10-31-2016, 08:57 PM
This is how I'd rate it:
1. Costumes and Hollywood.
2. Reenactment groups that allow some inaccuracies like vambraces and leather musculata, butted maille, or senate tunics with that single vertical stripe, that list goes on and on. I think a lot of this is due to lack of knowledge in some cases - particularly in areas like Roman archery. I think I'd throw "2nd century" groups using 1st century equipment in this category too.
3. Standard Reenactment groups, like Legio VI Ferrata. Yes we use some modern stuff, but we focus on getting it right with our kits (our loaners are decent but not as good). We don't allow vambraces, etc. etc. They also have things like authentic goatskin tents, authentic replicas of construction cranes and artillery, etc. But still use things like painted canvas tents, etc (it's really cost prohibitive to have those nice goatskin tent replicas).
4. Groups that go above average or are exceptional with their impressions, kits, and equipment, but not quite all the way. Really good replicas in say bronze or sometimes enamelled/silvered/gilded, etc. Minor errors such as things like maille hauberks (because a historically accurate hauberk by Erik D. Schmidt will cost you like 10,000 dollars). Or Embroidered decor on Tunicae Manicatae rather than it being woven into the fabric.
5. The groups that literally go all the way, like Wulfheodenas (who aren't Roman but all their stuff is basically museum replicas).
I'd probably put most of the good reenactment groups in the 4 star category, I'd put myself at 4 star at the moment (I intend to hit that 5 star mark though, just need the money but I'm the kind of person who is going to do it 100% right and flaunt it!). I think most of us here in the US fall into the 3 star category to be honest, although there are some impressions that hit the 4 star, but not whole groups that do. And I think in the European groups, at least for Late Roman, most groups are in that 4 star area with only a tiny handful of individuals hitting that 5 star category.
This is just my 2 cents. Yes I can be harshly critical because I'm blunt and I'm brutally honest, but I always try to be respectful and offer avenues to improve. That's why I'm writing my guide to 5th Century Roman military equipment, with commentaries on Hun and Germanic.
1. Costumes and Hollywood.
2. Reenactment groups that allow some inaccuracies like vambraces and leather musculata, butted maille, or senate tunics with that single vertical stripe, that list goes on and on. I think a lot of this is due to lack of knowledge in some cases - particularly in areas like Roman archery. I think I'd throw "2nd century" groups using 1st century equipment in this category too.
3. Standard Reenactment groups, like Legio VI Ferrata. Yes we use some modern stuff, but we focus on getting it right with our kits (our loaners are decent but not as good). We don't allow vambraces, etc. etc. They also have things like authentic goatskin tents, authentic replicas of construction cranes and artillery, etc. But still use things like painted canvas tents, etc (it's really cost prohibitive to have those nice goatskin tent replicas).
4. Groups that go above average or are exceptional with their impressions, kits, and equipment, but not quite all the way. Really good replicas in say bronze or sometimes enamelled/silvered/gilded, etc. Minor errors such as things like maille hauberks (because a historically accurate hauberk by Erik D. Schmidt will cost you like 10,000 dollars). Or Embroidered decor on Tunicae Manicatae rather than it being woven into the fabric.
5. The groups that literally go all the way, like Wulfheodenas (who aren't Roman but all their stuff is basically museum replicas).
I'd probably put most of the good reenactment groups in the 4 star category, I'd put myself at 4 star at the moment (I intend to hit that 5 star mark though, just need the money but I'm the kind of person who is going to do it 100% right and flaunt it!). I think most of us here in the US fall into the 3 star category to be honest, although there are some impressions that hit the 4 star, but not whole groups that do. And I think in the European groups, at least for Late Roman, most groups are in that 4 star area with only a tiny handful of individuals hitting that 5 star category.
This is just my 2 cents. Yes I can be harshly critical because I'm blunt and I'm brutally honest, but I always try to be respectful and offer avenues to improve. That's why I'm writing my guide to 5th Century Roman military equipment, with commentaries on Hun and Germanic.
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
