Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Winter Clothing in 1st century AD legionary re-enactment
#1
This thread is to continue the discussion which was unfortunately cut off from the 'Show here your Roman soldier impression' thread when the posts on baldrics and belts were split off.

As a courtesy note to possible participants, if you plan to quote parts of this or succeeding posts, please only quote the portion you are referring to rather than the whole post. We will already have read that and do not need to read it again.



On 10th February 2013 Crispvs wrote:


"My only other area of criticism would be the trousers. If you are doing an impression of a soldier of the Dacian Wars or later, trousers are fine, as there is evidence for their use by citizen solders from one of the Adamklissi metopes, dating to Trajan's Dacian campaigns in the early second century AD. Evidence for their use before this is entirely lacking though and as your overall impression looks more like the mid-1st century AD (judging by your belt) I would avoid them on the basis that although they were certainly in use by some soldiers fifty or so years later, we do not know how long before that they entered service and so it is possible that trousers (of any type) may be utterly wrong for a soldier of your period. A lot can change in fifty or sixty years after all.

Crispvs
"




On 10th February 2013 Jori wrote:

"I'm a legionary from the Flavian period, from the LEG VIII, based at Argentorate (Strasbourg). Here, in winter, it's cold. Many of our ancestors are gauls, used to wear braccae. Feminalia were common at this place and period, but not depicted on official sculptures, that's right.

We have tested everything we wear. For instance, a real marching, during one complete week, 20 kms per day. Everything works. We tested leather feminalia, linen feminalia and wool. Wool is ok for winter and rain, linen is ok for sunny days, and leather is ok for centurios Big Grin ...
"



On 10th February 2013 Crispvs wrote:

"I hear what you're saying but remember that the ancients did not think about things in the same way we do today. The typical Roman solution to cold was to wear several woollen tunics at once, along with a cloak. We also know they wore socks and lower leg coverings. We still have no evidence that they used trousers, either femenalia or bracchae, at any time before the Dacian Wars several decades later. Arguing for something on the basis of no evidence does not provide proof unfortunately. Remember that 'locals' only got to join legions at that period if they came from families of Roman citizens who lived locally. What the local tribesmen wore may have been less of a consideration for them than the status that citizenship provided, which appears often to have been emphasised in terms of dressing obviously as a citizen.

You're right of course that they work to help keep you warm enough. After all, they would be strange trousers indeed if they did not do that. However, the fact that they work does not prove that they were actually used. I hear what you say about testing in the field but I should probably make mention here of the fact that in the past I have spent more than a week at a time in mountains, above the snowline and sometimes in snow four feet deep, wearing several layers on my upper body, a hat, several pairs of socks (and boots of course) and shorts. I have never come down with hypothermia brought on by bare knees, although I have seen other people suffer from hypothermia when they did not wear a hat or sufficient layers over their upper bodies. I have never found the knees to be areas which suffered over much from cold, something seemingly shared by tens of thousands of Scottish soldiers over the past two and a half centuries who have marched to war, lived in trenches and fought in kilts.

So, to dress like a Roman of the Falvian period when it is cold, wear two or more woollen tunics, a cloak which can be drawn up over the head, socks and lower leg coverings. You will be surprised at just how warm this can be. Again, I have been doing this for several years and can state with confidence that this level of insulation works with reconstructed Roman cold weather kit just as well as it does with more modern mountaineering gear worn in snow for prolonged periods.

Crispvs
"



On 10th February 2013 Jori wrote:

"It is true that we lack of evidence, almost for everything, but that's the fun in roman army reenactment Smile We still have a lot to discover.

The feminalia is one of those cases. Augustus and Nero used them. Common people also. But is was considered like a "working dress". Like modern tracksuits. Nothing to be shown in a stele, where the deceased should be represented in is best clothes.

Archeology can not help us, since it is almost impossible to find textile well preserved in northern provinces.

Why do I used feminalia, if we have no evidence of it? I thought about it, and I reached this conclusion : because the soldiers of Trajan Dacian Wars were for many the same during Domitian Dacian Wars. Only 13 years separated the end of Domitian's war from Trajan. Fashion is something incredible, but if we saw old legionaries depicted with feminalia on Trajan's column, could it be some kind of evidence for feminalia some years before? 13 years, it's for us the year 2000. Did the fashion changed this much since then? Did romans discovered all of a sudden that feminalia were much more practical than layers of tunicae.

Romans where proud, but they always took the best of conquered people. Feminalia are an improvement of military gear. Since it's barbarian, it would not be depicted on steles until Trajan. That's my conclusions.

