09-22-2003, 11:07 PM

There is also another product called "Sweetshooter" that is the same as a dry lubricant. Actually, it starts of 'wet' the dries. when dry, you hand polish to a very nice bright finish that is protected from rust for a LONG TIME! It is made by Tecrolan. A good contact phone number is 1-800-932-4445. They are based here in Fort Worth, Texas. It is AWESOME stuff!!! But, I will warn you it is not cheap. Hope that helps!

Daniel S Peterson · 09-23-2003, 07:14 PM

Flavius, 
I agree that Deepeeka's helmets are too shiny (unless you are a certain British display team), but believe it or not, the vast majority of their sales, even the authentic Roman stuff, are to the general public and not Roman reenactors. The dealers that cater to this cliental insist on highly polished armor. Some of them, also, believe it or not, INSIST on stocking the infamous "Roman Trooper Helmet", still after all these years, and much improved helmets. This will hopefully explain why the gear "downgrades" sometimes. It is very confusing for the armorers with some orders calling for correct helmets with proper steps, etc, and other orders specifying the "trooper" with all of its inaccuracies. Sometimes features get mixed up. When at my suggestion to Deepeeka that they stop production of the trooper, irate dealers threatened to buy them from another company! 
 
It is much easier for the occasional reenactor to "matte down" his Deepeeka helmet, than to leave a small number deliberately matte. An excellent cleaining device we have here in Germany, that will quickly dullen a mirror polish deepeeka helm are these black rubber blocks, kinda like a big eraser that is impregnated with grit. they even come in different grades. These are very handy, and function very similarly to a soft pumice stone. 
 
The new roman book should be wrapped up before the spring, unless I spend more time than planned in Iraq this winter. I am still looking for material, and mentioned this on previous RAT threads, though not much interest was shown. If you guys want to be in it, try to have good Roman backdrops in some of the pics. I know that is difficult in the U.S. but there are some perfect sites. Details of any really good equipment would be nice, and of course, unit history, contact information, etc. 
 
Dan

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Dulling Polished Metal	Decimus Aurelius Varus	18	4,557	05-16-2008, 09:01 PM Last Post: Paullus Scipio