07-30-2010, 10:59 AM
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?
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?
Raymond Ngoh
