RomanArmyTalk

Must be the most accurate Republican impression, ever.... not a peep! :lol:

Very nice Republican impression, nice to see more people getting into that phase of Roman history. Who made the shield? About how much does it weigh?

Ahh, hello!

Thanks, it's been on the back burner for several years.
I got side tracked by a foray into later period and started a viking impression.
This should have been given higher priority, but not a lot of republican provenance in Briton apart from Caesars period.
I believe the scutum is from DSC. Weight wise, hefty, but I haven't weighed it.

Quote:Ahh, hello!

Thanks, it's been on the back burner for several years.
I got side tracked by a foray into later period and started a viking impression.
This should have been given higher priority, but not a lot of republican provenance in Briton apart from Caesars period.
I believe the scutum is from DSC. Weight wise, hefty, but I haven't weighed it.

Found it. Is that scutum constructed to historical standards?

It''s modern ply, covered in felt and linen. Pretty good approximation.

"Must be the most accurate Republican impression, ever.... not a peep! "

You know where I'm going with this, my friend.

Peep Peep Peep then - TROUSERS?

The Persians wore trousers - the Romans didn't feel the need to copy them. The Gauls who sacked Rome in 390BC wore trousers - the Romans didn't feel the need to copy them. It's a fairly safe bet that a lot of the Cimbri and Teutones wore trousers - the Romans didn't feel the need to copy them. Why then would you be wearing trousers? To protect you from the cold - no - if you were a Roman you would wear an extra tunic, some socks and some lower leg coverings. Because too many people in the modern world can't conceive of staying warm without clinging to trousers? From where I see it - yes.

It's an excellent late Republican impression up to that point - get rid of the unnecessary and inaccurate trousers and it will be as close to perfect as you can get. :-)

Sorry not to be 100% complimentary, but if it's wrong it should be pointed out, particularly when everything else is so good.

Crispvs

Well done Crispus!
Yes you could use those arguments. However, the periods and events you mention are before the Romans moved further north into Europe, and Briton.
While there may be no triumphal evidence for the wearing of Bacchae or feminalia until Trajans column, it is not too far of a stretch to believe that they would have taken to them before then, especial during a ten year period in colder climates.
The Romans were very good at adapting to other cultures technology and fashions. They may have had an official line espousing the effeminate trouser wearers... They also mocked the Greeks in a big way, Yet they took to their cultural habits with gusto....

And what about the boots? Aren't calceus dated later, to the 1st c AD. Wouldn't caligae be more accurate?

Ha ha! Well spotted! Yes, I would have prefered to wear them, but as the grass area was covered in stinging nettles, I passed. This was a small event, and any discrepancies in kit can be easily explained. Also my best fit ting caligae have Leprevo hobnails, not sharp ones, which are much safer to wear on all surfaces. So, I took the easy option!
But well spotted lads!

Quote:And what about the boots? Aren't calceus dated later, to the 1st c AD. Wouldn't caligae be more accurate?

Much earlier, closed toe boots like the calceus date back to the 4th c. BC. The caligae that seems to have become more prevalent in the Late Republic and early Principate.

I've asked before for the earliest dates of caligae being used among Roman common soldiers but never got an answer.

You are right Bryan, closed boots were used before the 1st c BC. And open sandals in the Greek fashion probably too. Looking at Etruscan cinerary urns dating to the 3rd and 2nd c BC, you can see both open and closed shoes.
As far as i know, the earlier caligae known are the Comacchio ones, from late 1st c BC. And i've read somewhere (Sumner?) that caligae are cited by Cicero, so they were in fashion at least around 50 BC.

"Yes you could use those arguments. However, the periods and events you mention are before the Romans moved further north into Europe, and Briton."

