Sup Veeky Forums, this is my first time posting here so sorry if I sound like a retard...

Sup Veeky Forums, this is my first time posting here so sorry if I sound like a retard, but what did the average roman soldier actually look like?

Like later republic era I guess, I heard from my history student friend that movies/games/tv shows always portray the average roman solider as pic related, regardless of the time period; bright red tunics and big, rectangle imperial shields, full set of polished lorica segmentata, gladius as the primary weapon, all the soldiers looking the exact same, etc.

He told me this is usually historically innacurate and that the Romans didn't have uniforms and that soldiers were basically allowed to wear/use whatever they wanted as long as it was serviceable. He also said mail armor and scale armor were always way more common than the plate armor that's always associated with rome, and that the segmentata was uber expensive and relatively rare. Also that round and oval shields were always way more common than rectangular ones and basically the only thing that made soldiers similar was that they often wore the same type of helmet and usually wore red cloaks. Also he said their armor was rarely shiny and polished, and usually dark grey and likely rusty.

Is this all true? Did roman soldiers ever look like pic related? What did the average roman soldier look like then? Any historically accurate depictions in films/games?

Help pls.

like ur mum

Rekt

>soldiers were basically allowed to wear/use whatever they wanted as long as it was serviceable

Nope. Maybe he's thinking of certain kinds of auxiliaries, who could be Syrian archers, Balaeric slingers, Germanic horsemen etc.

>mail armor and scale armor were always way more common than the plate armor that's always associated with rome

Sort of true. Only briefly, near the start of the Empire did lorica segmentata ever get used on a large scale and even then it was not ubiquitous. Most of the time it chain. Scale was often used by Roman soldiers fighting in the east against more heavily armed opponents like Persians.

>round and oval shields were always way more common than rectangular ones

Nope. Romans had square scutum for many centuries as a rule, with it only changing in the later Empire accompanying other massive shifts in the Roman military i.e. much tinier legions, much smaller formations, use of spatha swords instead of shorter gladius' for more one on one combat, oval shields to reflect that type of fighting style etc.

>armor was rarely shiny and polished, and usually dark grey and likely rusty.

The centurion would beat the shit out of you with his vine staff if your armour was not finely polished. 99.9% of the time Roman legionaries were sitting in a fortress or camp near the frontier, not fighting a war. Keeping up discipline was why the Roman army was always considered so brutal.

>Did roman soldiers ever look like pic related

Yes. For a time, though the helmet could be incorrect for the time period.

>Any historically accurate depictions in films/games?

EB2.

OK well the best answer I can give you is he is right kinda. Remember first off we don't always what anot average Roman soldier looked like as we are always working with incomplete information. Then you come to the sticky issue of what an average Roman soldier is because that is changing a lot over time; plus you got to deal with the issues of auxiliaries and fedorates which would not be dressed anything like "Roman" soldiers. Also as you progress through history the soldiers begin to look more and more like the locals as Rome decentralizes. I mean hell the byzantine had horse archers in their ranks. So I'm sorry to say the question itself is so large that you can fill many books discussing the details and I am by no means ano expert. I would look more for books if you really want to learn the subject.

>Romans didn't have uniforms and that soldiers were basically allowed to wear/use whatever they wanted as long as it was serviceable.
Bear in mind when you're talking about "Ancient Rome" you're covering over a thousand years of history. When the Roman Army acted as an arm of the state during the late Republic and early Empire, they were issued equipment by the state. During the early Republic, soldiers would've had to buy their own equipment, and during the late Empire generals usually paid for soldiers' equipment out of their own pocket.
>He also said mail armor and scale armor were always way more common than the plate armor that's always associated with rome, and that the segmentata was uber expensive and relatively rare.
Lorica Segmentata was quite unpopular with soldiers because it's a hassle to lug around and put on. You need to tie all the individual pieces together with leather strips and you'll always need another person to help you out it on. With mail and scale armor you can just slip the shirt on in a few seconds flat. Afaik segmentata wasn't used after the middle of the third century.
>Also that round and oval shields were always way more common than rectangular ones
Again, true of some periods but not of others. The Late Empire in particular saw rectangular shields completely fall out of use in favour of smaller, lighter round and oval shields.
>and basically the only thing that made soldiers similar was that they often wore the same type of helmet and usually wore red cloaks.
The late Republic and early Empire had a great emphasis on uniformity and cohesion, but before and after that soldiers would've looked a little different from one another.
>Also he said their armor was rarely shiny and polished, and usually dark grey and likely rusty.
I'd disagree pretty heavily with this one. 90% of the time a soldier isn't fighting, no reason to let your armor get rusty when you have nothing better to do.

They changed throughout the centuries, but this is a good general representation.

If it were to go further back the legionaries split into 3 types, Hastati, Principes and Triarii. Principes look like later legionaries, since they were based off them. Hastati wear a chest plate instead of mail, generally. Triarii probably had mail and all over generally fancier equipment, also they still used spears.

Go further back, say 400BC, and the Romans are dressed like Greek Hoplites.

>Romans didn't have uniforms and that soldiers were basically allowed to wear/use whatever they wanted as long as it was serviceable.
the legions had their own standardized stuff but the soldiers were allowed to use what they wanted was it the army stuff or private stuff
>mail armor and scale armor were always way more common than the plate armor that's always associated with rome
i'm not sure about always but most of the time, yes
>the segmentata was uber expensive and relatively rare.
it was mostly that it was hard to maintain
>Also that round and oval shields were always way more common than rectangular ones
no. not always. rectangular was the default for around 0-200ad
>Also he said their armor was rarely shiny and polished, and usually dark grey and likely rusty.
that's just stupid. armour is expensive property and of course you look after it as well as you can. it was mostly oiled and/or tarred to prevent rusting so maybe it wasn't mirror-shiny but definitely not some grimdark rusty gray

Pretty decent assessments, bearing in mind that we really dont know for certain anything.
Id like to add though that, in terms of auxiliaries, Polybius tells us that in the Roman army there were about as many auxilliary foot troops and four times the number of auxilliary horse as Roman ones. The auxilliary would have come from allies, and would therefore look like whatever area they came from. Ergo, Gallic aux would have been using gallic equipment, etc. Furthermore, most of the light troops (slingers, javelinmen, etc) would not have been Roman as well.
So keep in mind that a large portion (> 1/2) of the Roman army was indeed not Roman.

Do we have any idea why Late Roman soldiers started wearing crests again?