I will use greaves, by the way, so the lower part of my legs protection are a necessity (I don't know how it is called in english, we say in french "bande molletiere").
"
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#2
It may be just that it is a while now since I last read Suetonius or Tacitus' Annales, but can you remind me of the references for Augustus (who habitually wore four tunics at once) and Nero wearing femenalia?

Also, you state that femenalia were worn by the common people and would be considered 'working dress'. This might seem obvious to many but can you back up the statement with actual evidence?


"because the soldiers of Trajan Dacian Wars were for many the same during Domitian Dacian Wars. Only 13 years separated the end of Domitian's war from Trajan. Fashion is something incredible, but if we saw old legionaries depicted with feminalia on Trajan's column, could it be some kind of evidence for feminalia some years before? 13 years, it's for us the year 2000."

Leaving aside metopes depicting auxiliary infantry or cavalry, I can only think of a single metope from the Tropaeum Traiani which shows legionaries wearing femenalia, namely the one showing four men in tunic order marching with scuta and pila. As none of the other depictions of legionaries (as opposed to auxiliaries) from the Tropaeum show them wearing femenalia, I think it unlikely that they could have been in use by those soldiers for as much as thirteen years. This is particularly the case if (as many believe) the metopes were actually carved by soldiers, who would presumably depict what they knew.

As for 2000, I had never heard of Ipods then. Now I have two and rarely listen to CDs.



"Did romans discovered all of a sudden that feminalia were much more practical than layers of tunicae."

Actually, that is not true. It is well known that wearing several layers of clothing over the upper body is a very effective way of insulating the vital areas of the body against cold. Two or three tunics worn together will keep the body far warmer than one tunic and a pair of trousers, especially when combined with socks and lower leg insulation.

I am not talking through a hole in my head here. I am talking from a combination of experience of surviving in very hostile weather conditions and a review of what the Romans are known to have done in the period we depict. I allow very little room for assumption or supposition in my statements here.

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#3
Quote:Suet. Aug. 82
hieme quaternis cum pingui toga tunicis et subucula et thorace laneo et feminalibus et tibialibus muniebatur, aestate apertis cubiculi foribus ac saepe in peristylo saliente aqua atque etiam uentilante aliquo cubabat. solis uero ne hiberni quidem patiens, domi quoque non nisi petasatus sub diuo spatiabatur. itinera lectica et noctibus fere eaque lenta ac minuta faciebat, ut Praeneste uel Tibur biduo procederet; ac si quo peruenire mari posset, potius nauigabat. [2] uerum tantam infirmitatem magna cura tuebatur, in primis lauandi raritate; unguebatur enim saepius aut sudabat ad flammam, deinde perfundebatur egelida aqua uel sole multo tepefacta. at quotiens neruorum causa marinis Albulisque calidis utendum esset, contentus hoc erat ut insidens ligneo solio, quod ipse Hispanico uerbo duretam uocabat, manus ac pedes alternis iactaret.

And I would not wear feminalia in Summer Smile Same way for metopes, if it's summer time, why depict legionaries with winter garments?

Everything is arguable, and I thank you for that, I'll have to check more my sources!
[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]
Reply
#4
I will add a post on trousers that I made a few months as this topic pops up from time to time.



Hi

Faced with the ridicule of going out in public wearing a skirt, it must be an inbred Anglo-Saxon thing that as soon as there is a slight breeze there is an urge to put on trousers. After all Legionaries must have followed the local fashions and trousers and other garments in all sorts of interesting patterns and colours could be bought in the local shops because apparently traders outside Roman camps sold them. Failing that of course they could always loot them on campaign once they had tracked down the nearest convenient store. There are several flaws with this line of approach.

Firstly it seems to have been common Roman practice to wear more of everything first and soldiers were issued with regular supplies of clothing which they had to pay for. It was probably their single main expense. There is evidence at Vindolanda in the tablets for over-cloaks and under-cloaks. Does any re-enactor wear them or has anyone tried? Perhaps if they did and found they were unable to move swaddled in all these clothes it might be because as is so common amongst re-enactors that the garments are not the correct size or weight. I guess this is because really accurate clothing today would be just as expensive if not more so than the armour and after all a chap wants to spend his cash on the exciting shiny pointy stuff, which is great until that breeze comes along! Then its down to the shops presumably for those trousers!

