02-08-2011, 07:04 PM
Hey,
My tunics are made with no arms, but just holes in a square of material when the garment is laid flat. In terms of looking at comparative sources, this is most likely the way an everyday military tunic was worn. The garment is very wide however: the known examples that Graham has documented from his large body of work suggest that the average width of one of these tunics would have been between 1.2 and 1.5m wide when laid flat - the length would actually have been shorter than the width which when worn under armour, would have given the impression that they may have had sleeves - but my preference is for some kind of pleating or bunching with fibula when the tunic was worn without sub/armours etc.
[attachment=143]IMGP0830.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=144]IMGP0836.JPG[/attachment]
My tunics are made with no arms, but just holes in a square of material when the garment is laid flat. In terms of looking at comparative sources, this is most likely the way an everyday military tunic was worn. The garment is very wide however: the known examples that Graham has documented from his large body of work suggest that the average width of one of these tunics would have been between 1.2 and 1.5m wide when laid flat - the length would actually have been shorter than the width which when worn under armour, would have given the impression that they may have had sleeves - but my preference is for some kind of pleating or bunching with fibula when the tunic was worn without sub/armours etc.
[attachment=143]IMGP0830.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=144]IMGP0836.JPG[/attachment]
Claire Marshall
General Layabout
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.plateau-imprints.co.uk">www.plateau-imprints.co.uk
General Layabout
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.plateau-imprints.co.uk">www.plateau-imprints.co.uk
