Bracers: worldwide campaign to eliminate

[Luca]

We are not talking about safety measures. Of course everyone put security on top trying to hide any modern device under some historical wearing.
I don't think that this thread is made by purists for "purism". We would like just to match historical info we know, we share, we debate.
I simply try to give the best historical impression I can to people that is watching at me.
Everyone can be wrong here, me too of course. Nothing offensive.

[Dan Howard]

Agreed. Nobody would see a problem with re-enactors wearing as much protection as possible so that they can return to their day jobs afterwards. The contention is that some clutch at some pretty flimsy straws in their need to claim "historical accuracy". If you feel the need to wear leather wrist guards to protect yourself, that is fine, but don't pretend that they are historically accurate for a Roman impression. It is bad enough that Hollywood does this without us reinforcing the misconception.

[Scipio Second]

Ave Medicus Mat,

First, I do not consider your question "snarky".

Second, my vambraces are steel, not leather.

Third, as I serve in the rank of Legatus pro Praetore (governor) of the Nova Roma province of Texia, I would not carry a scutum. Though it is unlikely I would engage in personal combat, in the event I did need to defend myself vambraces would indeed serve a useful purpose.

Vale optime,

Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre Kleff)

[Scipio Second]

Ave Thomas,

Are you comfortable in your role as judge and jury? From where does your authority arise? As with all purists, you refuse to see the point of re-enactment. It is for FUN! Re-enactors are not building a museum exhibit. Perhaps you are qualified by academic degree to do so. By the way I have a master's degree (history) and as juris doctor. But to be sure, I claim no intimate knowledge of Roman history. Apparently you do. Good for you.

Most re-enactors are simply going to a weekend festival to play out a fantasy. I am pleased that they choose ancient Rome as their tableau. I do not assume the mantle of teacher. If asked, I will point out errors in their regalia. Beyond that I play no role. I suspect that if purists attended a festival, for example the Renaissance Festival in Mission, Texas, and proceeded to lecture re-enactors on the impropriety of their regalia, the reception would be chilly.

My question remains, by what authority do purists have to dictate what anyone wears?

Vale optime,

Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre Kleff)

[richsc]

Pierre, it is unfair to refer to those who go for historical accuracy as "purists", a term that you are using in a derogatory fashion. They are arguing for historical accuracy from an academic and documented standpoint so that the impressions for the audience are as close to how things were as is possible. Bracers and Vambraces have no documented existence. Nor do trooper helms.

If you are just dressing up for SCA, Renfaire, Mardi Gras or Nova Roma, the point isn't accuracy but fun, as you say. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you can point out the historical references for bracers/vambraces, everyone would like to see them.

[Crispvs]

Publius,

I think the problem here may come from the fact that your stated definition of what re-enactment is all about is somewhat narrower than that which many of the rest of us here hold. You state that re-enactment is about having fun. Fair enough. Generally I would consider the word 'fun' to be somewhat frivolous and would prefer the term 'enjoyment' but then, we would probably find we meant the same thing by those different terms if we sat down over a drink together to discuss it.

For me though, and many others here, the enjoyment of what we do is wider than simply having fun. Yes, we are there to enjoy ourselves and spend time in the company of friends, but we are also in the business of actively educating the public, as you yourself have alluded to in your last posting. For many of us, trying our best to come as close in our impression, both individual and group, to the current level of knowledge is also part of the enjoyment.

It is often stated that the public who come to see us would not know what was accurate from what was not and this is often true. To present this as an argument against trying to be as accurate as possible is a cop-out though. There are other considerations we should be addressing.
The public generally do not know the right from the wrong, but many of them come to us wishing to learn more. Yes, we can tell them about our kit and point out what is accurate and what is assumed if they ask, but what of those who do not ask, interested as they may be? They will learn from what they see, and if they see leather wrist bracers that is what they will take away with them as an accurate image, whether new or reinforcing an existing belief in them. By NOT wearing them you are more likely to be asked why not, and then you can explain that they are a Hollywood thing for which there is no evidence.