Secondly it is somewhat ironic to discover that the sophisticated Romans basically produced very simple clothes. Usually just uncut garments made out of rectangular pieces of wool material. It was the barbarians who actually produced tailored garments like trousers. These garments are not something which could be simply made up from an old cloak by the average legionary much less his modern counterpart. The same would apparently go for the Germanic long sleeved tunics because it seems re-enactors consistently fail to achieve the narrow tight fitting sleeves these garments had with the very narrow cuffs. These are always shown in Roman art and in the archaeological finds. Equally the trousers are very tight fitting. Make a mistake with those and a chap will have something more to complain about than the cold. Not a good idea. The simple solution again would be the Roman way. Cut up the old tunic and make them into leg wrappings or bindings. Again simple shapes.

Thirdly what was local clothing? If you go by Roman sources literature and art, not much and I mean not much. Barbarians are frequently depicted nude or just wearing a cape. But then again according to one Roman writer the natives in Caledonia wore nothing and spent most of their time underwater which was one convincing explanation for why the Roman could not find them much less politely borrow their clothes. However we should remember that even as recently as three hundred years ago natives in the far North of Britain wore nothing more than a blanket wrapped around themselves with some lower leg covering. Of course their life expectancy might not have been great and neither will the average re-enactors be if they wear that sort of thing everyday in all weathers.

So I suppose we come back to the old argument of how accurate do you want to be. I can only say that on the only time I wore a reasonably accurate wool paenula in action so to speak, I was far warmer than my comrades who were wearing inaccurate sagum cloaks, they were not large enough and could barely wrap their material around themselves. So being as accurate as possible sometimes has it's advantages over looking reasonably correct.

For once this is not all guesswork, the evidence is there. Nonetheless I will disappear behind my cloaking device to avoid being called a nit picker.

Finally a P.S

I was reminded by Claire Marshall's earlier post about the possibility that the trousers she had worked on could actually have been female maternity wear! It is equally likely that local patterned clothing (tartans) belonged to women. The Huldremose dress was patterned this way but the Thorsberg tunic was not, it was plain red by modern accounts. The trousers too were an un-dyed colour. So you could be faced with the possibility of being mocked by the modern public for wearing a skirt and equally laughed at if you went back in time by the ancients for dressing like a woman.

Trousers too seem absent from the later Pictish Aberlemno warriors, even their cavalry, although one Pictish crossbowman apparently does have a cloak which had a chequerboard pattern. It was used as a crafty form of camouflage according to Phil Barker, but what the pattern was based on is not clear, presumably that tiny fragment from Falkirk but who owned that originally or from what type of garment it came from if any, is open to debate.



Please by all means pass on any fresh information relating to trousers with sources.

Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.

"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.

"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Reply
#5
Actually I would recommend wearing femminalia durin summer,
As protection against the insects which seem much more bloodthirsty
In northern climates (especially Britain), as well as thorns and other stinging
Plants!
Since some of the Legions utilised in the invasion of Britain
We're drawn from the norther part ofGaul and Rhine areas,
It is highly possible they had already adopted them!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#6
Quote:So you could be faced with the possibility of being mocked by the modern public for wearing a skirt and equally laughed at if you went back in time by the ancients for dressing like a woman.

Finally the misnomer "feminalia" I see so often on RAT begins to make sense.
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#7
Gaius Julius Caesar > you are totally true about beeing attacked by evil insects. In Arles (Arelate), I remembered to be heavily attacked by giant mosquitos. We would not die of course, but it's really unconfortable. The region, Camargue, si full of them, really aggressive.

I was really happy to wear feminalia! But I didn't wear tibialia (I found the latin word Smile ) and my legs were ruined.

Ok, it's really hard to find good sources about roman military feminalia before Trajan Column. Literary sources are rare also, mostly around Augustus and Suetonius. But it was known and used. But let's put it the other way: we do not have sources from the flavian period saying that feminalia would be completely forbidden. In that kind of void, why refuse what seems to be logic and doable? I already marched with 3 tunics (well sewn in the old fashion way and with wool), plus the large paenula, plus the tibialia and the feminalia. I still was cold! But the worse of it was to be wet. Wool were a good protection against rain. We tested almost everything during our march (20 kms / day with full equipment, 40 kgs in the Morvan region).

If I'm under the sun, with my white skin, would I march with the torso in open air, like the ancient depictions of some barbarians?

We saw some disadvantages to wear feminalia : to pea or to poo (pardon my french). Much more difficult. That's the main argument of not wearing them, in a practical point of view.

