10-09-2009, 05:50 PM
Alexander, for the films and books claiming to be historical while they are not there are appropriate threads.
The "gods in colour" projects of the German Museums showed us a wealth of colour.
Many re-enactors lack information but then they find them go to pain and expence to modify their appearence accordingly.
But you made a good commemt of expressing your reservation for what might actually happening 2500 years ago.
Example: though we have surviving commands we still experiment about their execution and thereare at least two differnt opinions how a command was executed. We reach the most logical conclusion through trial and error but still we propbaly re-enact how they might have done it rather than how they did it.
Archeolgists and historian usually dont do it re'anctors are doing it. (Though we have reanctor scholars in this forum who put expence and effort researching their science.)
Ancient sources talk about official emblems and yet people repeat the "each one had his own emblem" mandra.
Archeolgists and historians are like the miners who dig and give a piece of gold. You have to melt and hammer this item to make usable jewelry (metaphorically speaking)
Yes there are flawed books and documentatries but we are in the 21st century and at least thinking individuals have the guts to ask what they do not know.
Others have the guts to think outside the box and put "established orthodoxy" to the test and some time they are proven right and other times wrong.
For instance only lately some universcity professors approached us and asked about the details of the phalanx. This would have been unheard of some years ago.
Grim esence: See Neoptolemos crushing Astyanax's scull on pottery images and you will se the ancient ilustrators were no so sqieamish as you think
Kind regards
The "gods in colour" projects of the German Museums showed us a wealth of colour.
Many re-enactors lack information but then they find them go to pain and expence to modify their appearence accordingly.
But you made a good commemt of expressing your reservation for what might actually happening 2500 years ago.
Example: though we have surviving commands we still experiment about their execution and thereare at least two differnt opinions how a command was executed. We reach the most logical conclusion through trial and error but still we propbaly re-enact how they might have done it rather than how they did it.
Archeolgists and historian usually dont do it re'anctors are doing it. (Though we have reanctor scholars in this forum who put expence and effort researching their science.)
Ancient sources talk about official emblems and yet people repeat the "each one had his own emblem" mandra.
Archeolgists and historians are like the miners who dig and give a piece of gold. You have to melt and hammer this item to make usable jewelry (metaphorically speaking)
Yes there are flawed books and documentatries but we are in the 21st century and at least thinking individuals have the guts to ask what they do not know.
Others have the guts to think outside the box and put "established orthodoxy" to the test and some time they are proven right and other times wrong.
For instance only lately some universcity professors approached us and asked about the details of the phalanx. This would have been unheard of some years ago.
Grim esence: See Neoptolemos crushing Astyanax's scull on pottery images and you will se the ancient ilustrators were no so sqieamish as you think
Kind regards
HOPLITE14GR (aka Stefanos)
Phokean Ekdromos
http://hetairoi.de/
http://hoplomachia.gr
http://stefanosskarmintzos.wordpress.com
Phokean Ekdromos
http://hetairoi.de/
http://hoplomachia.gr
http://stefanosskarmintzos.wordpress.com
