Experts on HBO’s Rome & Expert Re-creat

[Antonius Congianocus]

Hello again,

Perhaps I mis-communicated my question in the original message (below) or gave too many examples concerning HBO’s ROME; so to reaffirm my question, is it far better to copy original pieces exactly or to base your re-creation wardrobe on historical finds?

For example, if I were to hammer a lion or Gorgon into my Gallic H helm (it would no longer be a Gallic H of course), a staunch re-creationist would say that it was unacceptable due to the fact that no original has been discovered with that feature.

Whereas a staunch historian would say that it was acceptable due to the helms design being constant with known examples and becuase the iconography of a Gorgon or Lion are also constant with Roman era symbolism.


Thanks,
Anthony









ORIGINAL MESSAGE
Hello,

Firstly, no… I am not trying to stir up Armageddon, just perplexed and puzzling over what appears to be an enigma.

HBO and the BBC spent millions producing Rome. They hired many experts in Ancient fields, and for this query, I’m seeking opinions and to gain knowledge on wardrobe.

When it comes to gaining knowledge Socrates said "Employ your time in improving yourself by other people's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have laboured hard for."

Re-creation’s experts ‘copy’ their wardrobe from originals, using only fabrics and styles known to have existed. This insures tremendous accuracy, as when rigidly applied, there is absolutely no doubt that what is being portrayed actually existed. For example, many Legions insist that members wear only very specific types of helmets and those helmets absolutely must be copies of an original. Perhaps ‘ridged’ is not the best word however; those members are striving for 100% accuracy… I fully and completely understand this concept.

However; unlike previous ‘Hollywood productions’ HBO’s experts are truly experts but ‘base’ their wardrobe on originals, using only fabrics and styles know to exist during the time of Caesar.

For example, they based the muscle Cuirasses worn by Caesar, Antony, & Pompey on known examples from sculpture i.e. anatomically correct, adorned with eagles, griffins etc however; they took liberty in the designs. Obviously, the show would not appear realistic if every general wore the exact same armor. Also, the tunics of the upper classes follow the same ‘based on’ concept… utilizing many elaborate colors, various trims, neck openings, etc.

A real world issue I’m faced with is this, I recently made a tunic ‘based’ the trims and styles I saw on HBO’s Rome and in combonation ‘based’ on one real original example. However; several in this forum disapproved stating my tunic should only have two vertical strips (Calvi) and sent me examples of three tunics, one without Calvi, one with thin Calvi, and one with thick Calvi.

Now obviously, the Roman Empire was not limited to three types of tunics throughout the fist two centuries however; until an archeologist unearths a tunic with three vertical stripes or an eagle on its chest they shouldn’t be worn, as per re-creationists.

So, should I learn from the experts at HBO and ‘base’ my tunic and armor on authentic pieces or should I learn from the experts in re-creation and strive to ‘copy’ an original piece exactly?

In closing, I am looking for opinions not arguments.

Thanks,
Anthony Congiano aka: Antonius Congianocus


EDIT:
By the way, I was to find the original article I was speaking of this is the complete article that I had originally read, prior to HBO presenting the series Rome in the USA.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... rome.shtml

[Robert Vermaat]

An interesting question, Antonius, which will I hope spark a good discussion about re-enactment and accuracy.

Just for the sake of the discussion though, may i remind everyone that we have a big thread about 'Rome' on the reference and review part of the forum? So if you have remarks about the series, please post them at the HBO's "Rome" to present more realistic look thread.

[tlclark]

This insures tremendous accuracy, as when rigidly applied, there is absolutely no doubt that what is being portrayed actually existed.

Not really. Let's assume our civilization ultimately peters out (it will sooner or later), earth is nuked and the only thing surviving from our culture are the random radio and television transmissions streaming out into space.

Aliens pick up the transmissions and then recreate our culture based on such programs as "Dallas" recreating a world where most of the women wear Bob Mackey dresses and men wear wear yachting outfits and cowboy hats.

YIKES!!

Accidental survival is always a problem. Finding something in the archaeological record is good, but there always has to be a little bit of give 'n take with other sources. (And I'm not just saying this because I'm an art historian!)

Just a friendly word of caution.

Travis

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

The main thing to remember is that any movie or TV production is all about the "vision" of the writer, director, and producers. Sure, they may have all kinds of "expert" "historical consultants", but even if these people actually have any knowledge of the period, they are often told to sit in the corner and shut up. Especially if they complain about something being not accurate!

Hollywood in general has never given a darn about ancient history, they only use it as their playground and as a vehicle for shoveling their own wacky ideology down the throats of a gullible public. When challenged about any of it, they can simply say, "Hey! It's just a movie!" To a certain extent, that's very true, but they also know that 99 percent of their audience doesn't have a clue about how to view such material objectively and will eat it up wholesale.

