First US Roman Marine Re-enactment Unit founded.

[Gaius Colletti]

Are the "leprevo" hobnails the ones that just look like a "nail head" but with texture to them?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No, I didn't fall in Fell's, but I did slip onto my knee and get my brachae dirty!

Yes, they are a flat cone, with texture matt!
Wallked 15kn in rome in them and fortunately did not fall, but slipped a lot on manholes and curbstones. I think Ade will vouche for the small sharp ones being excellent though!

[M. Demetrius]

Yeah, I did that once. Asked Centurio if I could go home and change. Darned if he didn't put me on latrine-digging duty. Again. :?

[garrelt]

Might quit walking and commandeer a chariot. :lol:
Already have the horse.
But serious: with hobnailed shoes watch you step.

[Peroni]

David wrote;

He's wearing something, which goes around the ankle and up from between the toes, but it's really hard to tell exactly what.

Looks exactly like standard sculptural depiction of caligae to me. The front lacing is often shown as a simple raised line with the rest of the boot being plain and painted-in later.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/o...Itemid,94/

[M. Demetrius]

Could be, Ade. We don't think Marines wore caligae, though.

Unless I miss the facts here, caligae were universally hobnailed. At one time, the Marines petitioned the Emperor for hobnail allowance, since they were more frequently stationed on land than at sea, and were refused, the emperor telling them just to go barefoot. (*I doubt that was a very popular answer, at least to the Marines*)

So if they wore caligae when they were on land, either they didn't have money for hobnails, or we've read it wrong. So one could conclude, as we have, that they didn't wear caligae. But it's unlikely that they marched far on land with no shoes, so we conjectured around and came up with this simple shoe as a compromise. Our feet don't like the feel of pavement, gravel, or rough ground much.

As others have said, it's very unlikely they wore hobnailed shoes on wet decks.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Dave, if I remember correctly, it was because of the extra marching they were doing that they were wearing out their hobnails...so asked for more money to replace them?
I too could be wrong but that was my take on it!

[agrimensor]

@Byron, and the answer was that they had to march bearfoot
vale

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I took it to mean they had caligae and hobnails, but when they wore them out, they were refused extra money.

[Cheyenne]

I was looking for some garments to try the new woad dye I just rcvd through the post on!

Hmm... Blue tunics

[M. Demetrius]

Not that it means anything, but the color we've selected has a hint of green in it. Not quite teal, but close. I could send you a photo if you want, with a white sheet of paper on it for color correction. Lemme know if you do.

[Crispvs]

"so lets get a blue tunic then"

Ah - here we go again! Tunic colour!

The association of blue tunics with sailors rests solely on Vegetius' comment that the sailors and marines of the classis Britannica wore tunics and cloaks of Venetian blue, as well as painting hulls and dying the sails of their ships in this colour. This is a darkish blue and probably reflects the fact the water of the English channel generally looks slate grey in colour. The fact that Vegetius mentions it specifically with regard to the British fleet should lead us to be suspicious of applying it too generally.

On one hand, Vegetius was writing in the fourth century AD and although he virtually never tells us when the examples he cites actually date from, it is entirely possible that he was describing a contemporary practice which may or may not have been in existence in earlier times.

Secondly, leading on from this, it is possible (this is supposition of course) that the practice may date to the years of Carausius' separation from the rest of the empire. During this period sailors of the British fleet might have had good reason to be less conspicuous at sea, as they would be on the lookout for both Germanic pirates and ships of the other Roman fleets and might have wished to be able to either close with or retreat from faster ships with less time for the other ships' crews to react.

Thirdly, the very fact that he remarks on it with reference to the British fleet (one of several fleets and not the most important) would suggest that it was not normal practice in other fleets.

Fourthly, the stele of the marine Sabinianus, from Crete, dating to the mid second century AD retains traces of red pigment on both his tunic and cloak, suggesting that he at least wore red rather than blue. I would think that he would have been a member of the Misenum fleet, not that that needs to have any significance for the colour of his clothing.

Lastly, why do we in our modern age feel the need to impose the idea of uniformity on the Romans? It is highly unlikely that the Romans would have understood our modern concept of uniformity. Just because they had an organised professional army (or rather, armies), it does not have to follow that the soldiers of those armies felt the need for uniform clothing past the manner of wearing it. They already had shield blazons after all.

So, by all means, wear blue tunics when you depict marines, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that you are wearing any sort of naval uniform or that the colour would have had any significance to the Romans themselves in the period you are depicting.

Crispvs

[M. Demetrius]

We know and agree that there was no "uniform" as we understand the term today in the Roman Army or the Marines. But when we go to any event in which we will show up as a unit of Marines (and all of us are members of other legionary reenactment groups, who may also be represented) we thought it was a good idea to make a distinction between us and them. No so much to say "Marines all looked like this", but to provide for ourselves a unit distinctive.

So it's not so much a plea for Marine equipment uniformity, as it is an identifier for ourselves and those spectators who come to see the event.

But having said that, the mention of a tunic color by Vegetius is a heckuva lot more evidence than we seem to get for any other color of Roman tunic, based on primary sources, isn't it? Otherwise the forever argument about tunic color would have long ago been silenced.

[Kai]

The evidence for blues and greens is more than just Vegetius and strong enough to justify such tunics. Actually I'd even say that I would wonder more if a naval infantry unit had chosen not to use them.

Also isn't it possible that the Roman marines themselves also preferred these colours to sport a distinctive appearance? That would fit well with modern military sociology with soldiers taking pride of the brance of service they were in. For example up until very recently German air force soldiers preferred their field cap rather than their side cap when going home in uniform, although the side cap is unique, while the field cap is not. But since the army guys usually wear their barets (the equivalent to the side cap) and not their field caps, everyone knew that soldiers with a field cap were most likely from the air force.
So while nothing may have stopped a legionary from having a blue tunic I think it is likely that people in antiquity already associated it rather with the navy. iirc the Osprey-volume on it has convincingly shown how at least the high ranking officers preferred sea colours.

Again, just an idea of mine - probably does not hold much water, but worth a thought.

[Crispvs]

"The evidence for blues and greens is more than just Vegetius and strong enough to justify such tunics."

Very interesting. Can you tell us more about this evidence?


"That would fit well with modern military sociology..."

You need to very careful about ascribing any modern military practice or sensibilities to ancient soldiers. Just because the human body has not changed much in the past hundred thousand years, it does not follow that people have always thought in the same way. In the case of the Romans we can be sure that they thought about things in a very different way to the ways people think in today.

You also need to remember that modern military institutions have no connection to ancient military institutions. The military systems of the modern age can be traced back to the development of standing armies in the mid seventeenth century. Whilst the leaders of the time liked to think they were drawing from the classical past, they were only really taking on the trappings of that past, which did not extend in any meaningful way to tactics, attitudes or equipment.

Roman soldiers had belts to identify their military status and shield blazons to identify their units. No modern practice stands as evidence for them needing anything more than that to advertise their identity.

Crispvs