Roman Infantry 2019 Kaustic Plastik Review

Yeah, sorry, "No instructions" is what I meant. I would never be able to assemble one of these guys without that. Hell, I often have to refer to all the PO pictures just to assemble some of the TBLeague figures, and they used to include instructions; I miss that.

shazzdan wrote:We have literally tons of Roman leather artifacts: shoes, tents, shield covers, belts, straps, even fittings for metal armour. There were over four hundred shoes found just at one site (Vindolanda). Leather armour proponents can't explain how all of this leather survived but none of the leather armour did; especially since they believe that Roman leather armour was more widespread than Roman metal armour.

That's why I also think the case for any truly widespread use of leather armor is overstated, and that some are overly eager to identify it in paintings and sculptures that can be interpreted in a more conventional manner (i.e., as metal armor).

skywalkersaga wrote:Yeah, I know what you mean. Also, I feel like something like a 'scarf' ALWAYS has a practical purpose, even if the one that it was originally intended for -- to act as padding from chafing -- has been rendered obsolete for some reason. It can be used to keep one's neck warm in chilly weather, or to collect sweat in warmer situations. And depending on who is wearing it, and when, it can even be some kind of identifier from a distance. Similar to the crest on a helmet.

Agreed, and also remember as a status symbol. If (for example!) the focale had become a standard part of legionary equipment for (let's say) practical reasons, it might have been retained as an item associated with the higher status of legionary troops even after these practical reasons disappeared. Of course, here we have actually "chain" mail followed by lorica segmentata, followed by "chain" or scale mail, and supposedly only the middle stage requires it -- I bring this up, because the question is whether this item would have been in much use this early (the figures we've been discussing are before the lorica segmentata period). But before the "chain" mail there would have been Greek-type cuirasses, some of which would have been of metal plate, so to speak, and these might have benefited from the use of a focale too. Anyway, by now we're deep in hypothetical territory, and we've been using plenty of generalization.

shazzdan wrote:The focale is said by some to to be the precursor to the cravat.

This would seem plausible enough, although there is surely a long gap in usage -- then again the Renaissance resurrected plenty of at least artistic representations of Greco-Roman tradition and life sometimes imitates art.

Stryker2011 wrote:Yeah, sorry, "No instructions" is what I meant. I would never be able to assemble one of these guys without that. Hell, I often have to refer to all the PO pictures just to assemble some of the TBLeague figures, and they used to include instructions; I miss that.

I thought maybe that's what you meant after all. I have often had to refer to the promotional images for products to figure out what goes where, and sometimes even the larger images we get on the internet are not quite enough -- and on the box here we get them two per side, so fairly small (and only one of each).

If a suit of armour was made in an Egyptian style by an Egyptian armourer in an Egyptian workshop and worn by an Egyptian soldier, but in a Roman army, is the armour Roman or Egyptian?

shazzdan wrote:If a suit of armour was made in an Egyptian style by an Egyptian armourer in an Egyptian workshop and worn by an Egyptian soldier, but in a Roman army, is the armour Roman or Egyptian?

Why do you assume it is Egyptian style? And even if it were, the Romans adopted numerous parts of their equipment from other people they had encountered and often conquered -- most notably the Gauls (with Gallic-type helmets and shields -- and those were at one time or another in standard use by Roman troops).

GubernatorFan wrote:

shazzdan wrote:If a suit of armour was made in an Egyptian style by an Egyptian armourer in an Egyptian workshop and worn by an Egyptian soldier, but in a Roman army, is the armour Roman or Egyptian?

Why do you assume it is Egyptian style? And even if it were, the Romans adopted numerous parts of their equipment from other people they had encountered and often conquered -- most notably the Gauls (with Gallic-type helmets and shields -- and those were at one time or another in standard use by Roman troops).

The Karanis armour was definitely Egyptian style. Egyptian scale armour hadn't changed since the Bronze Age. It is virtually identical to the one that Carter found in Tut's tomb.
http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/ConAntiq/leatherarmor.html

My question is where do we draw the line? When does it stop being Egyptian and start being Roman?

shazzdan wrote:The Karanis armour was definitely Egyptian style. Egyptian scale armour hadn't changed since the Bronze Age. It is virtually identical to the one that Carter found in Tut's tomb.
http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/ConAntiq/leatherarmor.html

My question is where do we draw the line? When does it stop being Egyptian and start being Roman?

It's a very good question, and I am not quite sure we can draw a line. If Roman units adopted this in any number (as opposed to -- say -- some local city guards), I suppose it would make it Roman. Thanks for the link, I had never seen the Karanis armor before (which is a shame, since I've been to the Kelsey more than once), and assumed it was strap armor, a bit like lorica segmentata rather than scale armor like the squamata. It does look pretty close to the Bronze Age depictions and remains, although those were in metal -- the ones I've seen anyway.

The one that Carter found was made from hide, just like the Karannis one. The Tut corselet is the oldest known example of hide armour.

You're right about the armor from Tutankhamun's tomb. The metal ones are from elsewhere.

Great Review, thanks for showing !

Stryker2011 wrote:Thanks for a thorough and detailed review. I’m glad I never got into these guys, all the flaws, loose joints, and most of all detailed instructions would drive me nuts. “Historical inaccuracies” aside, let’s remember that 90% of the records from this time period have been lost due to time and the destruction of wars. I don’t follow any ”Historian” blindly, as they are all making assumptions based on the limited resources available, and very little can be taken as true FACT. Until someone invents a time machine, it’s all supposition, so I wouldn’t sweat the details too much, unless you want to go with today’s “best guesser” (ie, Historian) and make your figures look like what they believe to be “truth”.

Amen

Ephiane wrote:Great Review, thanks for showing !

Thanks, Ephiane, glad you liked it.

Wonderful review! Your thoroughness with both narrative and illustrations is greatly appreciated. Keep it up! And one request: while certainly not recent figures (they date to 2015), would you ever consider doing reviews on KP’s earlier figures Marcus Nonius Macrinus and Lucius Aelius Seianus? Would be most interested to get your thoughts and analysis on these two.

djamesi wrote:Wonderful review! Your thoroughness with both narrative and illustrations is greatly appreciated. Keep it up! And one request: while certainly not recent figures (they date to 2015), would you ever consider doing reviews on KP’s earlier figures Marcus Nonius Macrinus and Lucius Aelius Seianus? Would be most interested to get your thoughts and analysis on these two.

Welcome to the forum and thank you very much. I do aim to inform and to illustrate, so I very much appreciate your reaction. I do own both Macrinus and Seianus, so when I have time, I could give them a stab. I was looking at Seianus when doing these reviews, and noticed some of the accessories falling apart (or rather coming apart), which seems to be the bane of KP.