"Soldiers kit 1066 onwards" Topic

In a previous thread, about how far someone can move in 10 seconds, several posters commented on how much a modern soldier carries on his person. I thought this link might illustrate their point.

link

Interesting photos.

Nice photos, but that is just the average stuff.
Extra ammo and water is always the problem.

Soldiers kit, do they? How does one kit?

We don't actually know, what would have been carried for many of the periods shown, so really they are best guesses, I would say they are a little light, for many of the earlier pictures. Also when carrying kit for a period of time in the field as opposed to what one would carry in action.
It also annoys me that they use blunt and rounded point re-enactors weapons. If they are trying to show authentic kit, then it should all at least look right

Picky, picky, picky. Try finding "sharps" in the UK, that might be a bit of a trick.

Most of that stuff would not be carried into action, but left in camp. Modern soldiers drop packs in the base area, etc….

It's not picky picky picky, sharps can be found and certainly weapons that are not obviously blunt re-enactment weapons…
It's not hard at all in the UK and some of then are right, others are not
As to dropping stuff that was my point, given the fact that "baggage" would be dropped before action the pictures are either shown with too much or not enough for other.

Also why not highlight inaccuracies, or is ok to do things half right? given some of the opinions and questions asked in comment sections on this piece I have seen, people take this stuff to be highly accurate across the board. if one is not "picky" then things don't change

These pictures aren't aimed at us button counters on TMP but on the general readership of a daily newspaper.
You are lucky the art director didn't simply say "too much stuff, too cluttered, take it all away, I'll just have the Big gun and the silly hat"

Gamesman, Re-enactors usually don't have sharp weapons because the UK Police take a dim view of manslaughter …

Like most long-term re-enactors I have more kit than the photo for 1066 shows, and I've worn it on the hill at Battle, but to add sharp versions of everything just for posing in would cost me an extra £1,000.00 GBP or more.

If you want me to tour schools and provide items on loan for the mass media to photograph, you need to pay me a professional wage.

I just thought it was an interesting series of photographs showing how technology has increased the amount of kit carried. Guess I should have realised there's picky and TMP picky. Still, hope some of you found it moderately useful.

I had the option of having a sharp, but given my Norman broadsword was going to be occasionally used at school, it was not an option.

link

I don't see this having anything to do with button counting rather than being accurate in the items and information presented, I also don't see that just because it could have been worse should be a reason to accept mistakes, especially when it is being shown to people who don't know any better, they will accept what they see with out question, so all the more reason and not give half truths.

Guthroth, Is it your kit in the photo?
Now Whether re-enactors generally do or don't have sharp weapons , or weapons that look sharp and why that is has little to do with the piece .
If the intent is to show something with accuracy then that should be the goal,then do so if making compromises on one thing, makes one have to consider the compromises on another.

A sword does't have to be battle ready sharp, but look sharp, not the blunts allowed on the re-enactment field. If one is try ing to inform or educate should one approximate? Things are what they are, not vague approximations… Or is ok to be equally approximate in other areas?

I don't see that pointing out inaccuracies and ways to improve something then becomes viewed as a negative.

"A half truth presented a whole, becomes a complete lie"

@Gamesman: really the only egregiously blunt weaponry are in the first two pics after the WW1 kit. After that everything looks as you point out, not sharp but looking right for the camera. A sharp pointed seax would look better, an acute point on the glaive would look better. The "clothyard shafts" look deadly to me, even if the rondel and falchion points look a little bit blunted.

But what is far more annoying to me about this graphic project is the incompleteness of it (numbered items are missing entirely from the "huscarl" and "fighting archer" kits, while there is no lance for the "mounted knight" kit, misleading a tyro to assume that the glaive is used as a lance) and the way some items are described, e.g. the glaive being "made from a broken sword with a new piece of wood welded on." Really? That is badly phrased.

Gamesman:

I understand what you are saying,and i agree with you, but I'm afraid it shows you have a very naive view of how national and international media works.

Scene:
Monday morning meeting, planning the week ahead in the paper:

Editior says to Feature editor: "WWI anniversary: I want a picture story"

Feature editor: "EErrr ok, we'll interview a survivor and get his recollections"
(gets prodded in the leg by assistant picture editor who whispers "No can do…they are all dead"

Picture editor (who used to work in fashion): "Lets do story on what they wore!"