The above scenario becomes more pronounced with photography. Admittedly most people take away a picture which simply records a thing they saw during a good day out. Some people though, take pictures to use for doing their own reconstructions, meaning that inaccuracies breed inaccuracies. This is particularly the case if the person concerned is an illustrator or film designer. We are lucky to have people like Graham Sumner and Johnny Shumate, who put in a lot of research before producing a picture. Not all artists are as discriminating. A few years ago I saw an advertising poster for a re-enactment even hosted by English Heritage. The artist they had commissioned to do the painting though, clearly knew little about the subject he was painting and copied a photograph of a Roman re-enactor. The picture showed the man wearing leather wrist bracers, sandals which did not resemble caligae, a sword with a decorative metal hilt in a rubbish scabbard, a pugio suspended from leather straps and a Hollywood 'Roman' cloak, as seen in every good Hollywood Roman movie. I knew it was done from a photo because I had seen the photo in question a year or two before, shown around by a friend for a laugh as one of the worst impressions of a Roman soldier he had ever seen. The artist did not know that and used it as his model. How many times was that picture reproduced for other events and English Heritage publications and how many people though they were learning something from it? I don't know, but I do know they would not have commissioned a picture just to use it as a one off.
A year or two ago, when doing some filming work, I encountered a costume designer who had actually made an attempt to inform herself about how things should look and was taking the pictures she had got together as gospel. Some of the pictures she was making use of dated back to the 1930s and 40s, but others were from old Osprey books and a handful of pictures of re-enactors of varying levels of accuracy. She had distilled some sort of 'average' from this lot and was trying very hard to dress everyone according to this, (including trying to force my normally independent hair to conform to a style shown in a painting by Ronald Embleton on the Osprey 'Hadrian to Constantine' book). She did not distinguish much between her 'sources' but did seem to have a preference for the photos of re-enactors. However, the standard of accuracy was so varied that it was virtually impossible to teach her anything from them. She had made what she felt was a good effort to make sure she had things looking right, but largely because so many people cannot be bothered to get their kit right, she ended up making a pig's ear of it. Luckily it all ended up being done in silhouette and sound recording, so my face doesn't show.

You cannot control where your image goes and when your kit is not accurate, you may find yourself influencing the next Hollywood film everyone here will be complaining about, as my experience with the costume designer showed.

Back to the matter of forearm protection though. You stated that you wear a 'vambrace'. I think we might need to be careful of terms here. I (and I think most people) understand the word 'vambrace' to mean a rigid metal protection for the forearm. If this is what you mean too, then if you are wearing it you will simply not look like a Roman. However, if by 'vambrace' you meant simply 'armour for the arm', then I might take it that you were talking of a manica, the defence of overlapping metal plates articulated on leather straps in the same way as segmentata, which is worn on the sword arm. if so, then your "vambrace" is actually a 'manica' and few here would have a problem with that. Perhaps you could make the matter clear.

You were mentioning people wearing leather bracers to look more "bad-ass" (an antisocial donkey?). Perhaps instead of these inaccurate bits of leather, they could try wearing armiliae with snarling tigers' heads for terminals. This would look far more accurate and the tigers would possibly impart sufficient ferocity to satisfy their testosterone laden desires.

As a final thing:
"by what authority do purists have to dictate what anyone wears?'

Some of us have actually been elected by our groups to perform exactly that function, although 'dictate' is rather too strong a word to use. If you arrived at many events wearing leather wrist bracers, I suspect you might be the one getting the chilly reception. ;-)

Crispvs

[Robert Vermaat]

As with all purists, you refuse to see the point of re-enactment. It is for FUN!

I agree and disagree. Yes, fun, absolutely! But if we completely let go any notions of authenticity, this would not be reenactment but carnival!
I'm not in the camp of the 100% purists, my tunics are not handstitched etcetera. But 'fun' alone is not in my list of parameters which determine what I wear or not.

Are you comfortable in your role as judge and jury?

The jury on RAT is always self-appointed, but their judgement is never binding.

[Pointer]

Is it possible... that an individual would have worn them because of weak wrists?

I weight lift to gain strength in my body. But my wrists are weak. I wear a wrap around velcro band/brace on both wrists at all times during lifting. I have strong forearms but my wrists tend to fatigue.

I think to rule out Bracers totally is neither a correct move or historically accurate or inaccurate.

If I was wielding a sword and holding a shield (in my case) the bracers would be there for more security in my wrists. Nothing more... nothing less. I don't think a Centurion would smack me if I did.

Much like the Balteus was a "Personalized" piece of equipment... why not Bracers or Vambraces?

Would a soldier be allowed an eye patch? Not as standard equipment. Would he be allowed to fight in the ranks if he did have an eye patch? Or allowed to Go home?

[Crispianus]

Patrick in the case of ancient sportsmen at least, you can see that the wrist is strengthened by the design of classical boxers gloves.... I would say under the straps and frills is something similar to a modern sportsmans wrist strengthener similar to what I used for heavy work.....

http://www.esacademic.com/pictures/eswik..._hands.jpg

[attachment=12657]BoxerGloves.jpg[/attachment]

[richsc]

Patrick, one can speculate for ever. But that there aren't any representations of bracers anywhere indicates to me that they are of no use to actual swordsmen. And since we aren't out there fighting to kill or avoid being killed, there may be a real practical and life saving reason why. But we may never be able to know.

[richsc]

But since bracers only appeared when Hollywood started using them, and since Wonder Woman appeared around the same time, maybe it's a case of Wonder Woman envy?

