03-07-2002, 12:10 PM
Someone mentioned Wellington's army and I think the comparison worthy of study. During the napoleonic wars, differences between regiments were more often than not very small: the color of the cuffs and collars, the shape and color of helmet crests for the cavalry and so on. For instance, the difference between french line grenadiers (close order) and "chasseurs" (open order) was a small copper flaming grenade sewn on their coattails for the former and a small copper hunting horn for the latter. Besides that, there was no difference. I suspect it was the same in the roman imperial army: When not in battle dress soldiers from different regiments could probably be identified by small details, such as the style of their belts or the decoration of their daggers. Finds from different parts of the Empire show that the standard military belt and buckle for instance, while outwardly similar, has marked stylistic differences reflecting local traditions and tastes.<br>
BTW, three cheers for the new Deepeka pugio and belt. Very colorful and rightly so. Before the advent of the machine gun and the camouflage, all soldiers were very colorful and very elegant. Romans were no different.<br>
No one really knows about whether tunics were red or white or off-white during the principate. However I believe there was a dominant color in the roman army (e.g. blue for the french, red for the british, white for the Austrans and so on, during the Napo.wars) and I think it was red. A vexillum flag from Egypt is red, the scutum shield from Dura is red, and red is the color of the enamel decorating some legionary helmets.<br>
It may not have been the regulation color of the tunics but red certainly was prominent.<br>
What's also certain is that at some point late in the principate decorative patches and stripes were added on the shoulders hems and cuffs of the garments. The Piazza Armerina mosaics show that the majority were off-white or yellowish color. The tradition persisted for several centuries in the Byzantine Empire.<br>
And as far as recognizing a unit from a distance, soldiers of those days could actually tell by the shape of the dust cloud whether a unit approaching was infantry or cavalry. The dust rose differently..<br>
But anyways, what strikes me as odd is that uniform was known for the civilians, in a way. Black worn for mourning, special shoes for senators, narrow stripe or broad stripe on the garments and so on. The Romans loved uniformity, long rows of similar columns, straight lines and clearly defined things. They'd put labels on everything so much so that the tabula ansata (the roman Post-it..) became a simple ornamental design.<br>
I can't reconcile this way of thinking with an army lacking a uniform of some kind, or at least a system allowing quick identification (e.g. legion and rank) of a particular soldier.<br>
Now, in order not to put our hopes too high I'd like to mention that heated debates are going on right now about details of the uniforms of some WWII units. And we have films, photos and live witnesses for that one... <p></p><i></i>
BTW, three cheers for the new Deepeka pugio and belt. Very colorful and rightly so. Before the advent of the machine gun and the camouflage, all soldiers were very colorful and very elegant. Romans were no different.<br>
No one really knows about whether tunics were red or white or off-white during the principate. However I believe there was a dominant color in the roman army (e.g. blue for the french, red for the british, white for the Austrans and so on, during the Napo.wars) and I think it was red. A vexillum flag from Egypt is red, the scutum shield from Dura is red, and red is the color of the enamel decorating some legionary helmets.<br>
It may not have been the regulation color of the tunics but red certainly was prominent.<br>
What's also certain is that at some point late in the principate decorative patches and stripes were added on the shoulders hems and cuffs of the garments. The Piazza Armerina mosaics show that the majority were off-white or yellowish color. The tradition persisted for several centuries in the Byzantine Empire.<br>
And as far as recognizing a unit from a distance, soldiers of those days could actually tell by the shape of the dust cloud whether a unit approaching was infantry or cavalry. The dust rose differently..<br>
But anyways, what strikes me as odd is that uniform was known for the civilians, in a way. Black worn for mourning, special shoes for senators, narrow stripe or broad stripe on the garments and so on. The Romans loved uniformity, long rows of similar columns, straight lines and clearly defined things. They'd put labels on everything so much so that the tabula ansata (the roman Post-it..) became a simple ornamental design.<br>
I can't reconcile this way of thinking with an army lacking a uniform of some kind, or at least a system allowing quick identification (e.g. legion and rank) of a particular soldier.<br>
Now, in order not to put our hopes too high I'd like to mention that heated debates are going on right now about details of the uniforms of some WWII units. And we have films, photos and live witnesses for that one... <p></p><i></i>
