<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Using more reenactors?</title>
		<description>Comments for Using more reenactors? at http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:58:44 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>By all means...</title>
			<link>http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/magazine/jasper-oorthuys/126-using-more-reenactors.html#comment-63</link>
			<description>Showing reenactors opens up an entirely new side to the academic portion of it. Using the term &quot;cheapen&quot; is a bit insulting. Maybe it's time we widen the perception of some academics and see what's on the other side eh? - Magnus</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:16:42 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Please No!</title>
			<link>http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/magazine/jasper-oorthuys/126-using-more-reenactors.html#comment-61</link>
			<description>Jasper,

I really would avoid going that route - one of the things that I love about Ancient-Warfare is that it doesn't fall into the trap of most other magazines that have occasional features on this period - 90% of the time they use reenactors, and I feel that cheapens the overall article. More photos of items, murals, frescoes, vases, etc, yes - artwork, yes yes! However, a firm thumbs down for reenactors. 

By the way, your magazine will end up being collected one day for the artwork. Congratulations on such a fine product! - Vberriz</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:58:08 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Poses</title>
			<link>http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/magazine/jasper-oorthuys/126-using-more-reenactors.html#comment-54</link>
			<description>Hi!
Perhaps I should clarify a bit more:
- This is certainly not intended as a proposal to replace the current artwork! 
- My idea would be to have reenactors pose statically with their equipment. No 'battle poses'. - JaspertheManager</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:29:23 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reenactor's physique</title>
			<link>http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/magazine/jasper-oorthuys/126-using-more-reenactors.html#comment-53</link>
			<description>My main concern about reenactments is the fact that even when their equipment and armament is as good as possible, the reenactors' physique doesn't match with the actual warrior's which they try to represent. For example, a Roman battle-hardened centurion should have a highly muscular and tanned body, after so many years of active campaigning. It is very difficult for a modern reenactor to 'fit' in this model. It seems to me like persons trying to &quot;dress-up&quot; like an ancient warrior, not representing one. 
Moreover, I think that it is more difficult for reenactors to show realistic battle scenes than it is for illustrators. 
So I vote against using reenactors more in Ancient Warfare Magazine. - pcaravel</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:33:35 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Textiles</title>
			<link>http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/magazine/jasper-oorthuys/126-using-more-reenactors.html#comment-51</link>
			<description>In general I like your idea. However, most textiles displayed by reenectors do not match what can be achieved in a drawing - So this would be the only resentment I have. If you find reenactors with textile reconstructions or reproductions, go ahead.  :) - caiustarquitius</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:29:05 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

