Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - Printable Version

Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: References & Reviews (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 (/showthread.php?tid=1879)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - Robert Vermaat - 05-10-2003

I was pulling your leg 
 
Robert 
 
But, now I'm looking at it more closely..

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - aitor iriarte - 05-11-2003

I supposed you was, Robert! 
 
Aitor

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - richsc - 05-31-2003

I just got my copy yesterday, and the shoe reconstructions are great. The integrally laced shoes are pretty interesting, and he certainly puts them on enough of his illustrations. I also liked the straw hat on the one legionary! Richard Campbell, Legio XX

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - drsrob - 06-23-2003

I got mine too and it's a great read and a clearly well researched and usefull book. Anyone disagreeing with his main conclusions would be hard put to disprove him. 
 
There are some details I disagree with though. 
Sumner says that there is only one first century gravestone that shows a cavalry trooper with long sleeves. However on several others there is some band around the cuff and/or no evidence of a short sleeve. On some that seem to have a short sleeve, there are fringed pteruges and again a band around the wrist. So in my opinion most if not all of the first century cavalrymen had long sleeved tunics. 
The equites singulares may have adopted short sleeved tunics once in Italy, resulting in an absense of long sleeves on Traianic and other Italian sculpture. 
The tunics worn under armour by cavalry troopers seem to have been short and tight (and long sleeved). A gravestone of the signifer Oclatius of the ala Afrorum suggets that they also had normal tunics for dismounted duty. 
 
Sumner suggests that green tunics might have been a distinction of guard units. However there is evidence that saddle cloths were habitually green and the gravestone of Silius, a cavalryman from the ala Picentiana, which was found with it's original paint still present, shows him or his calo, according to a watercolour made at the time, dressed in red, but with a green surcoat between tunic and cloak. 
In the early empire green would more likely have been a distinction of cavalry, rather than guards (praetorians). 
Just possibly this originated with the Greek armour adopted during the republic. On the Alexander mosaic the subject is shown with a green sash, while the rest of his clothing is purple. But this is speculation, I have to admit. 
 
I don't think though that the single painting of an armoured man from Nero's Palace in a green tunic is enough proof that the praetorians wore green, because it's in no way certain that it actually was a praetorian. The classical Greek equipment makes it more likely that it was to represent a god. 
 
Some additional speculation... 
I recall having read that certain whites (I believe lead-white) turn very dark over time and I wonder whether the Romans used this colour as well. I'm not sure whether it turns black or dark green, but if it was the latter, could the green of the Neronic figure originally been white? 
 
Another detail that I've noticed is that the NiedermÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶rnter helmet on the Septimian legionary is rendered plain bronze, while actually several parts of it were 'silvered'. To wit, the peak, including the upper side, and the tabula ansata and gamma pannels on the neck guard. Making it possibly a centurion's helmet (see [url=http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=456.topic&start=41&stop=60" target="top]this thread, page 3[/url]) Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - Gaius Decius Aquilius - 06-23-2003

Rob, 
 
Quote: 
"I don't think though that the single painting of an armoured man from Nero's Palace in a green tunic is enough proof that the praetorians wore green, because it's in no way certain that it actually was a praetorian. The classical Greek equipment makes it more likely that it was to represent a god." 
 
I agree, but I am going to throw out a a specuation. Setonius notes about Nero "He had planned an expedition to the Caspian Gates, enroling a new legion of Italian-born recruits, all six feet tall, whom he called "The Phalanx of Alexander the Great". (Nero, 19, Graves translation). I recall a second source that I cannot find, having just skimmed Tacitus with no luck, that I believe states this legion, the I Italica, was armed in the manner of the Macedonians. I know Caracalla pulled this same stunt. The shield device on the Golden House painting has a sunburst design reminicent of ones attribited to Hellenistic armies, and the figure is holding a sarissa like weapon. May this be a representation of the outfit concocted by Nero for the I Italica? Woulden't want Nero's Own looking like the regular riff-raff would we? This dude may be Mars, but the artist still might portray him in the manner the Devine One just decided was the fashon trend for his brainchild, immitation being flattery. Green dye, being expensive, may have appealed to Nero's vanity. The same being true of a gilded lower part of the segmentata. Again, this is specualtion. 
 
