+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news (/showthread.php?tid=7023)
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Ebusitanus - 11-04-2006
I do not understand this approach of AD. Of course its not a matter of trying to "convice" anyone but most likely than not most here share the same passion for that time and would honestly know the reasoning behind a certain new use of equipment. No need to be defensive but one would think that the best way to defend one´s point of view is actually leaving it open for debate amongst your peers.
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 11-04-2006
I can just say that the reason I criticize Ars is because they speak of historical accuracy, and are used by Movie makers and television people, after which we see television shows in which a lot is very wrong, and not at all historically correct.
A lot of people reconstructing and re-enacting used to have critisism against television and filmmakers since they almost all had the attitude of:
we dont care wether its authentic as long as its cheap and it looks nice on screen.
With Stone's Alexander a part breakthrough was made, and everybody had high hopes for Rome... alass it was not to be. Wrong equipment, tactics, armour and even flagrant distortions of historical facts were the case. the buildings looked nice.... that was it. The new BBC series about the Romans is also a little bit better, however still with a lot of errors in armour and equipment, mainly due to budget cuts.
I have no problem with the creativity displayed by Ars, and the fun they have in re CREATING!! the past, but when they start saying they are historically accurate, and work closely as historical advisors !! with film and television makers while all investigations and surveys, and even archaeological evidence tell us otherwise.
That is my problem with Ars.
M.VIB.M.
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Susanna - 11-04-2006
I know what you mean, I got the same with Rome when I saw a 15th cent. AD Portativ sold as water-organ. :wink:
Thank You, Rita - Restitvtvs - 11-04-2006
Thank you for continuing to participate in RAT, sharing your facts & opinions.
What would RAT be like without Italian participation?
Maybe a little less "lively"? :lol: Certainly less circumspect/comprehensive.
These debates are a valuable part of further developing a better body of knowledge, and of understanding & applications.
RAT is a better group because of your participation.
Thank you again. Best regards, r
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Velite - 11-04-2006
I read with interest all of your answers.
I can confirm that any member of ARS has ever said the words written in the article published by the German newspaper. Our president, Dario Battaglia, has published already on the ARS Website a total denial of that article.
Then I believe that we can consider closed the story "article."
I would like me instead to detain on the considerations you done speaking of our collaboration with the television series Rome. Many of You believe that the use from the directors of segmentata lether, small shields, helmets of imagination and other inaccuracies respect the Roman armament, is to impute to our theory of the segmentata lether.
Everything It's wrong. We are not guilty for the historical errors that commit the directors, neither we have ever proposed to anybody to use these armaments.
The directors, when they have to make a movie, they have to think a screen-play that can be understood by the whole public to which the film is directed. The films are not "documentaries" for alone experts of the subject as we pretend to be us, the films are direct to the "great public" that few understands of helmets, shields or cuirass. The great public it doesn't interest if the Roman legionaries were equipped with the armaments that experts as us THINK is those real of the Roman legionaries.
Reenactors or archaeologists, are not the depositaries of the to know, and all of us know only some details of the Roman armament, please You not forget it.
You remember that there is still so much to discover about Roman army, but you speak as if everything what concerns the Roman army had already been discover and understands.
Very wrong to think so, according to my point of view.
The directors therefore and the productions of film, have also to make the accounts with the budgets (money) and with problem that film must be understands from the whole public. Here explained the why in the films love stories are always inserted that with battles or with Roman army not to be pertinent.
That's why a lot of times the directors have to use the material that is already in their stores, material even 20 or 30 years old!
Reenactors cannot pretend the directors to make a film as we would like it. They will never do it. A film is a film, a documentary is a documentary.
For Ebusitanus
The approach used by Ars departs really from the presupposition that of the Roman army we know few, and that therefore there is a lot still to discover.
Instead many of you think and believe that all has already been discovered by the archaeologists: then the Roman legionary wore iron segmentata, one of the so many helmets that have been found again, a gladio, the pilum (the lance was ever used even if the archaeological recoveries and the written sources say that the Romans also used the lance) and an equal shield as of Dura Europos (what it goes up again to the III century a.D.).
Besides the legionaries wore the caligae in all seasons and they were always naked afoot (but the stockings have been find again to Vindolanda - also they was men as us) and they wore the sleeves tunic short for everything year...