Much of the costuming you see on the screen will just be some designer's ideas of what might be seen in artwork combined with their own ideas of what they think the public wants or expects to see. Costume designers are never happy with simplicity, and tend to over-embellish just to get a "busier" look. Hence things like the Universal Wrist Bracer for men, extra decoration on tunics, big wide decorated belts, boots and leggings with extra dangly bits, shredded bits of fur and dead animal on any "barbarian", etc. Sure, a certain amount of identifiably historical-looking military equipment sneaks in--heck, all the gear in "Alexander" was great, but it's very much the exception.

It will also be pointed out that such entertainment is not educational and only meant to make money. Again, very true, but it's odd that so much extra money and effort is expended in getting some details wrong! It would actually be cheaper in many cases for costumes or other aspects to be done more accurately (if not perfectly!), making the production even more appealing to a wider audience. Pretty mysterious...

Sorry, not trying to sound Armageddon-like! Not even trying to sound like I'm ranting! (Hmm, though it does read very well in rant mode, eh?) Just my general philosophy on the dangers of being inspired by Hollywood.

Valete,

Matthew

[arklore70]

Matt,
well said.

Can't watch a war movie from the 20th or 21st century and not being hyper critical myself.

Fortunately there has been a trend in modern era military war movies to get things pretty right ( Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers to name a few).

I think one of the other things we may forget though, is that a lot of movies and TV series generally are under a time schedule. At a certain point, sadly, the time for good ideas and help runs out, and the prop matters have to get to work and get the film rolling since most productions are not funded out of pocket unless you are Mel Gibson or George Lucas.

Now all we need to do is harp on Hollywood to do the same for the Ancient Era. My secret hope is that somebody from HBO/BBC was paying attention to our critiques from ROME and are adjusting for season two.

Would love to see a movie about Germanicas recovering the Eagles, or Caesar subduing the Gauls.

I

[Antonius Congianocus]

Hello again,


Perhaps I mis-communicated my question or gave too many example concerning HBO’s ROME; so to reaffirm my question, is it far better to copy original pieces exactly or to base your re-creation wardrobe on historical finds?

For example, if I were to hammer a lion or Gorgon into my Gallic H helm, a staunch re-creationist would say that it was unacceptable due to the fact that no original has been discovered with that feature.

Whereas a staunch historian would say that it was acceptable due to the helms design being constant with known examples and the iconogy of a Gorgon or Lion are also constant with Roman era symbolism.

Thanks,
Antonius

[Robert Vermaat]

Listen to Anthony, folks!
Less Hollywood (and apocalips ), more of 'can we use two items combined in re-enactment when they were only found separate'...

[tlclark]

Whereas a staunch historian would say that it was acceptable due to the helms design being constant with known examples and the iconogy of a Gorgon or Lion are also constant with Roman era symbolism.

Count me in the second group with qualifiers.

I have noted that Romans were great lovers of variety, foreign costumes and customs and just outright fantasy. A lot of this shows up in representations of the musculata for example. Fantasy is a viable source of inspiration for an impression as long as that fantasy is rooted in historicism. That may seem like a contradiction but it's not.

For example, we have lots of images of lions in Roman art, even though we've never seen one on the breast of a muscled cuirass. Putting one a cuirass is possible though, because we have seen lots of other heraldic animals in a similar position. So even though we don't have a specific Roman example in hand, we have good reason to suppose it might have happened. On the other hand putting an elephant on a Roman cuirass, or a dragon, would be far more tennuous, even though we have Roman examples of both in art. Why? Because whereas lions are often found in heraldic or military contexts, elephants rarely are.

Still, I would follow a few simple guidelines in this order,

1.) If it exists in the archaeological or artistic record, a re-enactor is justified in using it. (even though we run the risk of emulate a lot of potential isolates, there is just no way to get around it.)

2.) If the imagery or iconography exists withing the Roman time period being re-enacted, and it is appropriate to the context of the object being recreated, it can be used, even if we don't have an actual example in art or archaeology.

For example, snakes are everywhere in Roman art, but I can't think of an example of one on a muscled cuirass, however, since they are often common religious symbols related to fertility and the lares, it doesn't seem unlikely that one could be included in such a representation, since many religious symbols also appear in the same context. If you found a representation of a lares or snake on a Roman altar, and put it on a cuirass, that would not be a very big stretch. The same is true of a lot of images. However, while we see skulls in Roman art, they would never be justified on a cuirass, since the skulls are never seen in military or religious contexts, but almost always in sartorial contexts, which would be inappropriate to the context of a cuirass.

Basically, if you are going to make something up, you can't make it up out of whole cloth, but instead you have to think like a Roman.

Incidentally, this would be rather easy to do for a Tribune or high-ranking impression, since the evidence suggests that there was a VERY wide range of potential iconography. This would be a lot harder for a legionnaire impression, but even here there are places for personal expression, the decoration of the balteus and the shield for example.

Just some thoughts.

[Matthew Amt]

OOOOOoooooh, okay, gotcha! Yeah, I didn't catch the true gist of the original question, mea culpa.

Simple answer, stick to known artifacts whenever possible, using artwork and literature to put them in their proper context. Use pertinent artwork, or artifacts from adjacent cultures/periods to fill in gaps when necessary. No, it's not the whole story, but it's the part that we know and can justify without qualms. And there's frequently enough of it to have a good idea that we're on the right track.

