+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor (/showthread.php?tid=6505)
Pages:
1
2
main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Woadwarrior - 08-14-2006
this has been moved from a board called VIDEOS ANY... by request of a felow site meber Matt L so as to not confuse the original post
so we were discussing what is different about an ACTUAL REAL roman, between a modern reenactor.
we had these points so far:
1. Being an actual roman
I’ll try some more:
2. Different body size. Most modern re-enactors are no really looking ‚Italian’.
3. Different muscles and different shade of skin. People working most time outdoor by hand and marching many miles, carrying a lot of equipment will have a their own appearance. Compare the calves / leg muscles of a professional soccer player to a clerk. So for WW II-movies, some directors are searching for actors with face impressions similar to the 1940’s.
4. Different behaviour. Someone who does his job for years will ‘perform’ all the hundreds of big and small motions ‘by the way’ without thinking. And especially ‘typical’ motions’ of his profession. Movie actors try to copy that, with the advantage of performing for just one filmed scene and to retry it if it wasn’t performed well. Re-enactors won’t have this permanent ‘second chance to make a first impression’.
Who adds no 5 ?
Posted: Sun 13 Aug 2006, 23:40 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. general attitude.
I mean, a general look at life? Life is considered much more precious today in our parts than it was back then. Children died earlier and sooner, sickness could take you every time of year, etc. So if people died that would be less hurtful because you kinda expected it? Death was more normal?
6. Religiousness.
That would also reflect on a religious feeling (if you have more things that threaten you, you'll pay much more attention to gods & godesses!), but I also expect people to have been ,ore superstitious.
7. Survival capabilities.
I could not make a fire with my ancient tools if my life depended on it (yet). I can learn (I hope I will), but that ans other 'simple things' would have been normal back then. We spoiled rich people do not always have to wonder where we'll sleep, when we'll eat and how we'll get it.
_________________
8. More scars visible, simply by being exposed to more injury from blades and construction accidents. The injuries should preferably be on the front of his body
9. Worse teeth, however some natural substances including mastic had oral antiseptic properties. They may have also been using someone else's teeth, instead of modern style dentures.
10. Rougher hands and soles of the feet. Think construction worker (which they technically were) and bear in mind much of their childhood would have been without wearing shoes.
10a. A tatoo on their hand - the military mark - although that may be contested by some or restricted to later Roman practice, so I gave it an 'a' after the number
11. i guess ill bring up worn armor
i saw a picture of a renacot close up of him in a battle position with his scutum held forward, and gladius poised, i think his name was titus, i dont know where that picture is , but i think that the armor he wears is in the condition (i think ) of what an actual romans armor would have looked like.
does anybody know what im talking bout?
that titus person is a memeber of this board
12.
Being a disciplined trained fighter
13. Actually killing someone?
by the way I realized how awful I spell sorry
ill try harder to type slower
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Cornelius Quintus - 08-14-2006
Ave omnes,
here’s
no 14: language and terms. Roman or Auxiliary troops would sound different. Speaking Latin (or a mix of Latin and local languages) with the genuine accent. Re-enactors or movie actors often try to use Latin words, but sound ‘English or American’ by their own accent.
Even if translated in modern language, Roman soldiers would use different terms for items, persons and action in exercise, official service or off duty in their special soldier’s slang. And they would have had the right feeling of using the right term to the right person in a special situation.
Real Romans - Graham Sumner - 08-14-2006
I know exactly what you mean Woadwarrior! I try to get all the points you make into my paintings of Roman soldiers. You can tell me if you think I succeed or not, others generally do, tell me that is!
Graham.
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Woadwarrior - 08-14-2006
paintings?
good point about speaking a different language
note. all the points I make, I kind of half as if they could be correct like this one:
15. Romans being more fit than renactors?
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Matt Lukes - 08-14-2006
That's the same as #3 Francis.
15. Real Romans were actually soldiers- reenactors are hobbyists.
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Marcus Mummius - 08-14-2006
Unlike a reenactor, a Roman soldier can not quit being a Roman soldier whenever he wants too. If he is on campaign he'll have to march all day, build a camp, sleep, march another day,etc... Most reenactors go to an event and return to their life the following day. They might have sore muscles for a few days after a heavy event but they are able to take it easy and rest up.
A Roman soldier did not have this opportunity. He's into this stuff for several decennia. Like doing a 20 year long event
Also the life of a roman soldier was dictated by the elements a lot more than we are now. What if you were on campaign and you had a two week period of heavy rain? How do you keep your gear from rusting?
What if you slipped and broke your leg or arm? What if you got pneumonia?
Vale,
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Graham Sumner - 08-14-2006
Francis wrote:
Quote:paintings?
Francis if you send me a pm (private message) with your contact email address I would be happy to send you some examples.
Graham.
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Matt Lukes - 08-15-2006
16-ish Reenactor's gear is paid for as hobby stuff so is perhaps more dear than a real Roman soldier's even though his could mean his life. We're rather more protective of our investments for the most part I would think. There are many who wouldn't be willing to mock battle in their expensive gear or even go out in the rain without a good reason- a legionary likely didn't care so much because it was the way things were for him.
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Finlandese - 08-15-2006
Hi Graham, I would be also interested to see your paintings.
Ilpo
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Cornelius Quintus - 08-15-2006
Ave omnes,
No 16: The average age. lots of modern re-enactors would in ancient times nearly have finished their 20 years of duty :wink: . Perhaps one reason is, that youngsters often are not able to spend all the money on some high quality custom made kit...
On the other hand the real Romans would have looked much more 'aged' / grown old than modern people with the same amount of years of life-
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Fladius - 08-15-2006
Concerning Matt L's post, I can certainly see how that would be true. To make a comparison, the gear I'm issued now, sure, I keep it clean so it will work, but if it breaks, well... It breaks, I'll get a new one and try to break that(ha, I hope the bn armorer doesn't read these boards).
There is a difference when its something you own and you have to pay cash to replace it..
All that was just to reiterate Matt L's point.
endless list of q\'s - claudia crisis - 08-15-2006
On worn armour:
If you assume a soldier is issued with kit when he signed up, by the end of 25 yrs it may well look a little worn, even with regular cleaning & maintenance, especially if subjected to combat damage.
However, would a soldier still be wearing the same kit 25 yrs on?
Even if we assume that they were fit, from all of that marching, training etc, all men do expand over time. It is inevitable. Some “eat all of the piesâ€
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Graham Sumner - 08-15-2006
Quote:Hi Graham, I would be also interested to see your paintings.
Ilpo
Hi
Can you send me a pm then with a contact email address.
Graham.
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Woadwarrior - 08-15-2006
ok I am going to ask just a quick question, and then ou can continue, I love reading all your replies.
Has anybody seen Rome enginneering an empire? (i know I asked this before but i truly tried re searching this, and got no answer) It was a big two hour special on history channel. say yes if you have seen it
and about titus vienne?
Re: main differences between a roman and a modern reenactor - Martin Wallgren - 08-15-2006
Yes I saw it and have it on tape!