Here, to judge from the sentences written by many of you this was the Roman legionary, and it seems that there is not anything to discover on him. Everything has already been said and writing, nothing there is to discover.
Ars Dimicandi exactly thinks instead the contrary one, and it is from this point that we depart for our experimentations. The approach is very different and if you don't share it we respect your opinion, but this fact doesn't mean that our thought is surely wrong.
This is a very long post and I hopes that all of you can understand what I have written in my bad English. You excuse me if the post is a little clear.
Valete
P.s. for Restitvtvs
Many thanks for the beautiful words
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Tib. Gabinius - 11-04-2006
I just can speak for me personally.
I dont have a problem with the people of AD themselves. The most i dont know, some i met in Trier 2004 were very nice and gentle guys.
But as a student of arch. and ancient history i ve problems with the used methods. Mostly is done like they did before 150 years, and other times it is excused with words like "we dont know for sure but we also cant deny it".
But in historical context, you ve to prove not the inverse, you have to prove the existing evidence and build a correct line of sources. Than you can rebuild and start testing. And thats what anoy me.
Yes you are right, we cant say we know everything about the army, but we can only show the people, what we know for sure in that way most of us, including you, do.
The next point is the problem of presentation. I remember Dario in Trier 2004. He tried to look like a tribun, commanded like a centurio, used a vexillum and a tuba, all in the presentation to the public.
Or the "siege tower" which was used there... i even cant describe it.
Weman as archers and so on, these were faults, and they dont fit to a serious, scientifical work.
If it would be presented as reenactment like so many others, i wouldnt have a problem with it, everyone like he wants, but in context to "serious work on historical field" i get a problem with it, esp. in context to the contriverse discussions about leather loricae and other equipment and theories.
Another point is the language problem. AD works international, but its nearly impossible to get the side on english? Or be present here in english? My own english is very bad, perhaps the worse in this forum, but i try. We searched someone who was able and willingly to translate in readable english our side and he is still on work, and first parts are in...
So if you bring real "new" theories and shake the world of science on the one and the reenactors on the other, why you dont search the communication?
And the question for the sources: many people asked them, and still heres no answer...
I wouldnt call me hostile, i'm scepetic. I dont "dislike you", i just have some problems with the way the described things are done.
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Velite - 11-04-2006
Dear Gabinus
On the sources Dario has said that a list is preparing, and this is doing. But Dario is not busy only this! Then, in line with others his appointments he will publish. You don't worry.
On the woman archers, also I make part. However you have to know Gabinus, that I hold a great honor to be able to participate in the battles as true legionary with Ars. I am very happy that Ars also offers opportunity to women to be able to relive life from legionary.
There are women as me, very impassioned of history and particularly of Roman Army, therefore why to deny this possibility to women?
Women in Roman army were not, well we know this! But woman in Roman field of Ars they are legionaries and not women!
Then you say "Ars is not group reenacment", but this is not true. Ars is group reenacment however to Ars it doesn't interest to have glimmering armor or new shield. ARS interests to understand as it fought Roman army, what manoeuvres it used and what armaments legionaries Roman really wore. To others they interest details, to ARS it interests action (with experimentation).
Two ways of see the reenacment, two ways of see experimentation.
Last thing: someone has said (I don't remember who) "if Ars Dimicandi doesn't participate in the RAT it is not serious group"
Do you excuse but is the RAT a Forum of discussion or a bench of test? We have been forced to participate in the RAT because we had to defend us from your accusations to have been offensive towards the other groups.
Well, are we more serious now that we participate in the RAT forum?
Valete
serious - Caius Fabius - 11-04-2006
I, for one, don't believe that you have to participate in Roman Army Talk or any other internet group to be a serious reenactor. There were plenty of serious reenactors before the internet and before RAT.
I am one who doesn't worry is a modern female is in a Roman military unit, if we let fat old guys like me, then probably women who look better in their costume are also welcome.
I shudder each time I see a film that uses these "Roman" helmets with rings on top, to portray the period of Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar. We know they are WRONG.
I will wait until I see some proof of 'leather segmentata', but we do know that the metal 'segmentata' existed. But since most of the recent films are about Julius Caesar, or the time of Jesus, why use segmentata at all in such films????
