-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Roman Resources
- Thread starter RacingRodent
- Start date
arber1456
Executioner
Hello Eulalia,
what does he sing in the French and English versions?
that´s correct, this song sings Cacofonix/Troubadix in the Circus Maximus. They sing this song in the carneval or on the Ballermann No. 6 on Mallorca.
RacingRodent
Consul
Getting back to an earlier point raised by Naraku and expanded upon by Eulalia it is frequently the case that funereal effigies of Roman legionaries and other born citizens in military service tend to show them in undress uniform no not naked 
but as attired for everyday camp life.
but as attired for everyday camp life.
Anyone who has worn body armour of any kind (even the modern sort) quickly learns it is hot, uncomfortable and as you get tired it seems to draw gravity. Thus rather like modern troops it is unlikely that Roman soldiers wore full battle dress except when expecting the possibility of action or on parade...in fact there is some evidence for specialised parade armours particularly for the cavalry.
It is entirely possible that execution detail was perceived as non combat and therefore conducted without resorting to full kit.
A note on cloaks is that by and large most cloaks were seen merely as utility items and tend to be portrayed where shown as brown unbleached wool.
Also I have links to the wikipedia pages for their lists of Roman Legions and auxiliary regiments which if you follow the links give potted service histories for at least some units.
lifted right from the Master Crucifixion Technician Manual!!!
That is copyrighted Eul...
T
That is copyrighted Eul...
T
tree has been known to lie...
T
T
not as an altarboytree has been known to lie...
T
Naraku
Draconarius
RR makes a good point about the armor. It is heavy. In movies, Roman soldiers (or Greek, or Egyptian, or generic ancient people) seem to wear their armor all the time, even when they're just sitting around waiting for the hero to show up & beat the crap out of them. In reality, a Roman soldier would have only worn his armor in battle or on parade or on guard duty. For ordinary stuff, like tending to daily chores, building a wall or crucifying some poor soul, they would have only worn their tunic.
Speaking of walls...this is a pretty interesting article about the Roman Walls. Turns out the one in the north of England wasn't alone.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/roman-walls/curry-text
Speaking of walls...this is a pretty interesting article about the Roman Walls. Turns out the one in the north of England wasn't alone.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/roman-walls/curry-text
I imagine Roman style armour could be stiff and uncomfortable. I can tell you that medieval style chain mail is a bitch!
RacingRodent
Consul
Chain Mail is made of metal links either linked through each other or pinned together. It has the wonderful habit of pinching at various random points of your body and chafing a few others for good measure.
It also gets hot very quickly and to protect from the chaffing and the fact chain mail does not absorb the force of the blow you need to wear a whole lot of padding underneath it. This mean you spend a lot of time feeling like you are cooking.
Now I have not worn Lorica Segmentata but people who have report it as feeling very constricting across your chest and also that you cannot exactly stretch out any aches.
Scale armour and lamellar armours would also be quite stiff I would imagine.
aha you have skills with it
it's always struck me that the Roman armourers,
while providing hefty protection for the upper body,
were surprisingly careless regarding what was worn under the kilt
The cingulum, a sort of leather sporran with knobs on,
would surely be as much of a danger as a protection if an enemy hit it?
later mediaeval tournament armour was much more full-bodied
RacingRodent
Consul
There are several reasons for the difference.
First off the Roman legionary is carrying this great big wacking thing called a scutum or shield which could way twenty pounds or more (and that pic is the wrong way round it was always carried on the left). That was mobile and provided defence to the legs and groin.
Especially the large shields were useful in formation as typical soldier would find allies to the right (most importantly) and the left of him. Thus your shield protects the man to the left of you in addition to yourself.
The later developments arose for a number of reasons. Firstly you are looking at tournament armour which is essentially worn by people in one on one fights. In addition those people knew when they were going to be in a fight and when they were not unlike knights on the battlefield.
Thus they could wear much heavier armour even armour that would tire them or their horse out in under an hour say. A knight engaged in real warfare against an enemy who might not be feeling entirely chivalrous needed an armour in which he could function for the whole daylight period and possibly longer if need be (though it might get uncomfortable). Further in a one on one fight you opponent has much greater range of attacking options as you do not have any allies on either side of you covering your flanks, even the highly individualistic French knights tended to form up in conrois on the battlefield.
Finally though engineering and metallurgy had simply advanced. The same weight of metal went further and still provided sufficient protective strength by the late Middle Ages early Renaissance. It was only the rise of gunpowder that exponentially increased the force of attacking arms and reduced how fit and able soldiers needed to be to wield them that did for metal armour.
