As you may or may not know, getting good quality illustrations for our articles is a constant concern for me. Simply put, I can illustrate Roman imperial stuff forever and a day, but when it comes to Roman Republican soldiers, Alexander's troops or, dear me, those wonderfully interesting Successor armies, it's another story.
One possibility would be to use more reenactors to illustrate the magazine. Provided they wear kit that qualifies as an accurate reproduction, this could give the reader a high resolution and detailed view of what soldiers in a certain period looked like. Again, the majority consists of Roman Imperial reenactors, but there are more and more late Romans - not always easy to illustrate - Greeks, Celts and even some Macedonians. I should investigate the availability of Bronze Age reenactors, but I'm prepared for a pleasant surprise.
So what do you think - provided I can get quality photos of quality reproductions - should we use reenactors more or not?
Post a comment below or vote in the poll on the homepage (bottom right).

written by caiustarquitius, June 05, 2008

written by pcaravel, June 06, 2008
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.
written by Vberriz, June 10, 2008
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!