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Tib. Gabinius - 11-05-2006
Quote:Dear GabinusI guess, we see reenactment the same way, but the way of scientific and educating way you use is one of my problems with AD.
Quote:On the sources Dario has said that a list is preparing, and this is doing. But Dario is not busy only this! Then, in line with others his appointments he will publish. You don't worry.1. I did read it, and i thought he ment his work above these sources. But my and all the others questions are ABOUT the sources themselves. It dont took long time to type and publish even some ofthe sources used as evidence. I didnt asked for a book, i asked for the mention of some sources.
I m looking forward to Darios book, i really do, cause this will be the step to discuss the theories and the AD ideas behind it, but till then i would enjoy to know already which sources be ment. And as i said before, here nobody will "steal" something...
Quote:On the woman archers, also I make part. However you have to know Gabinus, that I hold a great honor to be able to participate in the battles as true legionary with Ars. I am very happy that Ars also offers opportunity to women to be able to relive life from legionary.As i wrote, i dont have a "reenactment" problem with women. We dont do so, but i can accept if others do so.
There are women as me, very impassioned of history and particularly of Roman Army, therefore why to deny this possibility to women?
Like Charles wrote: modern, often overweighted man do this hobby, so why not. But i can accept it in demonstration for public, like i wouldnt do in films.
There are men and there are women, and this should be presented originary for the public, to get an impression how it looked like.
Same way i judge myself and spend a lot of money to get my overweight away
Quote:Women in Roman army were not, well we know this! But woman in Roman field of Ars they are legionaries and not women!And still women as well, like i am still a modern man under my gear, but this is a discussion we did already in this forum at another place. Perhaps we will continue it there.
Quote:Then you say "Ars is not group reenacment", but this is not true. Ars is group reenacment however to Ars it doesn't interest to have glimmering armor or new shield. ARS interests to understand as it fought Roman army, what manoeuvres it used and what armaments legionaries Roman really wore. To others they interest details, to ARS it interests action (with experimentation).Sorry, but what did i say? Please quote the passage you mean, so i know what exactly you mean and be able to answer.
For now: "glimmering armor" and "new shield" sounds a bit like "the others want to be parade soldiers, but we are in the field". And this i really cant accept. Also the sentence part "what they really wore" sounds like "what the others wear isnt the right equipment".
And here we are also on the main problem.
To understand the full, also and especially the action, we have to get all the Details. Its like a puzzle, and if you force parts of another puzzle into the free places you will get perhaps, with near certain possibility, a complettly different picture.
You can do experimentations. But you started already with "this armour isnt found and described, but could be". How could this come to a provable finish?
And by the way, many groups also do more than parading with their equipment up and down, so please, dont judge like " we do experimentations, you not".
We sahre the litterary sources and discuss them, prove them and test them in field. And the mass of different theories resulting from that show us something.
Quote:Two ways of see the reenacment, two ways of see experimentation.
Perhaps i m wrong, and Darios book will show us foundings, litterary sources and ikonographic evidences to bring up really a new picture. Right now i didnt seen or heared anything that would guess me that.
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Ebusitanus - 11-05-2006
We should go with what gets discovered and interpreted, step by step. There is ample room for interpretation without having to go 100% experimental and then showing your prototypes to the general public as part of some history class. I agree with the notion that these new theories should by all means get debated amongst the peers. Debate is healthy and I have no problem with new revolutionary changes but there should be some source and evidence primer before. I guess I feel I could not show up with a squamata made of sea shells and say "We do not know if it was not done".
I mean, Dario should be the first one interested in explaning his theories rather than dismissing such a big part of the international community,
erased by moderator
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 11-05-2006
Well, are we more serious now that we participate in the RAT forum?
Wether or not you are serious by participating in the forum is not important. That you participate and share views and opinions, is.
I am a Roman re-enactor who has not done a lot of re-enacting these last few years due to various circumstances, and am also engaged in forming a samurai re-enactment group. That doesnt mean i am not still following new theories, leads, or participate in discussions.
You can write about the director's and film company people who dont want to portray historical accuracy because of money, but that is still no excuse for opening the vaults of cinecitta and using anything at hand.