Big cheese Editor: "Great idea, make it so…Now moving on…I want more stuff on dead kids in the middle east"

….Ok…

The point is, its not the job of the Daily Telegraph to produce perfectly accurate historical documents, their job is to sell newspapers, and the individual who set up the piece about what soldiers wore through the ages probably had 2 or 3 days to do it, with the help of some intern or lowly assistant on 15 grand a year, they had at best a few days to dig out people who could provide the kit, get all that kit to a studio on a specific day, organise a photographer, book said studio at which to take the pictures, write the copy, check said copy, edit copy and photos,
As I said the whole thing has to be done in hours rather than weeks… this would all be done on a budget probably much smaller than you think.
The editor who sorted all this out doesn't have time to ask the ECW re-enactor if his kit is original, blunt, sharp or bent…He doesn't actually have time or more likely, gives a toss…his or her job is to get a feature to present to their senior editor saying "there you go, soldiers through the ages photo-story,ready fot the thursday edition, job done"

That, is how the world works.

Having talked to numerous re-enactors I am always surprised at the detailed research they undertake. Not only talking to veterans, if they can, but often researching a particular soldier. Often people who claim to have accurate information on equipment have in fact no more accurate sources than the re-enactors themselves.

I see several items that would be unlikely in most private soldiers kit in most of these.

Spectacles would be beyond the means of most Napoleonic privates. Nor would they be likely to carry a drill manual; more being illiterate than not. Playing cards were officially forbidden ( officially, mind you.) Clothes pegs? Probably be among the first items used for fuel! Draughts board and playing pieces? Next on the campfire!

Timepiece? Not for under serjeants, unless looted! Several of the tools shown were only carried by NCO's or armourers. Mirror, unlikely. Maybe one per platoon. Flash guard and hammerstall? Unknown in the Napoleonic army.

GWA
I'm seeing more blunt weapons up to Elizabethan stuff but agree with the other points.

Christot
Just because I'd like to see things being done differently doesn't mean I am being naive! ;) I work in media, though not the publishing side, I also teach, and deal with the issues of what people "know" because of what they see and read in popular media of all forms. I have also been involved in jobs where I have had to reset peoples ideas about how things were and walked away from others where people wanted to to perpetuate anachronisms.
But just because one knows how a system works and how it is flawed, doesn't mean one shouldn't say something about the problems does it?
So is it how the world works? Yes. Should I ignore the faults because of that? No. Can it be better and should we look for things to improve, Yes.
What happens when we say, oh this is ok, it's good enough, or that's the way the world works… ;)

I'm not knocking the intent of the piece, but it has been doing the round on the net FB etc. with people unaware or overlooking the errors etc. my view is that if one over look an error, one treats it as being correct. it's interesting as the longer this goes on the more "issues" are arising.

@Gamesman:

GWA
I'm seeing more blunt weapons up to Elizabethan stuff …

Are we talking about no. 6? Because that sword and main gauche look plenty sharp to me. The next one, Nasby musketeer sword, does look blunt. I missed that one. But isn't the entire sword atypical?…

yes up to the Elizabethan, as in the Elizabethan stuff was ok. Though one could ask whether a thin bladed rapier woud be usual for caliverman. Yes the ECW is what looks like what gets call a scarf sword, and more something a gentleman would own, not a NMA musketeer….
Oh well the list goes on… I just noticed the bow for the archer, has a modern looking type grip and arrow plate! Something there is little to no evidence for!

The bow: I don't see what you're seeing. Looks like a simple wrap and no "arrow plate". Oh, well.

I'm more inclined to complain about the BOOTS. WTH? I know of NO examples of any English archers wearing tall leather booties.

And where is the maul for pounding in that ginormous stake?…

Kit for trekking, light armed peacetime militia, c. 2014, U.S.A.

1. Jeans and long-sleeved T-shirt (not shown, over-shirt or jacket).
2. Hiking boots and socks.
3. Water resistant sun hat.
4. Trekking poles.
5. Laptop, power supply and backup drive (this is obviously the kit of an older gent, who has refused to adapt to the new handheld devices; note the absence of even a cellphone!). Not shown is the carrying case, complete with mouse, batteries, cords for graphic card reader, etc.
6. Fanny pack, containing water bottles, snacks, maps, chess game, etc. and etc.
7. .357 magnum revolver with shoulder holster, two speed loaders and box of ammo, and belt.
8. Toiletries.
9. Sunglasses and case.
10. Cord for computer/TV hookup to digital camera, spare battery, video card (all carried in the laptop case; the camera is not shown because it's being used to shoot the pic, Duh! All of this is "ancient" stuff anymore, but some old timers are slow to update to the newer, spiff technology, i.e. handheld media).
11. Writing instrument. No texting for this chap.
12. Wallet with the ubiquitous credit cards, cash and family pics, etc.
13. Belt tool.
14. Keys and sundry.
15. Woolen cloak, used at times in place of a jacket or coat, useful for lying on the ground for various reasons, etc.
Not shown is the satchel or otherwise tote to carry changes of clothing and so forth, including book(s) for diversion, more snacks and possibly a video or two for the laptop. Bring on the enemies of the state, we are ready to spend whatever time is required away from home to band together to fight the common enemy….