Gaius Aquilius

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - drsrob - 06-23-2003

Gaius, 
 
Interesting idea... But Suetonius just says that he called the legion the phalanx of Alexander the Great, not that he equipped them as a phalanx. Note also that Suetonius does not consider this act a folly or crime (see the following sentence, last one of c.19) Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - Gaius Decius Aquilius - 06-23-2003

Rob, 
 
I do recall some mention as to its being equiped "in the manner of the Macadonians", but as I stated, the source eludes me... maybe someone else can remember. 
 
And who among us would think forming a legion would be a folly or a crime? 
 
Gaius

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - Robert Vermaat - 07-03-2003

Well, I finally got mine a few days ago and I've studied it thoroughly. It seems to be a very good companion volume, which finally fills some of the gap left in military studies about the Roman Empire. I am impressed with the reconstructions and the amount of information of the sources. Sumner draws very high quality figures, which belong to the most lifelike I've yet seen. Also, the clothing seems very accurate and does not hang impossibly 'perfect'. Boots are great, like vol. 1. 
 
However, I am disappointed with the choice of the reconstruction drawings, which have always been my favorite part of the Osprey Series. The period which is covered by this volume is Ad 200-400, but especially of the later 4th century there seems to be very little in the book! 
Plate A shows three Emperor, but only early ones (where's Constantine? Or Julian?). 
Plate B has three Germans, which is nice but not very representative for 'Roman military clothing' Even though the association from influence is clear. I'd have liked to see these Germans in real Roman units. 
Plate C I find even worse. Not only are two of the three figures very early for the scope of the volume, the third is a mere folly. Sure, it's nice to see such a reconstruction of a phalangite, but does this really add to the volume? I would have replaced him with one of the trio on plate D (who look very similar), and to have seen more 4th century stuff. 
For this seems to be lacking. More than half of the plates represent the (early) 3rd century, only 9 of the 24 figures are 4th century. Of these 9, most are obscured by a big sagum or a scutum, hiding almost every detail of clavi and cingulae. Almost no sword is shown either. 
The horsemen on plates F and G therefore add absolutely nothing to this volume, I am sorry to say, with only the odd sleeve showing. If Mr Sumner had wanted to show a Late Roman soldier in full battlefield dress, he could have made a better choice from his sources. 
And why is that sorry dude (H3) shown in woman's gown? Another folly, like the phalangite. 
In all, The very rich dress of the 4th century is very underrepresented. 
 
I sure hope, recognising the quality in both volumes which are now published, that a third volume will be added (I've heard rumours) and that some of this (in my view) can be re-dressed (pardon the pun). Honorius? Stilicho? Valentinian III? Aetius, possibly? 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]FECTIO[/url] Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 7/3/03 8:11 am

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - derek forrest - 07-04-2003

Graham has asked me to post this. So far as I am concerned its "better than sex" 
I have been really pleased by some of the interesting and thought provoking comments about both volumes of Roman Military Clothing, which is exactly what I had hoped for. In spite of the potential minefield this subject was, especially with regard to tunic colour, the overwhelming response to both books has been terrific. Thanks also to those among you who have spotted omissions, which can be included in future works. 
 
In reply to some recent postings on Roman Army Talk concerning volume 2, I would like to say the following: 
 
The interpretation of green for Guard tunics does not rest exactly on the single source I depict from NeroÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s Golden House. In fact the most famous representation is on the Mosaic from Ravenna depicting the court of Justinian, continuity perhaps? Sadly this was outside the period covered by the present volume but it is hoped it will feature in a third volume that will cover the period up to the emperor Heraclius. 
 
I have been led to believe by textile historians that green would be a rather expensive colour to produce, which seemed to be supported by the scarcity of evidence for it. Therefore it is not surprising if green tunics would find favour with elite units. Nevertheless a green colour used by other high status troops such as cavalry is equally possible so the depiction of at least two saddlecloths in green could easily fall into this category. 
 
On the figure from the tombstone illustrating the cavalry trooper Silius, or his attendant only the cloak was red. His torso apparently was coloured green when the monument was discovered. The green ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“garmentÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ is interesting, as without the colour this would be interpreted nowadays as an unpainted mail shirt similar to those shown on many other monuments. Perhaps what we have here is actually a green dyed leather subarmilis, but that is speculative. Incidentally this tombstone was one of the sources for a green saddlecloth, the other was the fresco from Luxor. 
 
