A few questions from a beginner

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yep, Thorsberg Trousers are Late 5th Century AD.

[Crispianus]

Theres an example of breeches from Egypt(d'Antinoe) dated I believe to the 6-7 cent they look like a shortened version of Thorsberg trousers......they are close fitting with vertical split held by ties behind the knees, quite baggy rear....not unlike the Thorsberg trousers in construction, probably linen....

see "Dress Accessories" page 28 (that article is in french, most of the book is english)

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert I was thinking more in terms of the actual Roman soldiers doing this, although many modern groups ask for donations. In Roman times you would have been the local constabulary and if you read some of the documents from Egypt soldiers adding their own cut to the local taxes is a matter of course. Often this is done on demand from the soldier. So anyone who paid a road tax to go past your turret would also have to give you personally something or else! This practice was so common it appears in local business accounts.

The surviving late Roman helmets are all silvered or gilded are they not?

Agreed with both but the latter has no relation to the former - helmets were manufactured and gilded by the state (by the barbaricarii in the state fabricae) and had nothing to do with the wealth of the soldier.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Again, the Notitia Dignitatum clearly indicates the textile items worn by the soldiers were also manufactured by the state.

I'd imagine displaying your wealth was similar to how it was done in the principate: primarily through your belt decorations and fibula.

[MattR]

Well, I just thought of another question! From what I've seen, most Late Roman reenactors wear the Vindolanda or Zwammerdam-style calcei with the integral laces, but I read something here on the forum yesterday that in the time period I'm shooting for, low shoes were more common, maybe like the Welzheim calcei or campagi? What exactly is the correct footwear for the last 20 years of the 4th century?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Campagi became really popular in the early 5th century, sandals also made a return.

I'd say either Ramshaw or Campagi boots would be best.

(For reference, neither the Vindolanda "Fell" boots nor Zwammerdam pattern boots date to the 4th century, although the latter may have been used up until the time of Constantine).

On the note of boots, what are everyone's thoughts on the sandals from the Santa Maria Maggiore Mosaic?



Some sort of campagi maybe? Legit sandals? Thoughts everyone?

[Robert Vermaat]

Again, the Notitia Dignitatum clearly indicates the textile items worn by the soldiers were also manufactured by the state.

Textile sure but are you saying the highly decorated tunica manicata was also distributed by the ste? Because I doubt that.

[Crispianus]

On the note of boots, what are everyone's thoughts on the sandals from the Santa Maria Maggiore Mosaic?



Some sort of campagi maybe? Legit sandals? Thoughts everyone?

I suspect these are a degraded artistic representation of Hellenistic "Caligi" fairly commonly seen in Roman sculpture...

See Morrow "Greek Footwear and the dating of Sculpture"

[Crispianus]

Well, I just thought of another question! From what I've seen, most Late Roman reenactors wear the Vindolanda or Zwammerdam-style calcei with the integral laces, but I read something here on the forum yesterday that in the time period I'm shooting for, low shoes were more common, maybe like the Welzheim calcei or campagi? What exactly is the correct footwear for the last 20 years of the 4th century?

"Campagni" as short boots or shoes, single piece carbatina style or with separate uppers and thicker nailed soles from Vindolanda, York; Gloucester, and various others
A type of Lace up shoe or boot..... probably similar to finds from Saalburg and York.
And probably "turn shoes" with a separate sole and upper, see various Coptic shoes.

[Graham Sumner]

Graham Sumner wrote:
Robert I was thinking more in terms of the actual Roman soldiers doing this, although many modern groups ask for donations. In Roman times you would have been the local constabulary and if you read some of the documents from Egypt soldiers adding their own cut to the local taxes is a matter of course. Often this is done on demand from the soldier. So anyone who paid a road tax to go past your turret would also have to give you personally something or else! This practice was so common it appears in local business accounts.

The surviving late Roman helmets are all silvered or gilded are they not?

Agreed with both but the latter has no relation to the former - helmets were manufactured and gilded by the state (by the barbaricarii in the state fabricae) and had nothing to do with the wealth of the soldier.

Well it has to do with the state. Either the state issued wealthy equipment to it's soldiers or soldiers themselves further enhanced their gear. In both cases this would reflect on the wealth of the state. The original question was whether ordinary soldiers had wealthy gear or not and I think the implication is that they did.

The ridge helmets too are another item which were once described as cheap mass produced helmets for the poor late Roman infantryman. Do you still ascribe to this theory?

Graham.

[M. Val. Naso]

Actually, late 4th c. ridge helmets were uncovered in Lussonium (Hungary), with no traces of ever holding gold or silver, in any forms. They are of a rather crude form (if you view them from the side, they are more like flat bottom bowls upside down, than ovoid helmet bowls). So on that line I think actually that it is an unsustainable view that all or most helmets were covered in the mentioned metals.

[Robert Vermaat]

They are of a rather crude form (if you view them from the side, they are more like flat bottom bowls upside down, than ovoid helmet bowls).

So maybe these aren't Roman originals to begin with? I mean of course after the Roman West was gone the gilding on helmets vanishes, and even during the Roman period all sorts of helmets, ridge ones or spangen types, had no gilding at all.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well it has to do with the state. Either the state issued wealthy equipment to it's soldiers or soldiers themselves further enhanced their gear. In both cases this would reflect on the wealth of the state. The original question was whether ordinary soldiers had wealthy gear or not and I think the implication is that they did.

The ridge helmets too are another item which were once described as cheap mass produced helmets for the poor late Roman infantryman. Do you still ascribe to this theory?

Agreed - I think all soldiers could own wealthy gear. My point was only that they took better care of it (perhaps - I would!)

Ridge helmets - cheap mass produced - well, not so much as cheap (yes but not 'bad') and fast (to replace lost stocks) and I think in centralised production centres rather than the legionary fabricae? It's still my conviction that the ridge helmets were the answer to the civil wars and the loss in equipment of the 3rd c.

[Dan Howard]

I think all soldiers could own wealthy gear. My point was only that they took better care of it.

This is contrary to the whole concept of conspicuous consumption. It seems alien to us today but it was a common mindset at the time. Wealth was just a tool to increase one's reputation; it wasn't the end game. The idea was to accumulate wealth and then use it up as flamboyantly as possible. The rest was publicly distributed to influential people. The winner wasn't the most wealthy but the one with the best reputation and the most influence. Money wasn't meant to be hoarded but spent as lavishly as possible.

[Robert Vermaat]

Money wasn't meant to be hoarded but spent as lavishly as possible.

I have to disagree (for now).
If you're a soldier who is not rich you take care of what you have. We are talking about soldiers in regions from Egypt to Scotland, each from their own background and in differing circumstances, aren't we? What I did notice is that they very much liked to look good, and accordingly spend money (lavishly, indeed) on their equipment. Now, I do accept (with Graham) that this equipment was taken into battle, not stored away at home or in the tent until the battle was over ('for parades' as was the thinking in the past). What I don't accept (contra Dan) is that everyone apparently flamboyantly spent it lavishly, and uncaringly. That would mean your good stuff is gone, you suddenly do not look as good as your comrades until money comes your way again. If there's some written material on that mindset (which if I understand it correctly was universal during the period we are discussing) I am really interested to learn more about.