Camp

[Lucius Galerius Falconius]

For the sake of reenactment when legionaries are in camp not doing drill,s just hanging out after a battle or whenever what do they wear?

Tunics or full armor?

[Neuraleanus]

Soldiers, milites, were not allowed to wear armor while in the city of Rome. I assume that similiar rules applied to other urbes. They would be recognized however by three items of apparel, their distinctive boots, for the 1st centuries BC and AD, caligae, the scarf, the focale, and by their belt with the apron, the balteus. Military tunics were also shorter than those of civilians.

[Magnus]

He was talking about camp I believe, not Rome itself :wink: . Chances are Nick they wore whatever was comfortable, depending on whether or not they had duties to perform that night.

[M. Demetrius]

I've concluded they'd wear appropriate weather gear (sagum/paenula/lacerna) over their tunic, but always balteus and gladius. Probably not helmets or armor unless there was immediate danger of attack.

Does that make sense?

Odds are, though, there wasn't a lot of lounging around time. There were tasks to do, grain to grind, wall/gate maintenance, gear and equipment to mend and polish, same as any professional military anywhere.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would imagine those on guard duty would keep armour on, those off duty would be able to remove it and , in relative terms, chill, dude!
(for a more precise translation of 'chill', see Demetrius' post above.... :lol: )

[Hibernicus]

For the sake of reenactment when legionaries are in camp not doing drill,s just hanging out after a battle or whenever what do they wear?

We establish a schedule.

Most stay in armor all day as there are generally a large variety of soldiering activities.

Some soldiers must stay in armor as they are on guard duty.

Others get "leave" and may change into "civies".. since we do north Britain that often means local made tunics and pants... When on other duties that do not require armor standard soldier clothes is the rule.

[Marcus Julius]

I remember seeing a carving on which soldiers were doing work such as mortaring a wall in armor. Whether or not this is the artist just wanting to make it obvious that it was soldiers doing the work, or if soldiers actually worked in the armor is of course modern speculation. My memory keeps leaning toward this being something of constructing Hadrian's wall.

If it is a truthful representation, it's also possible that policies would have changed once they had the relative safety of the wall after completion, too.

[M. Demetrius]

When building under possible attack from enemies, it seems logical to work in armor, don't you think? We all need to keep in mind that they weren't reenacting, they were working to stay alive.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find some of the soldiers keeping watch, most of the soldiers working, but all in armor.

[Kate Gilliver]

Marcus, you're maybe thinking of Trajan's Column which has plenty of scenes of soldiers doing things like entrenching, foraging and other work all in armour, though not always wearing helmets, which are sometimes shown nearby in case of emergency, placed on top of their pila which are stuck in the ground, and with scuta standing up beside them. Sorry, I can't find a good image online (the Stoa Trajan's Column site isn't cooperating this morning).
The soldiers are clearly working in hostile territory here though, so I guess what you do in re-enactment depends on whether your scenario is hostile territory or lounging around back at the fortress with no enemy anywhere in sight!

[Paullus Scipio]

If you want to see some legionaries in out-of-battle gear, have a look at the 'Adamklissi' thread, which shows Praetorians, possibly on guard duty ( no helmets or armour ) and the 'test' metope I put up showing legionaries on the march ( again no helmets or armour) - in contrast to the column, where I suspect legionaries are always depicted in armour, and only segmentata at that, purely for identification purposes.....

[sulla felix]

Soldiers, milites, were not allowed to wear armor while in the city of Rome

This is something I have heard quoted a lot on the site - is this an actual written law that has survived or is it just an "assumed" custom?

[Carlton Bach]

Soldiers, milites, were not allowed to wear armor while in the city of Rome

This is something I have heard quoted a lot on the site - is this an actual written law that has survived or is it just an "assumed" custom?

From what I've found it seems there was never a specific law that stated 'no military gear inside the city', but rather a Republican legal tradition that made soldiers inside both impractical and offensive. Basically, a military command (imperium) only applies *outside* the pomerius, the sacral boundary of the city. Once a holder of imperium entered the city, it lapsed. That is also why the centuriate assembly (comitia centuriata) in which the Roman people gather in their traditional military formations take place outside the pomerium and returning generals do not enter the city until their triumph (which had to be specifically approved according to Livy 45,35,4). I know of no legal source preserving the original law (it is likely to be very old), but Cassius Dio notes exceptions to the rule made for various Late Republic strongmen (Pompey, Caesar, Augustus and Tiberius). Augstus' imperium also had to be made pomerium-proof.

Traditionally, soldiers in a triumph would not wear military gear.

Altogether I don't think an individual soldier walking in to see his mother while wearing armour would be arrested for blasphemy, but the Roman tradition frowned on armed formations inside the city. We have evidence (merntions in satirical writing) that soldiers in Rome (praetorians, urbani, vigiles, equites singulares and classiarii - though it's not clear which ones are meant) wore military boots and probably swords, but the mention of 'cohortes togatae' suggests that they were not armoured or in battle gear while on duty.

[sulla felix]

Interesting and thanks for the detailed response. (Guess it is just one of those many "factoids" that get quoted endlessly!)

In that case does this mean that returning legions (preparing for a trumph for example), would have to camp outside the pomerium and then leave all their armour etc. there when entering the city/crossing the pomerium? Just how close to the city would this have been?

[Carlton Bach]

Interesting and thanks for the detailed response. (Guess it is just one of those many "factoids" that get quoted endlessly!)

In that case does this mean that returning legions (preparing for a trumph for example), would have to camp outside the pomerium and then leave all their armour etc. there when entering the city/crossing the pomerium? Just how close to the city would this have been?

I'm guessing wherever practical, but the Campus Martius offers itself. It was outside the pomerium, the centuriate assembly met there and it has traditional associations with martial virtue.

Mind you, a returning general was not normally supposed to bring his army into Italy without the Senate's permission.

[Gaius]

Not only a magistrate with active imperium was not allowed to trespass the sacred pomerium, but even the Senate used the Temple of Bellona, outside the pomerium, to discuss about war, and to declare it.