02-14-2013, 07:19 PM
Many things have been said here that I find interesting since I too have been thinking about covering up in the winter. So for feet
there is a consensus that socks would have been worn in cold weather although there are only a few pairs found in Egypt that exist as evidence that
during the Roman period allowing for the argument that therefore the Romans wore or could have worn socks? Then there is the
sculpture that shows that open toe and open heel sock. So together this makes up the whole evidence for socks?
Suppose that the above did not exist it would be comepletely absurd to suggest that in snow or icy conditions the Romans wore
nothing on their feet. Frost bite anyone? Evidence is ALWAYS important but in the absence of evidence logical departures are
very plausible. You do not need evidence for every single thing. Extrapolation from what exists not only as evidence but also as
logical from a human point of view goes a long way.
In the end what are pants and socks? Coverings for the lower extremities. If you wrap a cloth to cover your foot, you can call this
a sock_no?
As far as trousers are concerned, the consensus is that in the early to mid 1st C AD the Roman legionary wore none BUT if it was cold
they would wrap their legs in some cloth material....possibly cutting up an old tunic? Just asking since I did not get a clear
understanding if this is the consensus.
The trousers.....now if Romans were in a cold climate and the people there had trousers that are far easier to put on then wrapping
your legs and securing them with something to avoid them slipping off, why not adopt it? So the evidence suggests the Romans
did not wear trousers in the earlier period, granted. How about logic? Do we throw it away?
Many times we look at sculpture and just throw it away because it is artistic lisence. Other times we keep it sacred. So really
we are not going on evidence, we are going on what we like. Trajan's column is no good for segmentata because as sculpted it does
not represent what has been found. However, trousers and I know one or two pairs have been found are acceptable evidence from the
column.
there is a consensus that socks would have been worn in cold weather although there are only a few pairs found in Egypt that exist as evidence that
during the Roman period allowing for the argument that therefore the Romans wore or could have worn socks? Then there is the
sculpture that shows that open toe and open heel sock. So together this makes up the whole evidence for socks?
Suppose that the above did not exist it would be comepletely absurd to suggest that in snow or icy conditions the Romans wore
nothing on their feet. Frost bite anyone? Evidence is ALWAYS important but in the absence of evidence logical departures are
very plausible. You do not need evidence for every single thing. Extrapolation from what exists not only as evidence but also as
logical from a human point of view goes a long way.
In the end what are pants and socks? Coverings for the lower extremities. If you wrap a cloth to cover your foot, you can call this
a sock_no?
As far as trousers are concerned, the consensus is that in the early to mid 1st C AD the Roman legionary wore none BUT if it was cold
they would wrap their legs in some cloth material....possibly cutting up an old tunic? Just asking since I did not get a clear
understanding if this is the consensus.
The trousers.....now if Romans were in a cold climate and the people there had trousers that are far easier to put on then wrapping
your legs and securing them with something to avoid them slipping off, why not adopt it? So the evidence suggests the Romans
did not wear trousers in the earlier period, granted. How about logic? Do we throw it away?
Many times we look at sculpture and just throw it away because it is artistic lisence. Other times we keep it sacred. So really
we are not going on evidence, we are going on what we like. Trajan's column is no good for segmentata because as sculpted it does
not represent what has been found. However, trousers and I know one or two pairs have been found are acceptable evidence from the
column.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Paolo