Ah yes - my mistake: how could I have forgotten to include the fact that according to the evidence of the Vindolanda tablets, the Roman soldiers weren't wearing them in the north of Britain in the late first century AD either. :wink:

In fact, there is evidence for soldiers wearing trousers during the mid first century AD in northern Europe, but you are still out of luck there, unless you want to mount up and be a cavalryman. The earliest evidence for infantry in femenalia is still the Adamklissi metopes, and even there, only a single metope (out of 54) shows infantry in trousers, which might suggest that they were still fairly uncommon. That means you have about 150 years still to explain away.
As for aping Greek fashion, if my memory serves me correctly, the Greeks thought of trousers as being a touch effeminate.
Also, we might bear in mind (and here I might make some small reference to your own former abode) that at a more recent and much colder period in history, unnumbered generations of Scotsmen were happy to live an outdoor life without trousers.

I'm afraid your own argument is looking pretty thin, my good friend. Must try harder! To misquote Mike Bishop slightly: you know my method - it starts with the evidence and works outwards from there. It does not start with assumption and work inwards from there. :wink:


On the matter of caligae, as far as I know, there is no direct evidence for them or any other Roman military footwear any earlier than the above mentioned Commaccio evidence. The Aemillius Paulus monument is too damaged to retain evidence of footwear, the Orsova reliefs are too worn, and the reliefs from the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus appear to show the soldiers barefoot, whatever painted detail which might once have existed having long since worn off. ad:

Crispvs

Crispus, something I have noted about the expert opinion of the moment is, it is usually proven wrong.
I think my argument that the using of imagery should not be used as evidence of dating of any equipment is pretty valid..
If anything it should be used to show the hanging on of official attitudes.

"The Aemillius Paulus monument is too damaged to retain evidence of footwear, the Orsova reliefs are too worn, and the reliefs from the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus appear to show the soldiers barefoot, whatever painted detail which might once have existed having long since worn off."

I think in the near future much of our ideas of how colorful, or not, the clothing worn by the Roman legions were will undergo major change as new technologies are allowing us to see the tiniest bits of ancient paint on these types of monuments. Already studied Greek statuary has caused a radical shift in how we believe the ancient Greeks looked, or at least how they were presented in artistic depictions, as very vibrant colors seem to have been common.

"something I have noted about the expert opinion of the moment is, it is usually proven wrong."

Well yes - sometimes this is true, but until such time as new evidence turns up to change a picture we have to go with what the present state of the evidence tells us. There is also no guarantee that the known level of evidence for a thing does not inform us of the actual historical state of that thing. Some pictures may already be complete and therefore no new evidence will turn up - we just don't know which things we may already have a complete picture of. I think what you are doing here is making the assumption that trouser wearing infantry must have existed during the late republic and early empire and that the evidence has simply yet to show up. I simply make no assumption that that was the case but do remain open to any new evidence which may one day turn up.

"I think my argument that the using of imagery should not be used as evidence of dating of any equipment is pretty valid.."

What imagery in sculpture can do in this case is to give us a terminus ante quem. Although that is not a conclusive thing, it is nonetheless valuable, especially when it is considered against the evidence for clothing demonstrated by the Vindolanda tablets, which come from only a few years before. All manner of clothing is mentioned in the Vindolanda material, but there is not a single reference to trousers of any sort amongst the gifts, orders and requests represented there. This gives us a probable terminus post quem. This would helpfully suggest then, that infantry in colder climates started adopting trousers at some time between these two points in time. It follows then that the wearing of trousers by re-enactors portraying infantry of periods before the AD90s is contrary to the present state of the evidence and is thus inaccurate.

"If anything it should be used to show the hanging on of official attitudes.
"

What are these "official attitudes" you mention? The only ones I know of are where and when you were supposed to wear a toga, what colour you were permitted to use for a stripe along its edge and how wide this and the clavi on your tunic were allowed to be.

The attitudes you are talking about are cultural attitudes which have little or nothing to do with anything official. Incidentally, I suspect you are displaying a cultural attitude yourself. :wink:

Crispvs