The three emperors shown in Plate A, were chosen because of the many and varied descriptions of them in the Augustan History. Many of the emperors of this period chose to look like ordinary soldiers. By way of contrast Constantius III was illustrated in Plate H, as he was completely the opposite. 
 
One of the three ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“GermansÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ in Plate B is actually from Palmyra. As it mentions in the text, some Scandinavian scholars argue that the Thorsberg warrior was actually a Roman Auxiliary. Whatever his origin the influence of the costumes worn by all three figures on contemporary Roman clothing is relevant. 
 
I do not think that a date seven years away from the period covered is stretching it too far. The clothing worn by the two figures illustrated from 193 AD in Plate C would not be out of place a few years later and I thought the depiction of a subarmilis would have been a popular choice for re-enactors. I agree that the final figure in Plate C is pure folly but the folly of Caracalla and so worthy of inclusion for that very reason. 
 
The fact that the three figures in Plate D do look similar is exactly the point I was trying to make. Whatever figure I had chosen to illustrate from this period, be it Praetorian, Legionary or Signifer they would have looked almost the same. The standardisation of uniforms and equipment at this date is remarkable. Even more remarkable is how the early third century tends to be overlooked by both historians and re-enactors, which is why I devoted a lot of space to it. 
 
I am amused that in spite of the fact that the books are specifically on clothing, that there are people who complain if cloaks obscure weapons and equipment! For this reason I also tried to avoid armoured soldiers especially if they had shields. Therefore although the two cavalrymen in Plates F&G fit a particular theme within the plates, perhaps with hindsight they were not the best choices and I agree that other subjects might have been better. 
 
Some of the latter figures in the book were based directly on ancient sources including the pose. The ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“sorry dudeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ in Plate H carries on the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“punished soldierÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ theme that was popular in volume 1 and what more appropriate punishment could there be in a book about clothing! 
 
Finally please keep the comments coming and any suggestions, references or subjects for inclusion in future volumes would be particularly welcome.

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - derek forrest - 07-04-2003

Graham is not claiming it is better than sex . I am but if I were being totally truthful I would have to qualify with an "almost".

romanmilitaryclothing - Anonymous - 07-04-2003

just finished reading my copy, congratulations to Mr Sumner on such an objective account to a very passionately debated subject. In particular i admire his putting much more value on actual evidence than dubious practical arguments and shaky historical parallels usually banged out in other accounts. 
 
Does Graham know of any more specific publication on the camomile street soldier, (apart from the 1880s account by Price.) i think i have come across an as yet unrecognised almost unpublished parallel. 
 
Finally as an aside, i'd love to know who all his figures are based on, i've spotted a good four or five familiar reenactment faces already!! 
 
Tim Edwards.

Re: romanmilitaryclothing - mcbishop - 07-04-2003

Does Graham know of any more specific publication on the camomile street soldier, (apart from the 1880s account by Price.) i think i have come across an as yet unrecognised almost unpublished parallel. 
 
Bishop, M.C. 1983b: 'The Camomile Street soldier reconsidered', Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 34, 31-48 
 
Known to all his friends as Fred (as is the stuffed soldier at Corbridge, curiously). 
 
Mike Bishop

Re: Roman Military Clothing Vol 2 - Robert Vermaat - 07-04-2003

Hi Derek, 
I'm not sure where your comment ends and Graham's starts, so I'll address the message as if made by one person. (anyway, better than sex? ? The books are good, but that good?) 
 
Normally, I'm not (that much of) a nitpicker, but you've misread my review and criticism of part 2 and I need to redress that. My main theme is that, even though the period covered by the book is 200-400 AD, in my view too few examples from the 4th century are shown. this is why I criticised the choice of reconstructions, and called for a 'less of this, more of that'. 
For instance, plate B, the Germans. I know the Thorsberg one is claimed to have been in Roman service, but the plate does hardly show that. I'm sorry I lumped the one from Palmyra together with the Germans. 
Plate C, then. No, I did not mean it was too early, but two rare examples and an even earlier armoured soldier? My point was that there was no armoured soldier from the later part of the period covered. I understand these choices may be more popular, and I'm sorry you've made choices because of that. You devoted a lot of space to the 3rd century, indeed, which is a good thing, surely! But if that leaves less space for the equally important 4th century, why diminish that even further with Germans and follies? 
 