First off the Roman legionary is carrying this great big wacking thing called a scutum or shield which could way twenty pounds or more (and that pic is the wrong way round
it was always carried on the left). That was mobile and provided defence to the legs and groin.Especially the large shields were useful in formation as typical soldier would find allies to the right (most importantly) and the left of him. Thus your shield protects the man to the left of you in addition to yourself.
The later developments arose for a number of reasons. Firstly you are looking at tournament armour which is essentially worn by people in one on one fights. In addition those people knew when they were going to be in a fight and when they were not unlike knights on the battlefield.
Thus they could wear much heavier armour even armour that would tire them or their horse out in under an hour say. A knight engaged in real warfare against an enemy who might not be feeling entirely chivalrous needed an armour in which he could function for the whole daylight period and possibly longer if need be (though it might get uncomfortable). Further in a one on one fight you opponent has much greater range of attacking options as you do not have any allies on either side of you covering your flanks, even the highly individualistic French knights tended to form up in conrois on the battlefield.
Finally though engineering and metallurgy had simply advanced. The same weight of metal went further and still provided sufficient protective strength by the late Middle Ages early Renaissance. It was only the rise of gunpowder that exponentially increased the force of attacking arms and reduced how fit and able soldiers needed to be to wield them that did for metal armour.
this all confuses Tree...
RR talks about carrying this big thing called a "scrotum" which I have never seen on a rodent and then...
...what, Ulrika? 'Perhaps I should reread the thread'?
whatever...
T
RR talks about carrying this big thing called a "scrotum" which I have never seen on a rodent and then...
...what, Ulrika? 'Perhaps I should reread the thread'?
whatever...
T
RacingRodent
Consul
ahem
As to scuta
Well my mummy always said "Come back with your shield or on it" but then she was a bit of a Spartan
Thank you RR, this has either clarified things or made tree go make real buttered popcorn
... I will make popcorn
If anyone makes sense of this post you are sicker than Tree and even all the members of this site should shun you....
Tree
... I will make popcorn
If anyone makes sense of this post you are sicker than Tree and even all the members of this site should shun you....
Tree
Naraku
Draconarius
To add to what RR has already said:
The Roman armor was developed to fight as part of a tight formation. When they were allowed to fight in this manner, they were almost invincible. But, as Arminius proved in the Teutoburg Forest, they could be defeated if they were proevented from forming up. The helmet & armor were well designed to protect the head & upper torso from anything that might get above the shield wall, while the line of scuta protected the rest of the body. The legionary also wore greaves that protected their shins.
Although soldiers are usually seen in art & movies wearing the destictive lorica segmenta, this style didn't come into common use until some time around the begining of the Imperial Era. In the Republic, the lorica hamata (chain mail) & lorica squamata (scale armor) were worn. Both types continued to be used during the Imperial Era, especially by cavalry. By the end of the III Century, the lorica segmenta had fallen out of use due to expense & the other types became the norm again.
As to Medieval armor: The picture Eulalia posted is likely not tornament armor, which would have been less ornate, but Renaisance Era parade armor. It was meant solely for display & not combat, hence the engraving & the very exagerated codpiece. In most suits of plate armor, the groin is protect by a mail skirt. It's not really possible to protect that area with plate & still provide enough flexability for walking or riding.
Through out history, even today, body armor is a compromise between providing protection while still allowing enough freedom of movement for the soldier to fight effectively without exhausting themselves. And, like all compromises, no solution is perfect.
The Roman armor was developed to fight as part of a tight formation. When they were allowed to fight in this manner, they were almost invincible. But, as Arminius proved in the Teutoburg Forest, they could be defeated if they were proevented from forming up. The helmet & armor were well designed to protect the head & upper torso from anything that might get above the shield wall, while the line of scuta protected the rest of the body. The legionary also wore greaves that protected their shins.
Although soldiers are usually seen in art & movies wearing the destictive lorica segmenta, this style didn't come into common use until some time around the begining of the Imperial Era. In the Republic, the lorica hamata (chain mail) & lorica squamata (scale armor) were worn. Both types continued to be used during the Imperial Era, especially by cavalry. By the end of the III Century, the lorica segmenta had fallen out of use due to expense & the other types became the norm again.
As to Medieval armor: The picture Eulalia posted is likely not tornament armor, which would have been less ornate, but Renaisance Era parade armor. It was meant solely for display & not combat, hence the engraving & the very exagerated codpiece. In most suits of plate armor, the groin is protect by a mail skirt. It's not really possible to protect that area with plate & still provide enough flexability for walking or riding.
Through out history, even today, body armor is a compromise between providing protection while still allowing enough freedom of movement for the soldier to fight effectively without exhausting themselves. And, like all compromises, no solution is perfect.