PlaymoFriends
Creative => Customs Gallery => Topic started by: Timotheos on March 09, 2008, 18:51:13
-
Instead of a knapsack, he should be toting a pack with kitchen gear and trench tool, but you get the idea.
If anyone can improve, I'd be thrilled!
-Tim
-
Maybe I should add clarification:
Roman consul Marius reformed the Roman army, and one of his measures was to reduce the size of the baggage train. In its place, the soldiers had to carry more of their gear, which they bore over the shoulder from a pole.
They jokingly referred to the contraption as "Marius's mule".
The mule doesn't look so good, but the posture otherwise seems to match the book reference (carrying helmet under the arm and pilum with the shield arm).
-Tim
-
Instead of a knapsack, he should be toting a pack with kitchen gear and trench tool, but you get the idea.
If anyone can improve, I'd be thrilled!
-Tim
There's an entrenching tool in this set 30 60 0160 which should do.
-
Hi Tim,
He looks great. :yup:. Also, thanks for the bit of history.
Best regards,
Jimbo
-
Hey Gordon,
Thanks for the idea about the tools!
Thanks Jimbo for the comment!
-Tim
-
PM me your address and I can send you an entrenching tool, maybe more than one (but I'd have to check on that).
-
Hello, Timmy ...
You have really taken on quite a project. My research tells me that these Roman soldiers were expected to carry about 90 pounds (about 41kg) of equipment.
I wonder how far most of us here at PF could march carrying that amount of weight?
Thanks for sharing.
All the best,
Richard
-
I think I could manage that ... for a few meters ...
-
When I was in the army, I had to ruck 70-pounds worth of gear in the form of an antenna our foot team had to carry out into the hills of Yakima valley and also the Mojave Desert for field exercise. Similar to a Roman load, it was top heavy, being tied to the top of my rucksack. The ruck was so heavy I couldn't lift it onto my shoulders standing up but had to squirm into it sitting on the ground, then roll up to a standing position.
The Romans had it even worse, propping that thing on a virtual cantilever over one shoulder.
Once you start moving, though, it isn't so bad, especially if the ground is level. I was wondering if the reason Marius went with that stick-over-the-shoulder instead of a better weighted backpack was because the stick is so easy to drop if you get ambushed. A really heavy pack, especially if you don't have modern quick-release-buckles, hangs onto you and doesn't want to let go!
Hello, Timmy ...
You have really taken on quite a project. My research tells me that these Roman soldiers were expected to carry about 90 pounds (about 41kg) of equipment.
I wonder how far most of us here at PF could march carrying that amount of weight?
Thanks for sharing.
All the best,
Richard
-
Hello, Timmy ... :wave:
When I was in the army, I had to ruck 70-pounds worth of gear in the form of an antenna our foot team had to carry out into the hills of Yakima valley and also the Mojave Desert for field exercise. Similar to a Roman load, it was top heavy, being tied to the top of my rucksack. The ruck was so heavy I couldn't lift it onto my shoulders standing up but had to squirm into it sitting on the ground, then roll up to a standing position.
When I was in the United States Coast Guard, we used to just throw all our stuff on the boat ... :lol:
All the best and Happy Easter,
Richard
-
I was wondering if the reason Marius went with that stick-over-the-shoulder instead of a better weighted backpack was because the stick is so easy to drop if you get ambushed. A really heavy pack, especially if you don't have modern quick-release-buckles, hangs onto you and doesn't want to let go!
That's a very interesting observation, Tim. I hadn't thought of that, but it does seem to make sense.
-
Hi Tim,
Rather later than planned here's the photo I said I'd taken with you in mind.
A few weekends ago we went up to Chesters Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall. It's just over 90 miles there so only about a gentle 2 and a bit hour's drive. We went up for a conducted tour of the small but very well-stocked museum there by the curator as well as a walk round the extensive remains of the fort itself. However, the walk was shortened by torrential rain and hail.
The curator's talk was very interesting and afterwards we had time to look round the musem itself. There are only two rooms, but they are full of Roman artefacts as the museum was created by the man who first saw the need to protect Hadrian's Wall and the related forts etc. Some of the items are rated as some of the best, if not the best, finds in the whole of the Roman Empire. Anyway, at the back of one of the cases were a Roman pickaxe and a Roman entrenching tool, and I thought of you and Marius's mule, so here's a photo. The pickaxe is the larger piece at the back of the case with the entrenching tool in front of it, not that that is really necessary as they are immediately recognisable for what they are, even though the "blade" of the pickaxe is all in one plane and with out the non-pointed end at right-angles to the pointed end.
-
Tim's quick-drop idea is I'm sure spot on. Anyone who's carried a big rucksack knows what a difficult job it is getting it on and off, especially if trying to leave oneself any modicum of grace and dignity. Plus the sack itself add some weight to the burden, especially in the absense of modern lightweight strong fabrics.
Another thought is that almost all the equipment is on display, so the officers can immediately see if someone's lost anything.
Did the 90 lbs of equipment include the armour they were wearing? It's a lot easier carrying the weight closer to the body than all lumped in one big sack on one's back. Ideally the weight would be carried at the top of the spine, so all the force is transferred down through your shoulders and bones in a straight line to the ground.
Regardless, all the rubbing, sweating and chafing associated with carrying loads for long distances would be as much a misery then as now, and I'm sure those Romans were far fitter and tougher than a modern roly-poly office worker (i.e. me).
-
Did the 90 lbs of equipment include the armour they were wearing? It's a lot easier carrying the weight closer to the body than all lumped in one big sack on one's back. Ideally the weight would be carried at the top of the spine, so all the force is transferred down through your shoulders and bones in a straight line to the ground.
Regardless, all the rubbing, sweating and chafing associated with carrying loads for long distances would be as much a misery then as now, and I'm sure those Romans were far fitter and tougher than a modern roly-poly office worker (i.e. me).
Hi Gordon thanks for posting the pictures!
To Martin: it's disputed how much the Romans actually carried. There are estimates as low as 45 lbs and as high as 90 lbs. One scholar opts for the average, 65 pounds.
The crucial bit is they carried a change of clothes and three days of food (probably flour for bread but maybe dried meat).
This allowed the legions to march faster than their baggage train in an emergency and survive until the baggage caught up.
-Tim