07-24-2007, 12:57 PM
Having spent many years researching this topic there is far more evidence on tunic colour than Paul 'Crispus' implies in his post. The problem in trying to summarise the evidence available for a RAT post is that you can become selective only telling part of the story which in turn can sometimes unintentionally mislead others.
While I agree with most of what Paul has written there are some of his statements which I feel fall into the latter category. Although not basically incorrect it is what is left out that is important. While trying not to be selective myself I have therefore added to what he has written and hopefully given a broader picture.
Most of these references are to generals cloaks. As these would be large pieces of fabric, (probably much larger than those used by re-enactors )the fact that they were coloured usually purple immediately identified the status of the individual to the reader.
This is quite true. However the evidence for green and blue tunics is almost negligible compared with the evidence for red and white tunics which appear consistently throughout the Roman period. When green and blue tunic colours do occur they can be associated with either specific functions such as hunting or units like the naval forces. Salmon pink is presented here as a different colour but any red shade from salmon pink through orange, russet brown to a dark red can be achieved by using madder dye. It would depend on how long the wool had been dyed which in turn would effect the cost. A bright scarlet colour dyed from the kermes would be very expensive and that is why we see it used for officer's cloaks.
Lists of clothing and equipment for soldiers such as those in the Historia Augusta do mention a military tunic colour.
Accounts of the Christian military martyrs also describe the same punishment by stripping off both equipment and clothing and they do mention the military colour.
Civilians too can be seen in ancient art wearing tunics hitched up above the waist and red civilian clothing is not unknown either. Therefore I think the military status is implied here by them wearing both belts and good quality clothing whatever the colour.
Some other issues were raised.
This is far from certain and is based largely on interpretations of some of the sculptures of soldiers tombstones such as the broken stele from Cassaco in Northern Italy. However a recently discovered tablet from Vindolanda refers to the repair of a ventralem so it is possible this item was a part of the military kit. Pliny Nat Hist book VIII 193 mentions a ventralis which he describes as a money belt. As the rectangular object seen on soldiers tombstones possibly tucked into a waistband has often been identified as a purse this would seem to reinforce the idea that waistbands were worn. As to size and method of putting them on we can only guess and use analogies with more recent examples such as those used by the French Foreign Legion. I believe one re-enactor has suggested the scarf doubled up as the waistband when it was not used under armour. However the Vindolanda tablet refers to a ventralem not a focale. In addition a mosaic from Apamea in Syria shows a hunter wearing a red tunic with both a white scarf and a waistband.
Not true. Cotton goods were imported into the empire from India via Egypt and was also grown itself both in Egypt and other parts of North Africa. As such it would then be traded throughout the empire but naturally would get more expensive the further it went. Cotton clothing remains from the Roman period have even been found in Britain. The fact that cotton does not survive very well also adds to it's rarity.
Before being accused of being selective myself, all the comments above are supported by much more evidence which can be found in the three volumes of Roman Military Clothing and with revisions and updates in four new forthcoming books. So you can see there is far too much material to be covered by a single post here. I hope the evidence presented there is not seen as biased in anyway and the reader will by and large be left to make up their own minds. I would not like to think that I was
Finally, Jim can you post me a better quality picture of your tunic?
Graham.
While I agree with most of what Paul has written there are some of his statements which I feel fall into the latter category. Although not basically incorrect it is what is left out that is important. While trying not to be selective myself I have therefore added to what he has written and hopefully given a broader picture.
Quote:The fact is however that most of the surviving literary references to the colour of military clothing refer to cloak colour rather than tunic colour
Most of these references are to generals cloaks. As these would be large pieces of fabric, (probably much larger than those used by re-enactors )the fact that they were coloured usually purple immediately identified the status of the individual to the reader.
Quote:representations of tunics in frescos show a variety of colours and shades. Yes, red and white are both there, but so is salmon pink, green and pale blue.
This is quite true. However the evidence for green and blue tunics is almost negligible compared with the evidence for red and white tunics which appear consistently throughout the Roman period. When green and blue tunic colours do occur they can be associated with either specific functions such as hunting or units like the naval forces. Salmon pink is presented here as a different colour but any red shade from salmon pink through orange, russet brown to a dark red can be achieved by using madder dye. It would depend on how long the wool had been dyed which in turn would effect the cost. A bright scarlet colour dyed from the kermes would be very expensive and that is why we see it used for officer's cloaks.
Quote:Significantly the ancient authors who tell us most about the equipment of the individual soldier do not even bother to mention tunic colour
Lists of clothing and equipment for soldiers such as those in the Historia Augusta do mention a military tunic colour.
Quote:Tunic colour's possible lack of importance is further demonstrated by a mention by the biographer Suetonius of a punishment laid down by Augustus for soldiers who had committed minor offences: to be made to stand outside the headquarters building without their belts, which would deprive them of any sign of a military identity.
Accounts of the Christian military martyrs also describe the same punishment by stripping off both equipment and clothing and they do mention the military colour.
Quote:Known signs of military identity were the military belt and the tunic which had been hitched up above the knees. If the soldiers wore a 'military' colour tunic they would still have been left with a symbol of their military identity.
Civilians too can be seen in ancient art wearing tunics hitched up above the waist and red civilian clothing is not unknown either. Therefore I think the military status is implied here by them wearing both belts and good quality clothing whatever the colour.
Some other issues were raised.
Quote:I've heard that instead of a belt a long waistband (a fascia ventralis) was used. May be you can give me some clue about its measurements and the way it was put on.
This is far from certain and is based largely on interpretations of some of the sculptures of soldiers tombstones such as the broken stele from Cassaco in Northern Italy. However a recently discovered tablet from Vindolanda refers to the repair of a ventralem so it is possible this item was a part of the military kit. Pliny Nat Hist book VIII 193 mentions a ventralis which he describes as a money belt. As the rectangular object seen on soldiers tombstones possibly tucked into a waistband has often been identified as a purse this would seem to reinforce the idea that waistbands were worn. As to size and method of putting them on we can only guess and use analogies with more recent examples such as those used by the French Foreign Legion. I believe one re-enactor has suggested the scarf doubled up as the waistband when it was not used under armour. However the Vindolanda tablet refers to a ventralem not a focale. In addition a mosaic from Apamea in Syria shows a hunter wearing a red tunic with both a white scarf and a waistband.
Quote:BTW, any ideas as to why cotton didn't find its way into Europe before the Arab invasion.
Not true. Cotton goods were imported into the empire from India via Egypt and was also grown itself both in Egypt and other parts of North Africa. As such it would then be traded throughout the empire but naturally would get more expensive the further it went. Cotton clothing remains from the Roman period have even been found in Britain. The fact that cotton does not survive very well also adds to it's rarity.
Before being accused of being selective myself, all the comments above are supported by much more evidence which can be found in the three volumes of Roman Military Clothing and with revisions and updates in four new forthcoming books. So you can see there is far too much material to be covered by a single post here. I hope the evidence presented there is not seen as biased in anyway and the reader will by and large be left to make up their own minds. I would not like to think that I was
Quote:entrenched and inflexible.
Finally, Jim can you post me a better quality picture of your tunic?
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
