"National Roman Legion"

[caiusbeerquitius]

We ask: "Do these groups truly honor the late, great, Roman Army?" Not really, because most of these groups are smaller (usually three to ten men in each) and each of these groups strives for a unique look. Alas, when the groups do gather and try to work together (as they occasionally do), they appear more like a hodge-podge than a real, disciplined army. An unfortunate fact is that standard bearers and officers often outnumber the rank and file legionaries.

This is one of the most strange arguments I ever read. :lol:

1st: Why should one "honour" the Roman army?
Isn´t it enough to display its soldiers and educate people about the Roman army?
Is it even worth "honouring" it?
What actually means "honouring" the Roman army? Creating a church for it?

Since the Roman Army was a very diverse institution with many different units: Isn´t it the best way to "honour" the Roman army by HAVING many units, displaying thus the diversity and local differences of the Roman army within the Roman Empire throughout different centuries?
Wouldn´t one just "dishonour" the Roman army by closing all the little groups and having a display-monopoly on one certain Roman unit?

Maybe each group should think about why they do this hobby, and what they want to get out of it? The argument above invokes that everybody except of the writers of it is too stupid to take care of themselves and their interests, their spare time and their historical knowledge. It thus seems to me to be quite arrogant.

As it is, I very much like the situation in Europe, where many groups display different time-settings and different regional characteristica of the Roman Army. I don´t see the worth of reducing all these into one group, unless one wants to impress and not to educate, to march and not to explain, to command and not to teach.
That then would be ars gratia artis.