Re-eneactors focusing too much attention on the principate?

[Maximinus243]

Hi, I am new here, although I did lurk around this forum for a while. I like the level of discussion on this forum where reenactors and historians alike are all part of the same community and often raises interesting questions for me to ponder.

As a Singaporean, our exposure to ancient history is extremely limited as our school systems often neglect to teach us what happened before the modern era. However, I do have a keen interest in Roman history and loved how reenactors are able to give the general public an idea on what the Roman army looks like during the Principate.

Although I do have some concerns over how most Roman reenactment groups have a tendency to focus on the Roman army during the Principate ( I am aware of several reenactment groups that focus on other periods of Roman history). If one of the goals of the reenactment was to teach the general public a little more about Roman history, shouldn't they emphasis to the public that they are only portraying the Roman army during a specific period and that the Roman army was constantly adopting new types of armours and etc. ? It does seems that a very tiny portion of the general public are aware that the late Roman army for instance do not wear the Loricia Segementata as a standard armour, and that the loricia Segementata wasn't worn by every legionnaire during the Prinicpate?

I mean one of the few topics that almost everyone would love to discuss is how the Roman Empire fell, and yet at the same time, most people don't even have a clue on what the late Roman army looks like. Do you think it is important to drive home the message that the Roman army is constantly evolving and there is a greater need to show the changes of the Roman army than showing Roman legionnaires marching around wearing the Loricia Segementata?

[John Conyard]

Yes.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

We do!

[jvrjenivs]

sure. But I don't know who is to blame. I'm both re-enactor and have been organising several big events in the Netherlands. As a re-enactor I like to show the 'unusual' and 'unknown'. Next to my Flavian kit I therefore also have an late Roman and an early kit. (and one even earlier to follow). It's nice to get this impression together (both harder in research and in 'of the shelf' kit available.)

But, as an event organiser I have to opposite. People first do not see a time differences if you don't tell them. So, you have to make sure that different periods have distinctive area's within the event. So I think it is better to have 10 flavian legionairies as 1 different person from every century of the Roman period. Next, that is also not what the people would like to see. If they go to a "Roman event", they simply expect segmentata (here in the Netherlands mainly due to Asterix and Obelix booklets and history classes). It's horrible, but as long as you don't show stereotypes (albeit they are wrong!) they will be go home disappointed, even when you tried to explain the segmentata was a minor type of Roman military equipment.

That doesn't mean I'm not busy with getting another Later Roman event going on, hopefully soon and that I would greatly encourage to show different periods within all things Roman, but people (and most starting re-enactors) simply go for the stereotype (which also has the easiest available (re)sources, both in research as in kit).

Anyway, this are just my 2 denarii

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

There are several factors at work here. First of all, this is a HOBBY, so each person does what he or she wants. If every reenactor in the world decided that he or she just HAD to do the Paraguayan Navy from 1884 (did they have one?), I would not say that that was "too much". As it turns out, people who are attracted to Roman reenacting gravitate towards the first century AD, and I don't see any problem with that. It is what they want to do, whatever the reason. Because it's a hobby, and not always a cheap one, there is no way we can show everything! I don't think we should even try, since that courts bankruptcy, divorce, far more gear than can be transported in a minivan, etc. Okay, some of us try anyway, but that's not the point! But focusing on a single era (or a limited number of eras!) allows one to learn more about that era and do a good job about teaching the public about it.

Why first century? Well, those are the glory days! They are far better documented in certain key ways, for one thing, with lots of good surviving literature from the era, lots of good archeological information, etc. It's the time of the life of Christ, for one thing, as well as many famous Romans. Everyone's heard of Nero and Caligula, right? Granted, much popular interest comes from things like "I, Claudius", "Masada", and a bunch of other movies and such. But those spark further interest in that area which we feed off of, and in turn the popular interest feeds off of us. Even the lorica segmentata itself is an eye-catcher, as much an icon of ancient Rome as a muscled cuirass. Heck, when my friend and I were first working on Roman gear, we deliberately chose the first century and the Corbridge lorica because we'd been doing medieval reenacting for years and wanted a change from wearing mail!

Now, part of the mix is that the vast majority of easily available equipment is first century stuff. The manufacturers in India were influenced by the same sorts of popular media as everyone else, so that's what they started marketing. And we responded by helping them make better and more stuff, which made it easier for more reenactors to do that era, and it ballooned from there. They *are* making some later gear as well, but there simply is not as much demand for it. Remember, authenticity-minded reenactors are only a tiny percentage of the market for the repro makers, and to the general public, "Roman" often means an Imperial-Gallic helmet and a lorica segmentata. So that's what sells. I have been contacted by a number of people over the years who would have preferred to focus on an earlier or later era, but were limited by the availability of equipment, so they went with the first century. To those few of us who are able to make most of our stuff, that's not as much of a factor, but most reenactors have to buy their kit. Again, that's changing slowly, but it's going to be a while before we see substantial units of Punic War legionaries, for instance.

