Hey guys, so I've mentioned in other threads how I am not *currently* a reenactor, but would love to get into it some day. The other day when I was thinking about it some more, a few (sort of serious, sort of tongue-in-cheek) questions dawned on me. I mean, one thing I really like about this community is how serious everyone is about making their kit as accurate to their chosen time period as possible. But I was thinking about how there may be a few things that sort of hold back the ultimate authenticity level just a little bit. First, I gather that the majority of us are nowhere near the average size and shape of the average Roman soldier! I'm personally (unfortunately...) about the right height, but I'm sure I weigh at least 30lbs more than the average Roman of 2 millennia ago. So much for total authenticity! :mrgreen: Second, what do you do if a potential reenactor has visible tattoos? I personally don't (yet) but I'm sure there are some guys out there who fit the bill. Do you just wear long sleeved tunics or braccae and hence sort of limit your reenacting possibilities? Thirdly, what about hair? I'm sure the majority of us aren't going to run down to the barber and ask for the Augustus special in search of period accuracy, so how does the reenacting community view this? I actually shave my head lately too, so wouldn't this be technically inaccurate? And what about beards? I was pretty sure I remember reading somewhere about how the Roman army didn't allow beards (perhaps for sanitary reasons?) but I can't find the reference now. If this were true, should reenactors of the Roman army be shaving? I sport a beard like 95% of the time and would be reticent to shave it off for what amounted to a few days of dress-up per year :lol:
Anyway, please excuse the irreverent tone of this post
I am however somewhat serious about these questions, just because I wonder how the reenactment community handles all of them.
yeah, I think that is up to the person. I wouldn't allow me doing a soldier impression as I got heavier as I'm (and basically I'm training to get a better shape). I've seen some people doing soldier impressions, who are simply not a soldier and I have to say that that sometimes is annoying to me. But it's up to the persons themself, as they also have modern life. Of course if it is during special phothoshoots or filming I wouldn't allow it in my group (also with tatoos etc). They should be covered up when doing special jobs for magazins or TV. When doing 'normal' re-enactment I don't mind someone having a tatoo, but I wouldn't allow it myself. (and I don't have one, so I'm easy to speak here).
Of course things that can be easily solved should be avoided like glasses. They are just ugly and destroy the picture and there are other options available.
And as a last note I would say that nobody is 'authentic' how hard you try to do it 'as authentic as possible'. Simply because you live in the 21st century, are used to modern thinking, opinion, science, technology, food, etc, ect. You're always a 21st century person portraying an 'historic persona' as best as you can.
Good points Jurjen, and yeah I didn't even think about glasses! Now I have the image of a 400lb, bespectacled man with silly arm tattoos and mullet haircut attempting to portray a Roman soldier stuck in my head :lol:
I am sure I have seen an illustration somewhere of a Roman soldier with a tattoo fairly recently...
although there indeed are some sources that like to support the idea of tatoos, there is still the problem that the depicted tatoo probably will not be 'Roman'.
Quote:although there indeed are some sources that like to support the idea of tatoos, there is still the problem that the depicted tatoo probably will not be 'Roman'.
I hope I'm not butting in here with irrelevant information, but I ran across this thread today regarding tattoos:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=21291">viewtopic.php?t=21291<!-- l
It seems a few RAT members have a conundrum regarding sporting tattoos while reenacting...
Maybe it boils down to what is important for the individual, or the group as such sporting modern decorations, be they tattoos, piercings or what ever, or trying to show as close as possible what life in those times might have been like. Lots of decisions individuals have to make when thinking of this hobby and how detailed they wish to get.
To cover tattoos, there is a stage makeup that could be applied, various shades to match skin color, or you could simply put a bandage over it, and add some "blood", as if it were a recent battle (or taberna) wound. I know that bandages would not work for some tattoos, because of their locations. But somehow, seeing Charlie Brown on someone's calf just doesn't seem Roman to me. Call me judgmental if you wish.
One can take this authenticity thing too far.....for example, apart from 'unknowns' ( such as "Did a Roman bronze razor shave as close as a Gillette?"),the appearance of a genuine 'Roman' would doubtless be sun-tanned and rather more weather-beaten/wrinkled than a modern man, purely from the fact that most spent far more time outdoors ( without the benefits of factor 15 sun-cream !!! ) - one has only to go back a generation or two to see how much more wrinkly/ weather-beaten farmers and sailors looked from living a very different life-style......let alone a time when most lived the 'peasant life' outdoors......
I think that's right, plus they'd be more heavily muscled, from carrying shields, gear, and walking for miles and miles. They might well have some ugly scars from work and war, also.
Certainly, but I think we should go as far as possible but within reasonable limits. For example, tattoos should be covered up, in every case. There are solutions for all parts of the body, exept maybe for fingers and face. Ofcourse, if you play a half-naked gladiator, this isn't always possible. Then again, you should think about your impression, and think of changing to something else.
I have noticed that almost any reenactment group pushes a modern "agenda" conciously or not. So does Hollywood, but they are very aware of the social and political messages they push. If reenacting is educational, then it really can't cater to modern sensibilities. Roman soldiers were just that, and given the already mentioned differences in physical conditioning, acted like Roman soldiers. It would not be out of place to mention to the crowd the differences in cultural values, and also when things are improvised for a show, like almost all drill comands. You do not really have to carry out things, like roughing up the local populace, but telling people how life was then would be better than giving people the impression it was like things are today. I also include religious issues along with social and political issues. I think we tend to default too much on modern military systems with an assumption like "thats the way we did it the Marine Corps, so that the way they must have done it." There is much more stratification in modern military systems, like the huge logistical tail that ancient systems never had, for one thing. Modern combat troops (in my time in service) were the young, skinny, dirty ones, and the "lifers" were the clean, overweight loudmouths that were never near anything close to a real combat role. I tend to think that when you are in for 25 years or so, and when your cohort was commited, everone went who was fit to do so. I think there was a much stronger horozontal cohesion than what I saw when I was in.
Ralph
For the question regarding tatoos. Isn't it possible that the mysterious "mark of the legion" that ancient historians refer to recruits being marked with could have been a tatoo of some kind? Some think it may have been a brand - ouch! The Celts tattooed the heck out of themselves. Ancient people decorated thier bodies frequently. Not to mention that depending on when you are portraying, the empire may have been more or less homogeneous. That is, there may have been more cultural blending at one point over another?
Anyone have any suggestions or comments?