First US Roman Marine Re-enactment Unit founded.

[john roberts]

I think Roman soldiers and marines wore tunics in the color of their chariot racing faction: red, white, blue or green. Well, it's as good a theory as any.

[sulla felix]

Congratulations gentlemen, and good luck with the new unit.

[M. Demetrius]

Thanks, and we'll keep posted what progress we make in finding that pesky ship we seem to have lost...

[Kai]

@ Crispus,

the evidence is mostly for high ranking soldiers to have preferred blue colours. Pompeius Sextus wore blue a coloured cloak in his role as admiral, also because he fancied himself son of Neptune since blue was this god's colour. Agrippa also appeared in blue clothing. Lastly Cassius Dio claimes such a costume was the prerogative of a victorious Admiral.
Also blue cloaks appear on several depictions of naval soldiers, although it is noteworthy that those often feature pure-white tunics.
As far as the colour of sailors is concerned, we find again white (Suetonius) and blue (Plautus).
Then there is Vegetius as you know. For accurate references you can have a look at the Osprey Volume on Roman Naval Forces, pp.18-19, from which I took all the info anyway.


This evidence seems to support my point on the wanted distinction between land and naval forces, at least as far as the officers are concerned. I do neither advocate an uncritical extrapolation of modern military practices on the Roman military, nor an anthropological constant for that matter. I wanted to present an example of how modern soldiers can make a distinctive appearance without any need for regulation by using equipment which by itself is not distinctive at all - like blue coloured clothing.

The question now is rather if the lower ranked soldiers also had the wish of a distinctive naval appearance like their admirals. Blue colour being strongly associated with marine affairs this would have worked easily. If true or not, we have evidence for blue coloured clothing. Additionally one can state a preference to use marine imagery like dolphins, shells, tridents, wave-patterns on helmets and shields even for the lower ranked soldiers. Especially the trident is often represented. The shield blazons indeed also work - although assuming the shield does sport specific unit insignia is debatable at best - but shields were not always carried, especially not uncovered.
That is not to say army soldier did never use these images, as they did sometimes, overall however I would clearly go for a distinctive appearance of naval soldiers with blues, tridents and so on.

[ScipioAsina]

As I posted on another forum:

The notion of a "marine" is a fairly modern concept, whereas the ancients generally categorized them as either foot-soldiers who happened to be on a ship or sailors who happened to have weapons. The relevant term in Greek, epibatai, refers to anyone that mounts a platform, whether that be the seat of a chariot, top of an elephant, or deck of a ship. In Latin, miles classiarii entails all naval personnel, from rowers to the soldiers on deck (and even then there was no distinction; later sources mention entire legions recruited from the remigibus, or rowers).

Moving on...

@ Crispus,

the evidence is mostly for high ranking soldiers to have preferred blue colours. Pompeius Sextus wore blue a coloured cloak in his role as admiral, also because he fancied himself son of Neptune since blue was this god's colour. Agrippa also appeared in blue clothing. Lastly Cassius Dio claimes such a costume was the prerogative of a victorious Admiral.
Also blue cloaks appear on several depictions of naval soldiers, although it is noteworthy that those often feature pure-white tunics.
As far as the colour of sailors is concerned, we find again white (Suetonius) and blue (Plautus).
Then there is Vegetius as you know. For accurate references you can have a look at the Osprey Volume on Roman Naval Forces, pp.18-19, from which I took all the info anyway.


This evidence seems to support my point on the wanted distinction between land and naval forces, at least as far as the officers are concerned. I do neither advocate an uncritical extrapolation of modern military practices on the Roman military, nor an anthropological constant for that matter. I wanted to present an example of how modern soldiers can make a distinctive appearance without any need for regulation by using equipment which by itself is not distinctive at all - like blue coloured clothing.

The question now is rather if the lower ranked soldiers also had the wish of a distinctive naval appearance like their admirals. Blue colour being strongly associated with marine affairs this would have worked easily. If true or not, we have evidence for blue coloured clothing. Additionally one can state a preference to use marine imagery like dolphins, shells, tridents, wave-patterns on helmets and shields even for the lower ranked soldiers. Especially the trident is often represented. The shield blazons indeed also work - although assuming the shield does sport specific unit insignia is debatable at best - but shields were not always carried, especially not uncovered.
That is not to say army soldier did never use these images, as they did sometimes, overall however I would clearly go for a distinctive appearance of naval soldiers with blues, tridents and so on.

In fact, Plautus describes the "seaman's color" as ferrugineus, a word which is notoriously difficult to translate. In all likelihood, it refers to a dark shade of red or grey (rather than blue, as suggested by Sumner and D'Amato).

As far as I can tell, the milites classiarii were indistinguishable from the legionaries serving on land in terms of equipment and training. I'm too busy to elaborate any further, so please look at this post.

