Hamata covers? Graham Sumner question??

[Marcus Mummius]

Perhaps roman soldiers didn't mind looking like michelinmen? I know I wouldn't mind if it could save my life on the batllefield. Perhaps a lot of today's reenactors are too much concerned by looking cool in their kit...

[Susanna]

Yes, I agree.

But I also ment it in the way of still be able to move in an aceptable way.
:wink:

[Marcus Mummius]

Yes, I agree.

But I also ment it in the way of still be able to move in an aceptable way.
:wink:

That would indeed be nice lol

[drsrob]

[...]
Another point which my comrade and colleague Caballo pointed out was the article of clothing described in Vindolanda tablet TAB. II 196. A "Subpaenula" or undercloak. Why there would be a requirement for an undercloak is questionable even for the climate of Northumberland! Caballo suggested that the subpaenula could be something similar to the garment in question here.

there's good old Firmus of Cohors Raetorum, wearing underneath his paenula, his 'subpaenula'(?) and the other unnamed soldier also wears his under either a paenula or sagum.

To resurrect an old thread referred to today ...
I think the fact that they are worn underneath a cloak is a good indication to what they were.
If you review all other steles you'll notice that full cloaks are only depicted over tunics and never over armour. The only cloak combined with armour is the paludamentum. Even signifers with armour are depicted with the bearskin draped over the left shoulder in the same fashion as the paludamentum.

The fact that this jerkin is always combined with a cloak therefore strongly suggests that no armour was worn underneath. Significantly the only signifer that does wear the bearskin over the head and both shoulders has exactly such a jerkin.

I'm therefore of the opinion that the lower border represents some kind of fringe.

[Tarbicus]

I just wanted to throw something different into the mix before the thought leaves my head, while not ignoring Rob's point.

What if they're something like the Wisby coat of plates - armour plates contained within a leather garment? Clearly a different garment here, but worth a mention I thought.

http://www.armourarchive.org/patterns/wisby_cop/

http://therionarms.com/reenact/com222.html

Same principal as a seg, but the leathers are bigger and on the outside :?

Added: Going back to Rob's point, the "Wisby" type wouldn't tear or damage a paenula.

[drsrob]

Added: Going back to Rob's point, the "Wisby" type wouldn't tear or damage a paenula.

Actually, that's not my point.

It is imo a matter of dress code. a soldier in just a tunic is not fully dressed. Dressed for peace he would have to add a cloak of some kind, dressed for war he would add armour. The two apparently are never combined (at least in sculpture).

[Chuck Russell]

maybe its a mail silencer keeps the cold out and the noise down hehehe.

[Luca]

I've read these posts only today.

Images for Jasper:

http://www.romanhideout.com/images/tr/e ... esus38.asp

click buttons to see all the others.

[Peroni]

Thanks for the photo link Luca.

I think that what is seen on the central figure could be a simplified sculpted rendition of maile, not a fabric cover. It would seem strange to have the shoulder-doubling on the outside of a cover.

I like the fringed edge at the bottom hem. It looks just like the ones at the start of this thread. Maybe a subarmalis fringing? If that is the case, then what we see on those photos from the Rhineland that I posted would suggest that it is maile that was painted, NOT a leather or fabric cover!

Laudes for the link!

[Praefectusclassis]

Yay! Luca went there too, now there's a replacement for my lost photos!