For Roman tunics, following the example, there are not really any surviving ones from the first century AD, at least not that we're sure of (and certainly not any that are specific to a consul). So study the artwork and see what it looks like, and compare the tunics found at En Gedi (second century and probably Roman-style) to get details on construction. For formal wear, don't embellish beyond that since the Romans could be pretty stodgy about things like that. Dinner parties are a different matter!

There are so many surviving helmets that I don't see much point in embellishing or modifying what is know, beyond necessity. Most Coolus helmets, for instance, have been found without their cheekpieces, so we really don't know what types were used with Coolus D, E, or G. Robinson's arrangements are perfectly reasonable, and widely accepted, but I do give my troops a little more leeway on those. There are also so many of them, with enough subtle variations, that a "ballpark" reproduction will usually do. However, I'm a little more strict with the very distinctive Gallic and Italic helmets. If you want a Gallic H, get a reasonably accurate Gallic H! Don't get some helmet that combines features of several others (from different centuries) and add in something that looked cool in a movie. When someone digs up a helmet with a Gorgon's head on it, great, you can copy THAT helmet, now, but it does not, in my opinion, mean that you can carry that feature over to other types of helmet.

Good historians stick to their facts whenever possible. Good reenactors should, too.

Valete,

Matthew

[tlclark]

In keeping with the same line query, the cuirass I am working on is absolutely based on historical statues of Emperors and Generals but not copied. The iconogy is also based correctly on those sources, i.e. a gorgon on the upper chest, eagles on the lower, and Gryphons on the sides, thunderbolts on the shoulders; that iconogy is very typical and historically accurate; that is to say, it could have existed.

Just a quick review (even though you didn't ask for it)

The Gorgon is a little small, but that's not a big deal. the thunderbolts look great! Where did you get them?

I like the eagles, but the wolves' heads and other details are a little off. consider moving them to the tongue pteruges where the iconography is far more varied and personal.

Also, what are the plaques across the middle section? I can't quite make them out. Otherwise I think it looks pretty good.

Travis

[Antonius Congianocus]

Hello Travis,

I removed the Cuirass, just so this thread can stay on track but...

If you meant on the cuirass in the background, that's actually just a belt holding the front and back together, it won't be on the completed cuirass. If you meant on the T-Shirt, those are either lion heads or panther heads in the center and two small twin gryphon heads to the left and right. I just can't get my hands on large gryphons (which is what I really wanted) at least not yet.

I picked up the thunderbolts from NIX Imperial.

Since Augustus was a Capricorn and had symbolism on his cuirass of his astrology sign I, being a Pisces, rather like the doubled heads… although obviously, I do need two Pisces fish.

Moving some of the iconogy to my submirals (which is also in progress) is a good idea… although I'm not sure yet how I want to proceed. As the plaques may be a little too large for tongue pteruges. However, you're most likely correct as you are a far better expert than I.

Thanks,
Anthony

[A_Volpe]

Stick with what we know is fact (for the most part) - Archaeological evidence, as stated by others (like Matt Amt - and couldn't have said it better myself concerning Hollywood Money Machine)

There is a ton of information, art, and actual finds for you to study up on. Some of the work has already been done for you, so it becomes a matter of "picking and choosing" within what's used during a specific time period....there's no need to "embellish" something, or [re]create something that never existed "based" on some historical evidence.

Same goes for the storylines and plot lines and characters/people. Some Romans were really messed up, some were really fascinating...Why try to "re-invent" or "re-package" it...What's wrong with the original stuff?

Remember that it's never been a better time to be a Roman. We're still constantly discovering 'new' stuff all the time, some of it rewriting the books here and there. (ie the Newstead Lor. Segmentata armor from 20 years ago compared to today; or the new Kalkriese Lor. Segmentata, I don't think that is more than 10 years old? Surely, not alot of pieces found...hardly any...but as long as we keep looking we might get lucky) So what if that means we may have to make new gear in a year or so from now...It's a hobby!

Think of it this way too - If Hollywood got themselves into gear with having more accurate stuff to show off - they'll win the praise and attention/ratings from picky Geeks like us. Sure, you will never satisfy everyone, but satisfying the ones who do this stuff "for a living" would be a really nice change....You might even start a trend if things go well if you have really good gear. And Hollywood loves a trend like flies to poop.

end of soapbox for me...I have to go work on my armor which is in a million pieces

[John M McDermott]

Hollywood uses "costumers" to provide all their gear for movies. Costumers generally do whatever they please, without reference to much. Hence, relying on them for guidance is not a good idea.

Some people have been making Roman gear for decades. Occasionally, they stray from the known and add a feature for which there is no example. These people know what they are doing.

So, when getting creative, it is wise to know what you are doing. For example, when wondering whether it's ok to add a lions head, one must ask: What lion's head? There are specific examples of Roman designs for lion's heads. Make sure you follow one of those. Also, choice of material is important, plus the type of art involved (eg. repousse), plus where it is going (eg. a helmet). I think, for example, that there were probably variations of designs on the Weisanu/Italic D.