Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Re-eneactors focusing too much attention on the principate?
#16
Quote: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!

Quote: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!

Quote:
jkaler48:y925di8x Wrote: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
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#17
Quote:Do we really have enough data about ring size to draw any chronological conclusions? (Serious question!)

Mmm, don't know if we've enough data for this, but on the top of my head I think to remember I've read some statements of this somewhere. Have to dig through my readings of last year, though to find out which comments it were and where they were based on.
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
#18
Another couple of items that may have had long use periods would be the Coolus C and Gallic A helmets. From Caesar's Army return from Gaul perhaps into the 2nd Century.
John Kaler MSG, USA Retired
Member Legio V (Tenn, USA)
Staff Member Ludus Militus https://www.facebook.com/groups/671041919589478/
Owner Vicus and Village: https://www.facebook.com/groups/361968853851510/
Reply
#19
Quote:
John Conyard:ascf4xyw Wrote: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
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply


Forum Jump: