Historical accuracy questions

[Zaknafien]

That's uh, not quite true. and my equipment is heavy as hell, by the way.

[Watchman]

70 lbs is along the lines of 1600s "bulletproof" three-quarter plate armour you know. And that was Cavalry Only for strictly practical reasons.

[HumphreysCraig00]

That's uh, not quite true. and my equipment is heavy as hell, by the way.

Whats uh, not quite true?

If it is about the modern wieghts then yes it is, M16 loaded, 3.6kg, (7.92lbs)

120 rounds in Magazines 2.8kg. (6.16lbs)

3 m67 grenades 2.1kg (4.2lbs)

US interceptor body armour 7.4kg (16.3lbs)

US infantryman carries 34.58lbs of neccesary equiptment (I rounded upto 40 as there will be stuff like radios and the helmet which I havent thought of that will add wieght.

And the veterans ive spoken to say that when theyre coming underfire they drop thier rucksacks and any other un neccasary wieght they have so they can move faster,

70 lbs is along the lines of 1600s "bulletproof" three-quarter plate armour you know. And that was Cavalry Only for strictly practical reasons.

I know thier body armour is heavy, but I dont know how heavy exactly, but 70 lbs is a figure that keeps popping up when I search for the wieght of a hoplites equiptment.

[Zaknafien]

well excuse me, but I happen to be a US soldier, and recently returned from a year in Afghanistan, engaging in combat, in mountainous terrain. First of all, your standard interceptor vest is loaded with loads of nick-nacks, 12-15 magazines, compasses, GPS, various radios, medical kits, flashlights, flex cuffs, batons, etc, etc, etc. Youre also not counting your side plates, shoulder pads, crotch plate. We kept our rucks on more than we did not, you would never know when or if you would be able to retrieve it under fire.

[cunctator]

well excuse me, but I happen to be a US soldier, and recently returned from a year in Afghanistan, engaging in combat, in mountainous terrain. First of all, your standard interceptor vest is loaded with loads of nick-nacks, 12-15 magazines, compasses, GPS, various radios, medical kits, flashlights, flex cuffs, batons, etc, etc, etc. Youre also not counting your side plates, shoulder pads, crotch plate. We kept our rucks on more than we did not, you would never know when or if you would be able to retrieve it under fire.

Are you using any kind of baggage animals in mountain warfare (as the romans)? I know german and austrian mountain troops still have mules to carry the heavier stuff.

http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/PA_1...itory=youatweb





The combatload of a late republican/early augustan legionary was around 29,4 Kg (64,76 Ibs), but including clothing. All weights based on reconstructed equippment.

Linen Tunic 0.55 Kg (underwear)
Tunic 1.1 Kg
Caliage 1.3 Kg
Lorica Hamata 8,3 Kg
2 Cingula 1.2 Kg (belts)
Gladius + tull 2.2 Kg (type Mainz)
Pugio +tull 1.1 Kg (dagger)
Montefortino Helmet 2.1 Kg (including Chrest)
oval Scutum 9.65 Kg (Fayoum type)
Pilum 1.9 Kg
___________________
29.4 Kg (64,76 ibs)

plus his baggage during marshs:


Food for 4 days 3.7 Kg
Sarcina 2.55 Kg (metall field bottle + 1.3l fluid inside)
Tools in leather bag 3 Kg (knifes, personal stuff, etc.)
bag with more clothing 3.9 Kg (Neck scarf, resreve tunic, )
leather shield tull + 1.85 Kg
bronze bucket 0.85 Kg
bronze Casserole 0.65 Kg
furca (carrying bar) 1.9 Kg
________________
18.4 Kg (40,53 Ibs)

The remainiong stuff (vallli, tent, heavier tools as colobra) had necessarly to be carried by mules.

[HumphreysCraig00]

Humphreys, over what gound was this. Carrying that load at that speed is, well quite fast. It's more than I can do these days, but then I'm a lazy university slob.

Mostly flat with some hills, alot of it paved, funny note I stopped mainly after realising it wasnt helping but also after being stopped by a policeman saying a few people thought my bag was full of nicked stuff and had phoned them :)

I went running yesterday. I did a mile and wanted to sick-up.

Im not fit but atleast I can run a mile :) I used to be able to run 6 without much effort though :(, I miss being able to do that.

I was tempted to join the TA at Uni but if I'm going to get shipped out I want to be doing the job full time.

I want to join too but my case of fatlazybastarditus is hampering it abit :). Still I kep doing the excercise so I should eventually get there.
I just hope my stupidity isnt a stumbling block ::/

And, as an aside, no I do not support policy in Iraq if thats what youre asking. Afghanistan is a different matter entirely, but Im skeptical about it as well. Popular insurgencies cannot be won with military force unless one is willing to use extreme tactics, like the Romans.