There is enough budget in most films to warrant proper(ie as we now understand it probably was during roman times) gear, equipment and armour. Even re-enactors around the world would gladly participate.
however a lot of re-enactors cannot keep their mouth shut on a set in general, which might hamper filming. (first hand experience)
I personally think that Ars should join the debate, and present itself as a totally experimental group for that matter.
Only then is it valid to be proud of what you have done in the past, the films you participated in, and whatever strange costumes you come up with... If I would want to walk around as a legionary with a katana, or a sea-shell squamata, i could as well say listen, it was never found, but there is no proof they didnt use it! This attitude is totally wrong if you are trying to re-enact or are engaged in experimental archeology.
Experimental archeology is the testing of archaeological theories to practise, wether something works, doesnt work, is plausible, not plausible.
an example: we know we are not far off with our reconstructed caligae because we lose hobnails in the same spots Romans lost them, we have found hundreds of examples.
we see that some theories about how Romans wore their scvta during march are implausible due to the fact that when tested, some theoretical ways of wearing a scvtvm are totally impractical.
that is experimental archaeology. wearing a leather segmentata is not!
we use the sources to derive a theory, test a theory, or find clues to possible explanations of finds and practical uses of equipment.
I for one would love to take LIVIvS literally, however....... that doesnt work.
So yes, be welcome, and be happy you get critisised. help us, and we help you, and the other way around for that matter. But do not say you are totally accurate and present yourselves as people who know what it was like back then.. no one knows. we all have a calculated guess.
do not say that you cannot do anything about filmmakers, studios, and the difference between documentaries and drama..... there also is DOCUDRAMA!!!
You and everyone participating in the discussion, and scientific debate can make a difference, and that is exactly what Oliver Stone also said, and why he relied heavily on re-enactors and scholars worldwide to make Alexander into what it is... and yes... he also stated that due to the studio and the general public he couldnt make his film as Hard, homosexual, tough and historically accurate as he might have wanted. but it is by far the best attempt so far!
let that be an example on how to do it slightly better.
M.VIB.M.
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Restitvtvs - 11-05-2006
Quote:We should go with what gets discovered and interpreted, step by step. There is ample room for interpretation without having to go 100% experimental and then showing your prototypes to the general public as part of some history class.Ebusitanus: I also think that such experimentation should have at least some factual basis, either from archeological records or historical records.
Some questions, since I'm a RAT newcomer & so far haven't found enough directly relevant textual evidence in RAT threads... (I understand some comments in this thread are based on eye-witness accounts, televised accounts, etc.)
Has AD been 100% experimental & then gone public with major new items?
Quote:I guess I feel I could not show up with a squamata made of sea shells and say "We do not know if it was not done".:lol: Has AD or a prominent AD member made such "long shot" conjectures so far from the archeological evidence/historic records?
Quote:I mean, Dario should be the first one interested in explaning his theories rather than dismissing such a big part of the international community, not only the anglo-saxxon, with his secretive patronizing ways.The first clause of this statement is clearly critical, and it's clearly aimed at Dario.
Has Dario been so dismissive?
The second clause of the statement is also clearly critical, but it is not clearly aimed.
Who is this unidentified "anglo-saxxon" [sic]? Is he or she also dismissive with his or her "ways"? Or were you refering to Dario again? Or did you mean something else?
I appreciate your comments on evidence-based experimentation, and look forward to your additional information on the other points. +r
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Susanna - 11-05-2006
I get the feeling that this discussion is running in a circle as long as there is no definition of "scientific work", "experimental archaeology", "reenactment" and "roleplaying".
But also there is a notible lack of knowing how "reseachers" or "students" of archaeology or history work.
Othwerwise its like talking about the taste of the meal before knowing the stuff in your refrigerator.
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - Tarbicus - 11-05-2006
Quote:If I would want to walk around as a legionary with a katana, i could as well say listen, it was never found, but there is no proof they didnt use it! This attitude is totally wrong if you are trying to re-enact or are engaged in experimental archeology.Actually, that's not the case and a little unfair to AD. They can show an artistic representation of the gear they make in form if not material, whereas a katana has never been seen in any picture or sculpture being worn by a legionary. That argument does not apply.
Re: Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news - caiusbeerquitius - 11-05-2006
Maybe we could make a thesaurus subforum explaining scientific terminology, so that every member of RAT can inform her/himself, and then use the proper terms at the right occasion.