I have recently received some personal correspondence which may be of interest to fellow readers of these pages. The first was a postcard from Jm. McDaniels, who had been visiting various sites in England including a stop to see the home of Legion XX Valeria Victrix (Chester). He mentioned that he had read my review of the osprey book "Romano-Byzantine Armies". He did not elaborate (difficult on a postcard), but I got the impression that he enjoyed it. Ironically, it was very similar to another review in SLINGSHOT, which was also critical of the content and illustrations.

This is mentioned because there is not much feedback from readers of either SAGA or SLINGSHOT or other similar publications concerning appreciation for the efforts of the writers. Usually, the comments are negative, and thus it was refreshing to get a "well done". However, the point to be made is that we do rely on others to point out the pros and cons of new products before spending the bucks, sometimes quiet a few, on a new addition to the collection. The other review provided additional information on how well received (or not) was this new book. Admitting ignorance of the other reviewers references, it was interesting to note how similar the content of the two columns were despite the distance between writers in terms of residence (Canada and England) and knowledge.

The other correspondence came from a long time friend and fellow gamer, Simon MacDowall. He authored two books on late Romans as well as the "Legioll rules, which have been featured in SAGA articles. Simon has had his second book published by osprey in the Warrior series (his other book is available in the Wargaming in History series from Specter). It was available at HISTORICON 194 and provides a very different interpretation of late Roman soldiers compared to the other Osprey title mentioned above. This is not a lead into a review of the book, but rather another look at research techniques.

Simon Has accepted that the late Roman infantry quote at least before 378 AD, had metal armour in static garrisons, particularly in Egypt, they had it through the 5th and 6th centuries unquote. His source for this information is the article, Late Roman Armour 3rd to 6th C. AD, by J.C.N. Coulstan from Journal of Roman Military Eguipment Studies (1 of 1990). Simon added that he hopes that he has made a strong case in his book, which we shall have to read to verify.

What Jim and Simon share is the experience of visiting sites to see first hand the artifacts that form an important cornerstone of our hobby. It is very interesting to read about these places and things but without the personal experience, they are not truly real. Reading the thoughts of another is a good way to learn (or in modern times, to watch TV or documentaries), and in many cases that is all we can afford to do; however, it is not as satisfying as being there in person.

To read about past events, while actually standing on the battlefield adds to the experience. The written word helps to stimulate the imagination, while the visual impact reinforces the effect of the words. It is much like the story of the farmer from Missouri, who had to see something to believe it.

There is a tendency to believe that which the eye sees rather than the written word. One does have to take into account that the eye can be fooled. However, the study of ancient artifacts that have been validated decreases the likelihood of forgeries. Unfortunately, it is not possible to undo the ravages of time. Many pieces of art, such as wall or column sculptures, have been worn down which means that their detail is missing. often such works were painted (to identify colours and materials used) and without knowing what colours were used, it is impossible to determine the material from which things like armour and cloth were made. The debate over Roman armour has been kept alive because researchers are not sure whether it was metallic or nonmetallic.

The weakness in relying on carvings and other artworks is that the artists did not always use models. This becomes evident by comparing the artifacts recovered near garrison or other military sites with those found in Rome or other cities. The arch of Constantine in Rome is full of inaccuracies because it was done by local artisans to glorify the emperor and not as a model for contemporary military costumes. Personal study and readings were the basis of this opinion. The written commentaries point to the use of other local works as models for this arch, thus some figures are copies from earlier sculptures, in some cases several hundred years apart. By seeing up close and in person this arch, it is easy to understand how and why misconceptions are made.

It is still nice to be able to stand in a place and gain a sense of its history. The experience is further heightened by sharing it with friends, even if your travels occur at different times. one never knows when the memories may prove useful, particularly in this hobby.

On a separate note, I found a discounted copy of a two volume history of the Normans in Italy by Lord J. J. Norwich, while in a local bookstore. I have read some of his material on the Byzantine Empire (from a three volume history) and was impressed by his in-depth writing. His Norman books are also proving to be a good read. This is not a mainstream subject of this writer, but at less than 50 per cent of the cover price, it was a worthwhile addition to the private library.