[A_Volpe]

Considering the notion that a lot of Roman leather items have managed to survive (especially footwear), yet, nothing has been found that even remotely resembles the infamous Hollywood styled pieces.

We've also mentioned a number of other items, like armillae awards, that can be worn on the arms for someone's particular persona or impression.

So, if No Leather Bracers exist, but metal awards DO…Then I'm confused as to why some people get so defensive about wearing bracers when there's not evidence for them in a military context?

As for the insane debate between "reenacting" and "fantasy play", you can wear what you want at an event that doesn't have qualms on being accurate or researched. LARP'ing, and even Cosplay (i.e. if you're looking to copy a Roman character from a movie or TV series), yeah you can copy that and be "screen accurate" as hard as you want. That's not what we're concerned about.

There are a handful of us who's "job" it is TO be accurate and researched. When the public comes up to us, we're expected to know our information, and to get it right. When we're with other historians et. al. we have to know what we're talking about.

Is there room for interpretation? Yep. But, there's a thin line there. It's as I say all the time: Context is Everything.

Take a comparison of the American Civil War: Tons of photographs…Studio, posed photographs, of soldiers exist, many of them sporting big dangerous looking knives/daggers, pistols, fixed bayonets, and in a dramatic, "martial" pose. So is Pvt. Joe from a State Militia actually going into battle with 3 daggers and 2 revolvers tucked into his belt to compliment his issued firearm?
No! It's just fashionable to look "badass". The pistols and daggers are props.
…That is unless that specific soldier has in their journal or hell, maybe even the purchase receipt ("private purchase"), to justify having that item in their possession at that moment of the war….But, just because that one person has it, does not mean it is "standard" across the rest of the unit.

So, IF the same is true for Roman tombstone sculptures, then why don't we see bracers? Guess what, we don't. Too bad.
Even if we did come across images that -seems- to look like it might be leather, the problem is the paint has long since faded away, and any textures added, if they ever were, had also worn away. So, person 1 will look at the sculpture and determine the material is fabric. Person 2 will swear on their life because "they just know", that obviously it's leather (or something else, etc etc) and cannot be questioned.

Truth is, we're still learning about these Romans, and still finding stuff. That's incredible and exciting. Be happy for that. But also realize that at this time, we just don't have tangible supportive evidence or artifacts that justifies leather Hollywood style bracers.
As mentioned, we've found lots of other "arm bling" that is supported and perfectly acceptable. Shelve the bracers for now.

….Unless you are doing a Movie Cosplay or at a Fantasy fair, then, whatever, go crazy. I see enough damn Black-Studded-Leather-Biker-Gear-Tricorn-Hat-Pirates at enough "Renaissance" Fairs to keep me breathing into a paper bag for years.

Being Accurate and Researched can be fun. Being able to rant off 50 academic references and journal articles, archaeological sites and finds in a single breath without shame shows people you know what you're talking about. Just saying "Well, I saw this image of one person's interpretation from 50 years ago and it just looked cool" Doesn't exactly fly well among us who want to just do better at the research, and try to have a clearer understanding of what we think the Romans were up to, or who's "job" it is to have the right information.

…Who knows, maybe next month they'll make the Find of the Millennia and find items that we'd denied for years….And then we'll start making replicas and using them.

[Pointer]

I am not pushing the envelope on "Uniform Gear". Just remarking about an individual's deficiencies.

So much is speculation.

I am not really advocating either way. I just know my own wrists... and if I were to wear something... I would explain it this way. That I have weak wrists and these are not historically proven. However... the rest of my gear is. :wink:

[Narukami]

However....

If we eliminate bracers, then Hollywood will follow (eventually) and then, when we go to the cinema, how will recognize the Romans if they are not wearing bracers?

This is like the Butterfly Effect -- good intentions lead to unforeseen and unfortunate consequences.

Eliminate bracers in favor of historical accuracy?
Down that path lies madness and who knows just where it might lead us.
No more tiny metal shields?
No more stirrups?
No more leather armor?
No more black clad Praetorians?

And imagine the mayhem in Hollywood as every studio must dump warehouses full of props and costumes to build all new, and authentic, kit. They would need to quickly hire historians and experts like Graham Sumner, and other members of this Forum, and at incredibly lucrative salaries ....

Say...

This is a great idea!
Do it -- Do it now!
Eliminate all braces!

Narukami

[LuciusSallustiusPlautus]

We also must take into account that the Romans may not have needed them. I noticed people were saying that their wrists were weak from carrying the scutum. I know one theory suggests wicker scutum training that was heavier than the real thing which could have strengthened their wrists to hold a full wicker scutum let alone a real scutum (sorry, run-on-sentence). And talk about the scutum hurting your forearm from pressure? Rusty from SOTW made a great solution for this, a sheep skin backing. Also can we agree that even though it isn't depicted that archers could have worn one "bracer" like thing on the bow arm?