RomanArmyTalk

Was browsing through the Vindolanda Tablets online
[url:hijz9twd]http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/[/url]

Tablet 196, found in a kitchen in the Period 3 praetorium, has a reference to white paenula, though there is a question mark about this. The notes also say 'paenulas' could have been an error by the writer, and may have meant it to be 'penulas' (hoods?). Anyone out there with any more knowledge on this? Being in the praetorium, does this make it likely that higher ranking officers wore white cloaks, and are there any other references to white cloaks from other locations?

Cheers.

P.S., I'm not saying other ranks could not wear them, etc.

I'm not sure the difference between paenula and penula would have been all that central to most writers of Latin at the time. Standards of orthography were not what we are used to, and the exact meaning is more likely to be derived from a context we are mostly missing.

But that said, whether they are white hoods or cloaks, I would not be surprised to see either. Bleached wool makes a nice 'low-end-luxury' item and is probably more hard-wearing than dyed. And I am still not sold on the idea that the Roman army standardised the color of any item of clothing.

However, if high-ranking officers wore paenulae I doubt it was as part of formal gear. Their iconography is too 'classical' for that. You have to go some ways to meet the public image.

Quote:And I am still not sold on the idea that the Roman army standardised the color of any item of clothing.

Thanks Carlton. Me neither, though I do think black was a no-no after the reaction of Crassus' troops when he came out wearing it before Carrhae (?).

Quote:However, if high-ranking officers wore paenulae I doubt it was as part of formal gear.

Good point. So, it may have been separate hoods to go with a cloak, or the paenula may have been used in bad weather for everyday ventures into wet weather, perhaps.

Cheers.