Re-eneactors focusing too much attention on the principate?

[Matthew Amt]

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!

I hope the next educated generation will take a more objective stance and see the early Imperial army as it was, ill disciplined, poorly equiped and prone to mutiny. And compare it to the massive proffessional army of the 4th century with it's gold, silver and pattern welded blades. I hope ........

Love it, but good luck with that!

For example basically the same Hamata was used for 300? years.

I think that is too simply put. Even the design of the hamata changed a lot (with/without doubler, doubler form, length, with/without sleeves, size of the rings)

I think he means that the basic early hamata form (sleeveless with shoulder doublings) is applicable from the 3rd century BC into the early 2nd century AD. Details like the chest hook arrangement changed over time, but it's a start. Do we really have enough data about ring size to draw any chronological conclusions? (Serious question!) Things like the curve-sided "Augustan" scutum are good for nearly 2 centuries.

Larger numbers of troops certainly allow a more impressive display, but we've been making do with half a dozen for quite a while. People certainly seem to appreciate it, and they react when we charge right at them! A few is better than none.

Valete,

Matthew