Re-eneactors focusing too much attention on the principate?

[Narukami]

I suspect that this and previous generations have been conditioned to the "Hollywood" view of Romans as 1st century tin-plated expressions of discipline and iron will. We see this in films time and time again, with generally fascist overtones. Later Romans were percieved as ill-disciplined trouser wearing losers, good for nothing except for promoting a thousand different Arthurian style novels set against a very British withdraw from Empire.

Sounds about right to me, bwa ha ha!

Matthew

Ah, blaming Hollywood again. Oh those guys out on the Left Coast ... What crimes against history will they not commit?

But seriously folks...

No doubt Hollywood has fueled interest in ancient Roman and in reenacting, and yet the post popular film about Rome (based upon Box office and Academy accolades) was Gladiator, a re-make of the earlier Fall Of The Roman Empire which, while still Principate is certainly later than the period of focus for most reenactors. I would put that period from about 100BC to 100AD.

Of course, there are several notable films set within the 200 year period, but the armor in most of them is, well, more Hollywood imagination than Historical research.

I think what drives this interest is that we know more about this time period because most historians concentrate on this 200 year period. Certainly the best known Roman today is Julius Caesar, and if the new reenactor / student comes to ancient Rome via study of Julius Caesar then they begin in that 200 year period.

Of course, as we all know, the majority of Roman history, both Republic and Empire, happened outside of that 200 years. But consider for a moment the personalities alive in that time period. What a collection of characters -- the best Hollywood screen writers, even Shakespeare himself, could not do better. Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Cicero, Augustus and Livia, Caligula, Vespasian, Titus, Spartacus, Crassus and Pompey, Cato, Cornelia and her two sons Tiberius and Gaius, and on and on. To say nothing of the events of that 200 year period.

Yes, we do need to remember the broader sweep of the Romans, from founding to the fall of Constantinople, however ... For me at least, that 200 year period is the most interesting.

Just say ... :roll:

:wink:

Narukami