Lol….only in America.. you genuinely believe you need a revolver to go for a walk, don't you?

Need? No. But can carry if you want to? 'F yeah! :-)

(Other allowable answer: A revolver!! That's not going to cut it, get a glock for trips to the park at least)

:-) :-) :-)

Shan

I can think of several reason why if I was American that I would want to carry a fire arm going on a walk…

Yeah you guys, that is intended as only semi-serious. I had laid out my stuff for a quick trip down to Bryce Canyon National Park. They do post warnings about cougars and bears, so you never know. Our first hike was late in the day (we arrived back at our van well after sundown), we didn't see another human being the entire time, and I was glad for the Ruger, just in case, the area was very remote, as most visitors cluster around the trails near the entrance, preferring to not drive the ten or fifteen miles in.

I do have a Glock, btw, but that's for inside carry and very short range, it's a 26 Mini….

My sister once ended up on a hiking trail between a bear and her cubs, how often does that happen in the UK? Certainly makes the pistol a practical option.

Well you say that but I have encountered some jolly perturbed farmers if one steps off the foot path and one often encounters roaming packs from the Ramblers Association… not to mention the Womens Institute walking parties….

Its blunt because YOU DON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO HURT SOMEONE. Why have a sharp set in addition? Gosh, the weapon in an illustrative picture is rounded. How does that actually make the thrust of the article inaccurate?

because the actual weapons don't look like the one in the article. weapons are meant to hurt people, so why show ones that look like they are not? It is called soldiers kit through the ages, not re-enactors kit.
Also if they are not accurate in some places, then it makes me question how accurate in others.I mean give the modern soldier an SLR… it's close enough? of if we are dealing with not wanting to hurt people, maybe the modern fire arms should be shown with their blank firer adaptors, or better yet, be the Bright painted airsoft versions instead?

Again, people believe what they see, I deal with questions from people because of misinformation and half truths based upon on history, because someone else giving information thinks, oh it's ok, it's close enough.
If one is going to educate one should do it properly, or is it ok that say kids only kind of get the right information at school, or at university, it's ok it's close enough…

I enjoyed the piece for what it was.

So my thanks go to Milites for sharing it and for prompting an interesting discussion.

As an aside, I use both sharps and blunts for HEMA as sharp blades interact differently to blunts. So you sometimes need to try out techniques with the former to ensure they actually work, but blunts allow for safer training.

Perhaps TMP should be renamed The Miniatures Pedants :-)

Ian

What props.aren't pendants already? Or is it just that being a pedant is ok.in some places and not others? ;-)

"Pendants"?…

yes. things you hang on things around your neck! ;)
Was typing on a phone… it should have read… what gamers aren't pedant already…

Janner, I was told by some of those people, who spend their entire lives researching and re-enacting a particular period and still, apparently, get it wrong, that sharps are lighter than blunts, due to the edge. I certainly know that when holding a sharp version, of my blunt 11 Century Norman sword, the difference is quite noticeable.

There are blunts and blunts and not all blunts are created equal.
Blunts used in re-enactment tend to be further from proper weight and importantly balance that those intended for use for HEMA practice. Understanding the body mechanics etc of historical technique requires something that more closely matches the actual weapon- Re-enactment requires something that can be safely used on the field of play.

I happen to agree with Gamesman, just to make my opinion clear after all of this pedantic chatter: for pictures of historical kit, there really is no excuse for not using edged weapons that look correct. Rounded/missing tips, balls on the tip, and obviously thick edges are not accurate looking at all. A smooth point or edge won't accidentally cut or jab anyone unless s/he is an imbecile, but the weapons will look good in photos….

Yes, I also agree with gamesman's points.

By blunt I should have been more specific. I meant a training sword like an Albion I.33 rather than a reenactment sword, i.e. I still need to wear a mask when sparing and the blade and grip lengths, overall weight, as well as balance, all allow it to function in a similar way to a sharp, such as their Solingen blade.

However sharps grip the other blade differently in a bind, and this is even more pronounced with two sharps. So an interpretation of a technique that requires one blade to slide along the other blade may need rethinking because the edges of shape blades stick to one another!

Regards,