11-24-2007, 08:06 AM
Quote:Reading these posts I think we can all agree that Roman re-enactment can teach us something. How much and whether academics are interested is perhaps open to question.
When the first Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar was organised back in 1983, we made a deliberate effort to include both known academics, postgraduates working in the field, and re-enactors, as I was firmly of the belief that all had something to contribute. Over the years and the conferences that ensued, the academic opinion of re-enactors seems to have gone up and down (largely, it has to be said, influenced by the prevailing national academic attitudes: in 1985 it was inconceivable that Germans would dress up in seriously researched reconstruction military equipment, as only the decidely nutty British (vide cricket, conkers...) could be caught doing that sort of thing; now look at them!
Many of us treasure the memory of the sight of Jürgen Oldenstein's face when he first saw the Ermine Street Guard - it started out as bafflement and soon turned to delight once he started looking at the stuff they had and saw how serious they were about trying to get it right (and most re-enactors, bless 'em, do try to get it right).
In my Lexicon of Roman Military Equipment (bowdlerised version), re-enactors range from 'Cavorting Ninnies' to 'To Be Taken Very Seriously' (I'm sure as h*ll not telling any of you lot which groups belong where!) but the same can be said of academics: there are good and bad (in the sense of lazy or shoddy researchers...no names, no pack drill).
Are academics interested in the re-enactors? About as much as the re-enactors are interested in the academics, I would say ;-)
Mike Bishop
(who nowadays counts himself as neither re-enactor nor academic, although he has done both!)
