Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news

[Tib. Gabinius]

Gabinus wrote

If it would be presented as reenactment like so many others, i wouldnt have a problem with it, everyone like he wants, but in context to "serious work on historical field" i get a problem with it...
____________________________________________
Sorry, but what did i say? Please quote the passage you mean, so i know what exactly you mean and be able to answer.

Here it seems me to understand from your words that Ars in year 2004 it didn't introduce as group reenacment.

If i read right, you take the field of "experimental arch." for AD, dont you?
If a group call itself in this way, it isnt just "reenacting", its more, its the stamp of science they print on themselves. That was it, what i tried to told you.
Reenactors can do the educational aspect as well, but the scientific work is something more and they dont belong together, but they can help each other in some ways.
For me, reenactment is a hobby, experimental arch. is a real hard and intensiv job.

Gabinus wrote

For now: "glimmering armor" and "new shield" sounds a bit like "the others want to be parade soldiers, but we are in the field". And this I really can't accept. equipment".

You have not understood the sense of my words. In the actual phase of our experimentation, we don't interest the details on the cuirasses or on the helmets.

Ok, so i didnt recognized you told this as part of the argumentation that the details arent of interest for you.
But you also didnt recognized my answer to this argument.

Gabinus wrote

Also the sentence part "what they really wore" sounds like "what the others wear isn't the right equipment".

To this intention however I can tell you Gabinus, that ARS a lot of times we have offered to so many groups of reenactors to fight against us, to make exercise or to compare the techniques of fight. Many of these groups have refused the offer for the strangest motives,: some have said that in that way their equipment would be ruined (cuirass and shield), others have said that they didn't have desire of it, others they have said that it was too much dangerous.
Some have accepted instead, but after the first time they have not wanted to repeat a second time. Ars Dimicandi what we should think?

I really can understand that arguments. Just ask some historians and arch. how much their experiments had cost, you will see how expensive it is to do it the real way.
And in combats, that is the problem. We cant recreate and test real battles. We can't accept dead people on the feld, neither heavy wounded. And this would be the result of a "real fight".
And after our first engage in Trier 2004 and the missunderstood which leads to metal blade using on AD side and wood on ours, i had a real deep scratch on the backside of my segmentata right where my heart is...
So the thinking these groups have behind is to understand.

But still there are many other groups who train and damage their equipment for the experience. E.g. the Rapax of Hamburg damaged in the time we know 3 or 4 times their shields.
Robert lost i guess 4 or 5 of his training plumbatae just in Fort Fechten...

Theres something more behind "we dont want to fight with you" as just thought "Sissys", and you should try to get the same respect for these way as you ask for yourself.
The difference is: if those groups do such things, they had watched for the details before.
That already sounds very aggressive, which i will not intend. But like Susanna and Tarbicus say, we talk in circles. You asked for, we gave you arguments and just get a "we do it so" back...


By the way, i send a reporter of Karfunkel the short answer of Dario on your side. Hope they will reocognize it.