[Kai]

You are right that ferrugineus is not easily translated as blue, Jeff. You will find me both in agreement that it does not have to be blue and in agreement with the D'Amato/Sumner interpretation.
But as far as the 'indistinguishability' is concerned, your link does not provide any information on equipment or dress of the naval infantry, so you will understand that I find it hard to comment on it in any way. Frankly an indistinguishability contradicts not only Vegetius but also the more reliable information on the admirals, who were very distinguishable.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think I shall also give my congratulations to John, Keegan, and David, let us hope we see/hear so much more of this great venture in the future.

[ScipioAsina]

You are right that ferrugineus is not easily translated as blue, Jeff. You will find me both in agreement that it does not have to be blue and in agreement with the D'Amato/Sumner interpretation.
But as far as the 'indistinguishability' is concerned, your link does not provide any information on equipment or dress of the naval infantry, so you will understand that I find it hard to comment on it in any way. Frankly an indistinguishability contradicts not only Vegetius but also the more reliable information on the admirals, who were very distinguishable.

The point I was trying to make was that (at least during the Republican and the early Empire) "marines" and legionaries were used interchangeably, such that legionaries could immediately be put out to sea to augment the fleet and "marines" could quickly be deployed to take on land operations. By inference, their equipment must have been quite similar (if not identical), even if we acknowledge that the Romans held the classiarii in less regard.

[Kai]

The correct inference would be that the equipment can fulfill similar tactical roles, which no one has doubted. However, that two sets of equipment fulfill similar tactical roles does not mean they look identical. A shield with a trident is still as good a shield as with any other blazon, but certainly no identical looking.

[ScipioAsina]

The correct inference would be that the equipment can fulfill similar tactical roles, which no one has doubted. However, that two sets of equipment fulfill similar tactical roles does not mean they look identical. A shield with a trident is still as good a shield as with any other blazon, but certainly no identical looking.

Maybe you and I are operating on much different presuppositions. As far as I'm concerned, the different shield blazons make no difference so long as the shields themselves are identical. Are we to assume that hoplites who painted dolphins on their shields served in the navy? Perhaps, but it could just as well reflect personal taste. Whether they were on land or sea, their panoply remained the same.

[Kai]

Well, if different shield blazons, marine clothing colours and other marine imagery make no difference for you, I am ok with it, but I certainly can see a distinction here, maybe as important as the colour of a beret nowadays, and definitely as obvious as that.
To be sure it is not just talking about personal taste, since at least the evidence available names three other reasons to wear marine colours: tactical reasoning, tradition/law/prerogative for admirals, and the association with Neptune.

Maybe it comes all down to this:
A Roman soldier with grey tunic, blue cloak, trident blazon on his shield, dolphin embossing on his helmet etc. comes along and I associate him with the navy at once, while you probably say he just likes the sea a lot. :mrgreen: j/k :wink:

regards and good night
Kai

[Magnus]

Kai, not to nitpick, but Sumner has a 1st Century Legionary Centurion wearing a distinct blue cloak in Vol 1 of his Military Clothing book. I don't have it handy (it's downstairs and I don't feel like getting it lol), but I am positive there are also more references to the Legions using blue.

Bottom line is that less than a handful of high ranking officers wearing blue a) is not representative of all naval officers in the Roman military, and b) not enough to definitively state that blue/green was thus used by the lower ranks in said navy.

Also, I don't understand what you mean when you say using blue is tactical reasoning? How so? Camoulflage and concealment wasn't an option when fighting at sea in Roman times. I'm not sure how else tactics would apply to tunic colour in this case.

PS - see my cloak colour?

[M. Demetrius]

I don't think painting a trireme blue would conceal it. Camo would not have been the idea. Alignment with the color of Neptune, might have been a better motivator, as previously said.

[Kai]

Matt, I did not want to say blue was exclusive to the naval soldiers.
Tactical reasoning as in camouflage is directly stated by Vegetius for the blue tunics of the naval soldiers, and that means all naval soldiers (4,37). One can be skeptical about camouflage in antiquity – that is an entirely different discussion though and what Vegetius describes is at least partially sound – but before dismissing the info on the blue colour one would need good reason, if not evidence. Adding to it that we have reliable information on admirals and the association with Neptune, I would still maintain blue was preferred.

regards
Kai

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Just to be awkward (not like me I know...) but,
concealment would be quite desirable in a navel context.
You would want to make sure the enemy did not spot you until it was too late, in the case of you having the advantage in numbers,to prevent them fleeing, or perhaps if you were hunting pirates...
or you were on a lone mission to carry a message or an individual....you would not want the enemy to spot you easily.
If you sail around with white sails flying, you will be soon spotted.
Just a thought.