Historical accuracy questions

**HumphreysCraig00** · 01-25-2007, 22:51

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.

I know he wouldnt be happy about it but im sure the fact that he was avoiding being shot would justify it, wouldnt it?

And I get alot of my info from tv (e.g. I call them insurgents as the news calls them that and its stuck), sometimes its good other times (like this :)) it seems to be a bit crap, anyway from what ive seen on the news and on documentaries the insurgents (I cant think of another all encompassing term) generally run away when faced with stiff opposition, unless thier aim is to self detonate.

Thats not the usual then?

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.

Thats why when I was told they drop thier packs I accepted it as fact without question, as it makes sense.

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.

At least one of the figures i'd seen on the net was right about something...

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.

The shows (although numerous) seem to be wrong again then.

I didnt think theyd take slaves into account though as they werent technically roman were they?

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:

Every month a legionary had to do an 18 mile route march with 60 pounds of equipment and armour and weapons to carry.

How long did they have to do this 18 mile march with 60 lbs

As I know from previous experience I have no trouble (apart from slight sweatyness) going 5 miles in less than an hour and a half with 110lbs in a backpack. (I used to do it thinking It would get me fit quick but it had no effect :( )

So if it was say 18 miles in say 15 hours maybe , then thats hardly going to make you extremely fit once a month.

(BY THE WAY IM NOT DOUBTING THEY WERE FIT IM JUST SAYING SURELY THEY DID HARDER EXERCISE THAN THAT)

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!

Bleeding ankle biting romans!!! :)

**Watchman** · 01-25-2007, 23:10

Weights I've seen quoted for the bronze muscle cuirasses (both plates, mind you) are in the 30 pound range. Which sounds credible enough; AFAIK most decent-coverage mail shirts weigh about the same (although there can be very considerable variation due to "cut" alone), and good steel breastplates rather a bit less. (Early Modern "proof" cuirasses, with double-thick 4mm front plate, are about 25-30 pounds; normal-thickness ones about 75% of that.) 'Course, exact coverage, design, thickness and such can vary the figures quite a bit.

Not that it really matters. Medieval knights fighting dismounted could cheerfully be wearing full mail, a coat-of-plates over it for serious torso protection (and neither armour is exactly light by itself), plus helmet and sundry additional limb defences plus weapons, and normally didn't have too much trouble with the load. They didn't cover ground all that fast of course, but then if they needed to be mobile they'd stay on horseback to begin with.

**Xtiaan72** · 01-25-2007, 23:19

Bleeding ankle biting romans!!! :)

Gunther the Barbarian: "BAR BAR! Run for the hills.....It's those bleeding Roman midgets again.....with their steely little knives...How can we fight them when they run between our legs....BAR BAR!!!"

**Watchman** · 01-25-2007, 23:39

Talk about striking below the belt...

**Xtiaan72** · 01-25-2007, 23:57

"Pastafarians!" Classic.....

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 01-26-2007, 01:01

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.

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

Very un cool, that's what you get for jacking it in for eight weeks.

**Zaknafien** · 01-26-2007, 01:09

Humphreys, being in the military does not make one a better person but thank you for your support anyways

I wear a rack over my IBA with three 3-mag pouches on each side, plus some other pouches. ill post a picture of a sample

Mind you, this is not a combat load, this is just a "hey look at me standing around" picture. On a combat patrol, side plates, shoulder plates, and a crotch plate would be added, as well as helmet, assault pack, radio, leg drop pouch, etc. we use M-4s these days, but even an M-4 with flashlight, laser sight, ACOG, pistol grip, extra magazine, etc, can be pretty heavy.

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.

**DXL** · 01-26-2007, 02:15

Cant we just say that modern day soldier carry what they need and what they need depends on mission, ROE and what kind of unit youre in?
I dont like it when threads go to far off topic

edit:
however, I would love to speak with fellow militaries at a forum that is not exclusive for militarys, since all those forums tend to end up in a ton of threads where people bashing either the yanks or the frenchies or some other nation instead of just talking about the things I wanna talk about. (like the feeling when that red car in central Kabul dont follow the pattern of the rest of the cars and all the people in a four block radius is gone, or how awed you get when you visit a U.S camp for the first time.... I mean, you guys build cities when you go to war, yeez.

ya, sorry, now I got OT, and nostalgia hit me to... Guess I gonna go out and walk memory lane and have smoke now.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 01-26-2007, 03:55

Holy hell Zak, that's all ammo? That's also one hell of a chest rig.

Just went looking across the net at what the British have been producing in the last few years. The trend still seems to be for carrying six to nine mags. Although Highlander have produced a vest with 6x3 mag pouches, thats 18 mags!

Interesting really, because the standard gear can carry 12 tops and usually only carries 6. Must be a sign of an army fighting in a combat zone.

All this talk of webbing is making me want to wander down to the recruiting office, or just buy new gear. 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.

Bah, sorry. I'll go on forever about the army.

Still can't get over the fact they let you shave your head though.

**Incongruous** · 01-26-2007, 05:08

Cant say much about Ancient arms and armor.
But while at Warwick castle once, 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. So I'm supposing that (even if their armour was lighter) Hoplites would of had to have been damned strong, and that their armour was pretty heavy.