Yeah I was wondering if you supported it as someone who was there as most of the ex military people ive seen who suported it hadnt been there.

I was allowed to lift a Bastard sword from around the mid 1430's I think. I can tell you, that was damned heavy (mind you I was only sicteen last time I was home). Then I tried to put on a Great helm, with just a small slit for the eyes, Christ my head nearky went through my shoulders.

Apparently alot of museum peices are display types that the makers never meant to be used for fighting and are made heavier and less balanced but more ornamental, I dont know if this is true or not but it may explain the heavyness.

They had heavy clothes :)

And damn another of my numbers were wrong...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Swords aren't that heavy, two kilos for a bastard sword is the upper limit.

Talking of gear weights. When I did my Roman guestimate I was only thing of the weapons and armour. You forget everything you wear is heavy.

I find it very difficult to believe that Gladius and tull are more than a kilo though. Modern reconstruction Gladii are usually less that 0.7kg.

[DXL]

Are you using any kind of baggage animals in mountain warfare (as the romans)? I know german and austrian mountain troops still have mules to carry the heavier stuff.

At least the specialforces and some of the PRTs in Afghanistan is using both mules and horses. There are serval reasons for that, mostly that there is a lot of country that dont have roads (dont think it is anywhere there is paved roads outside big popcenters) and the roads that exist cant carry heavy traffic for long before they break. Another reason is that a rider on a horse melt in a bit better. If the regulars in the U.S forces that use animals I dont know.

edit:
depending on mission and AOR I have been carrying everything from just my rifle a few clips and protective gear to a bit over 45 kilos, (I only know kilos and metric system sorry if you belong to the pound system and dont understand.).

[HumphreysCraig00]

And if its about the fitness diet thing.

I know roman males were on average 5 foot 2 (when histroy shows state this over and over it gets ingrained on your mind) due mostly to an inferior diet And I am assuming the same is true of the greeks.

Plus now scientific theory is applied to training rather than ritual which means the training should be more effective

[Bava]

I know roman males were on average 5 foot 2 (when histroy shows state this over and over it gets ingrained on your mind) due mostly to an inferior diet And I am assuming the same is true of the greeks.

You´re sure about that? 5´2´´ on average seems a bit too small imo.
I dont think the diet was that bad in agriculturally high developed societies like Rome, Greece and Carthague (ok, they probalby had a lower protein intake).
I even read somewhere that one of the requirements for becoming a legionary has been a height of at least 172 cm, but i could be wrong.

5´3´´to 5´5´´ was the average for a male from 14-17th century in middle europe but that was due to a "small" ice age and the 30 years war.

[HumphreysCraig00]

well excuse me, but I happen to be a US soldier, and recently returned from a year in Afghanistan, engaging in combat, in mountainous terrain. First of all, your standard interceptor vest is loaded with loads of nick-nacks, 12-15 magazines, compasses, GPS, various radios, medical kits, flashlights, flex cuffs, batons, etc, etc, etc. Youre also not counting your side plates, shoulder pads, crotch plate. We kept our rucks on more than we did not, you would never know when or if you would be able to retrieve it under fire.

First off, congratulations on being a better person than me, unless your lieing about being a US soldier.

Anyway

I assumed the wieght for the interceptor vest included all the plates as I have been on a site where a (I think he was a marine, may have been us army though) said he did all his exercise in his bulletproofs with all the plates in and it wieghed a bit under 20 lbs.

Also does all that stuff add up to much as the non military equivelents i have had my hands on werent very heavy at all.

And I didnt know there was enough room for 12 to 15 mags, as I was either told or read that they only held 3 (7 at most) ready mags and all the rest of the ammo was loose..

We kept our rucks on more than we did not, you would never know when or if you would be able to retrieve it under fire.

As I said the people i talked to said they always took it off so I stated that as fact.

Why were you worried about losing it though? Wouldnt anything you lost be replaced reasonably soon?

And I thought you wouldnt try to retrieve it until youd killed or chased off the insurgents.

Then again ive not been there so I dont know.

As an aside do you support the USs strategy in the middle east or not? (Alot of the soldiers ive seen state thier opinion on this have but they hadnt actuaky served there they had served before now)

I dont think the diet was that bad in agriculturally high developed societies like Rome, Greece and Carthague (ok, they probalby had a lower protein intake).

No the shows did say 5 foot 2 was average.