You may of course have been "amused that in spite of the fact that the books are specifically on clothing, that there are people who complain if cloaks obscure weapons and equipment!", but you've completely missed my point. I did not complain of obscured equipment, but of obscured clothing, which is, after all, what these books are about, right? Aren't orbiculi and clavi part of the clothing? And what about cingulae, fasteners, fibulae? There was no mention of any of these, maybe in a future volume? 
Plates F and G could have shown so much more. Your cloacked or shield-bearing figures could so easily have worn their stuff in a way not obsuring the belts, clavi or orbiculi. Why did they not? I'm glad you agree with me at least up to a point about the cavalrymen. 
 
Well, when I'm nitpicking I may as well make a good job of it:Quote:<hr>By way of contrast Constantius III was illustrated in Plate H<hr> He wasn't. 
Constantius III lived in the early 5th century (r. AD 421), you showed Constantius II (r. AD 337-361). 
 
I'm very much looking forward to volume 3!!! 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 11/26/03 1:10 pm

camomile street soldier. - Anonymous - 07-05-2003

Cheers Mike!, 
thought i remembered something being written more recently. Will be tracking down your article asap! 
 
Tim Edwards.

Re: camomile street soldier. - derek forrest - 07-06-2003

Graham has asked me to post what are his words not mine 
Derek 
 
Dear Robert 
 
Thanks for your comments. No I did not miss your point that I had shown a bias towards the third century, with five to three Plates in favour of the earlier period I cannot dispute it! I am also glad that I did not make that error over Constantius in the book! 
 
Nevertheless I stand by the figures chosen in the earlier Plates. They were not painted simply so they would be popular but because I personally thought they were of interest and which would be of interest to others. As I have said before I believe the early to mid third century has been seriously under-represented in the past. Hopefully this will change with the publication of Simon JamesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ new book on Dura Europos. 
 
Perhaps the Plate, that should have been radically different, was Plate E, although this would have missed the opportunity to show the Vegetian marine. Again with hindsight a reconstruction of the three figures on page 22 might have been a better choice. 
 
You ask why I chose to depict some figures who wore cloaks which obscured other costume details. As I said previously some of the poses were based directly on the ancient sources. If you look at the supporting evidence you can see that what I have shown in my reconstructions is actually what is visible in the original. Also wherever possible I have elected to depict archaeological finds which where also appropriate for the right time and place over interpretations of the source material for such things as belt decorations, swords and scabbards. In that respect the cloak can be a useful but accurate device for sometimes intentionally hiding what I was unsure of. 
 
Deciding on suitable and varied poses can be something of a challenge. As you can appreciate the cloak worn as it was, especially in the fourth century does obscure a lot. If the figure is holding a shield, carrying a spear or wearing armour the problem becomes even worse. The figures have to look and act in a natural way and be believable as well as fitting into the page format. My apologies if sometimes I do not get it right. However I think I deserve some credit for illustrating a different type of brooch on every cloaked figure. 
 
Most of the characters are based as near as possible on the original portraits or are amended to look like them. Some re-enactors, if I feel look the part inevitably creep in. One such person is Derek Forrest who kindly modelled for the tired old veteran. Although I am seriously worried about him if he feels that reading my book is better than sex! Perhaps one of the most famous,or should that be infamous, re-enactors appears as the Centurion of the XXth Legion, which is a clue to his identity if you had not guessed already. 
 
With regards to the effectiveness of the use of shields in hunting which you mention in another thread, have you seen the mosaic from Hippo Regius, Bone, Algeria? In this representation a semi circle of shields in conjunction with nets and firebrands are used to trap lions and leopards. 
 
Thanks again for your comments. At the moment I am struggling with a further set of figures but I hope that many of your criticisms will be ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“re-dressedÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ in any future volumes. If you have anything further to add please post your comments here or contact me directly as I would be happy to hear from you.