Most groups that I know of do not claim to be anything other than what they represent. In other words, they don't claim to show the whole picture, or that "this is what a Roman soldier always looked like", etc., though I suspect they only mention the differences compared to other eras if they are asked by a visitor. Granted, it *would* be good to emphasize that to the audience, and I for one will try to keep it in mind for the future. But I will say that at our last Roman Days event, our "The Evolution of the Roman Soldier" fashion show had a very good chronological spread represented, from Romulus himself (my humble self) up through the Fall of Constantinople in 1453! (A Roman soldier with a GUN, how cool is that??) But it only happens once a year.

Would I like to be able to show legionaries from a much wider time span at our events? Heck, yes! Shoot, I'd also like to do good impressions of all the non-Roman cultures that I see some other group doing badly... But if only 2 or 3 of my guys turn out, and they're all first century, I'm not about to complain. We do what we like, and we do what we can. We may only have a few minutes to stuff information into a visitor, and we just can't go into equipment that we don't have and can't show them. Bottom line, though, folks are going to go with what attracts them, and first century Rome shines very brightly.

Valete,

Matthew

[Maximinus243]

Do you think that creating posters at the reenactment locations, that shows pictures of the Roman army in earlier and later times would help? Other reenactment groups that focus on other periods of Roman history would be able to help each other by sharing pictures among the reenactment community.

I would think that trying to generate interest in other periods of Roman history would greatly help Historians in their work as well, where they could be allocated a larger sum of money to further their research in other periods of Roman history.

[Sardaukar]

I know next to nothing about prices in re-enactment, but isn't lorica segmentata lot cheaper to aquire than lorica hamata? That might be a factor, I know it'd be for me, if I was into it. 8)

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

We do a Roman army through the ages display, and answer peoples questions in regards to the changing of equipment through the time periods....

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

Yep, I have to admit, we're also focusing on the 1st century AD. I our case that is because many gladiatorial weapons and armor of that period have been found esp. in Pompeii where they have been conserved by the ashes of Mt. Vesuvius until finally excavated. Also our personal tastes favor the shapes of the helmets etc. at that time, e.g. I like the shape of the provocator helmet found at Pompeii better than those which you could see on reliefs of 2nd and 3rd century which remind me of a diver's helmet (a diving bell). Also before we started with re-enactment that was the period being of most interest to some of us.

[Matthew Amt]

Do you think that creating posters at the reenactment locations, that shows pictures of the Roman army in earlier and later times would help?

Sure, that's a good idea. It could just be a series of photos of reenactors from other eras, arranged chronologically. Of course, each era would need several photos to show variations in armor, troop type, etc. Print out the photos and glue them to a board of some sort (wood, plastic, cardboard), and add wire ties or strings for tying to a couple stakes. I did something like that for my Bronze Age display. OR if you are an enterprising sort you might concoct a full-scale commercial poster with legally-purchased photos or original artwork, and market it to the rest of us! Of course you have to get ALL the details just right or we'll all gripe, hee hee hee...

I know next to nothing about prices in re-enactment, but isn't lorica segmentata lot cheaper to aquire than lorica hamata? That might be a factor, I know it'd be for me, if I was into it.

Equipment cost is definitely a factor! If one era is an option only with expensive custom-made gear, getting first-century stuff cheap off the shelf is an obvious alternative. You can get an Indian-made lorica for less than a riveted hamata, but there is not a lot of size choice. So getting a lorica that *fits* might cost a lot *more* than a hamata!

Matthew

[jkaler48]

One factor involved in making the first century AD popular is the difficulty of gathering the number of people needed to form the basic maneuver element of the Roman Legion; the century ( 80 - 84 reenactors). It takes that to do a "proper" demonstration of roman tactics. In the US we are lucky to scrape by at the larger events mustering a little more than a half century. Some day there will be enough interest to support groups from more periods at the century level.
As others have pointed out equipment availability has an influence on decisions about period so more gear from other periods should gradually increase interest.

[John Conyard]

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.

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 ........

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Of course re-enactors should do a period they like.

Personally i like the Principate best, since the age of Constantine the traitor up to the end of the western Roman empire does not interest me that much.

Having said that of course there are other periods i like in history, from ancient Greek to modern day history... and especially Samurai Japan.

I think any re-enactor should do what he or she likes. The general audience who have a clue that late Roman is not the same as Principate are to be admired.

One problem is that some groups think its nice to display Principate Romans together with late Romans in the show for numbers sake. I am opposed to that.

M.VIB.M.

[jkaler48]

Reenactors do have one time period advantage: Since equipment types (and even individual items) were used for many years multiple time periods can be portrayed by swapping out a few items rather than needing a complete change of equipment. For example basically the same Hamata was used for 300? years.

[jvrjenivs]

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)