And im sure genetics played a part in it but the ones that said why rather than just said 5'2 was the average said it was due to a poorer diet, they didnt go into any specifics though

[Sarcasm]

First off, congratulations on being a better person than me, unless your lieing about being a US soldier.

Anyway

I assumed the wieght for the interceptor vest included all the plates as I have been on a site where a (I think he was a marine, may have been us army though) said he did all his exercise in his bulletproofs with all the plates in and it wieghed a bit under 20 lbs.

Also does all that stuff add up to much as the non military equivelents i have had my hands on werent very heavy at all.

And I didnt know there was enough room for 12 to 15 mags, as I was either told or read that they only held 3 (7 at most) ready mags and all the rest of the ammo was loose...

Considering the nature of the terrain and the type of units deployed, you're supposed to carry more than your average mechanized infantry chap.

As I said the people i talked to said they always took it off so I stated that as fact.

Why were you worried about losing it though? Wouldn't anything you lost be replaced reasonably soon?

And I thought you wouldn't try to retrieve it until you'd killed or chased off the insurgents.

I suppose his CO's wouldn't be terribly happy if he lost half his kit and had to replace it. Not to mention the personal things he doesn't like to leave behind.

You seem to think of insurgents [love the designation], can't hold any ground on the country. You can't exactly justify a potentially dangerous movement to retrieve lost kits either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Zak: 12 mags? In your vest? Where do you find the space.

My belt kit, fully loaded but without ammo comes in at around 35lb, not including a 2 litre platerpus on my back. I've never worn body armour but I can quite believe it weighs in at another 20lb. Then you'll probably have a small pack with extra rations/ammo/water on your back as well. Then there's your weapon. M16, irrc is over 9lb loaded.

So I can well believe that the modern British Infantryman in Iraq is lugging around upwards of 70lb, not including the poor sigi carrying the radio.

Marines I know carry as much as 120lb as a matter of course not including special tools or weapons.

In my view this is far too much, you simply don't run very fast carrying that much gear. There's only so much power in your legs and if you're not a big guy, like me, your legs are only so long. You can run, but not fast or very far.

Roman gear in battle was considerably lighter, the shield was not more than 20lb, the mail-shirst about the same. The helm is quite light and weapons are weightless compared to everything else. Over all probably no more than 50lb.

As to height, I think you'll find that 5'4 is closer the mark. Averages are fairly screwed up because they seem to include things like slaves, which brings it right down. It's like saying the average life expectancy for a Roman male was 25 when legionary service was 20 years.

It doesn't add up. In fact I'm sorry to say none of your numbers add up.

As an aside I would just like to say I have never served in combat or been a regular soldier, however I have trained with the kit.

[Xtiaan72]

No the shows did say 5 foot 2 was average

.




Well, I wouldn't base your research on a television show. Best to go to first hand historical sources. Some of the best evidence that Roman soldiers were small in stature are their accounts of their military encounters with Germans and Gauls, Who were evidently huge by Roman standards. The Romans were not too keen to fight the "giants" one on one. It's their tactics that kept their spirits up.

Of course the fact that Gauls and Germans were larger in stature compared to Romans throws a wrench in the theory that diet was the controlling factor here. There is no compelling evidence to back up that Gauls and Germans had a better diet than Romans, certainly. So more likely we are talking about hereditary and racial differences rather than cultural.

There is also no reason to assume that "small" Romans were not in excellent condition. The training and daily rigors of the legion would have made them extremely fit by any standard. Short guys that are extremely strong can lift a pack as good as anyone...me thinks. This tid-bit was on Wikipedia and the article was well referenced:

The main pre-requisite for a member of the Roman Army was fitness, given the long distances they were expected to march. They commonly trained by running, chopping down trees and doing obstacle courses. Every month a legionary had to do an 18 mile route march with 60 pounds of equipment and armour and weapons to carry. It was common practice for a legion being readied for deployment to spend the previous weeks in long field training drills, some of which required that they build three field camps a day. Requirements for non-legionary troops were not as severe.

I think it's a stretch to claim the average Roman was 5'2...Where did those figures come from? That would assume that a great many Romans were close to or under 5 ft tall. Friggen hobbits. Does that figure factor in that men are generally taller than women? Or that the legions had minimal physical standards that all men might not have met? Even if the average Roman was 5'2 that doesn't mean the avg legionnaire was that short. It is highly doubtful that there were very many 4'11 hobbits fighting off hordes of marauding Gauls!

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

On the subject of short Romans, I took this EB in game picture that relates to the subject. Tiny general:

It is mostly due to the angle and the way the Gallic auxilia are positioned higher in the saddle.

unless your lieing about being a US soldier.

Proof, and cool pics.