[Image: J07_copyrighted_YK_logo_preview_KYN9807.jpg]

[Image: J04_copyrighted_YK_logo_preview_KYN6961.jpg]
[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]
Reply
#8
Ah yes - the insects. I only recall a single occasion when i have been really annoyed by insects when in Roman kit and that was during a recent filming job at the Lunt. I am sure that those particular insects were uppermost in your mind when you made that comment Byron. :wink: I was as glad as I am sure you were to put on my C4 kit for the second half of the shoot. However, I have never found them to be a problem on other occasions, there or anywhere else.

On the matter of whether femenalia would be useful against biting insects I might venture to offer another anecdote from my own experience. Back in my late teens, when hiking in the bush in south-western New Zealand (where the sandflies are big, teem in 'clouds' of thousands and love the taste of human blood above all else) I decided to wear my overtrousers while I walked, as my insect repellent did not seem to be damping the sandflies' appetite much. Somehow a couple of sandflies managed to get inside my overtrousers and for the next hour or so they did nothing but bite me. Try as I might I could not get rid of them as every time I tried to swat them the air simply pushed them along a bit. After a while I took the overtrousers off again and found that I was bitten less, not least because I could often feel the sandflies against the hairs on my legs and had time to swat them or brush them away before they bit.


"But let's put it the other way: we do not have sources from the flavian period saying that feminalia would be completely forbidden."

Ah, the 'absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence' argument. The problem with that argument is that absence of evidence remains exactly that - absence of evidence! This argument is regularly wheeled out to try to justify all sorts of things - everything from Caesarean soldiers wearing caligae (relatively plausible) to first century AD solders using sarissas, gaesums or cross braced helmets. To use a more implausible example to demonstrate the flaw, as we don't know precisely when the first handguns came into being, you could use the same argument to equip your Flavian soldier with an early handgun. It wouldn't be right but you could still argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Use of this argument lacks rigour and is really an argument of last resort.

You are right about wool though. Wet wool can still be relatively warm to wear (again I say this from experience of surviving in hostile conditions), whereas wet linen is not nearly as good at insulating against cold.


On a final note here, please note that the word is fem-E-nalia (referring to 'femen' [femur]) rather than fem-I-nalia (suggesting 'femina' [female]).

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#9
Crispus, to equate using logic to equiping Flavin Legionairies with handguns is a bit of an insult to most of our intelligence.
You your self are making statments that are not backed up with evidence, but only your theory.
I think we are all capable of intelligent assumptions, occassionally, as are you! Wink

And no, that filming at lunt only confirmed an idea I have had, and stated many times over the years!
One of many reasons not to waste resources on the total conquest of Scotland..... 8-)
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#10
Femenalia? Feminalia? I only saw in ancient literature feminalia, not femenalia, do you have sources for that? :-D

And for insects, to be protected, we put our tibialia above the feminalia. No insect can pass.

About the iPod argument. Yes, you didn't know that. But you know about walkman. About dress. About trousers, hat, shoes.

You know that fashion in those times evolved much longer than present days. A new clothing couldn't be adopted in few years. In fact, since from the Gauls and their braccae until first evidence on Trajan Column, more than a century separate those two events. But that is why I assume at least some people already wear them by the flavian time period. Because no changes were brutal, and feminalia (femenalia?) where known since a century or more.

In last ressort, as a flavian legionary, I have gaul ancestry. I would be proud to be Roman, but as romans, I would be pragmatical.

It's a real pity that the sources are so rare!

Handgun argument :

> for the feminalia, they know how to sew, to make wool or linen, it was technically possible, just with imagination.
> for the handgun : they didn't know powder, they didn't know how to make steel with suficient resistance, it was technically impossible. And we have no evidence of handguns 15 years after the period I'm studying Sad
[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]
Reply
#11
"Crispus, to equate using logic to equiping Flavin Legionairies with handguns is a bit of an insult to most of our intelligence."

You clearly didn't notice the word 'implausible' in my post. The example of the handgun was deliberately extreme and was simply to throw the fallacy of the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' argument into sharp relief.


"You your self are making statments that are not backed up with evidence, but only your theory."


Which ones pray tell? Everything I am saying here is based either on the state of the evidence or my own experience in hostile outdoor conditions. I am advancing no theories at all - I am merely taking a fixed position on defending the evidence and holding torches to straw men.

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#12
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.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#13
Quote:So together this makes up the whole evidence for socks?

The Vindolanda tablets mention socks and underpants. I doubt they'd be nallbinded, though (the socks, not the undies).

Tab. Vindol. II 346: "... I have sent (?) you ... pairs of socks from Sattua, two pairs of sandals and two pairs of underpants,..."

There's also the child's sock found at Vindolanda (not made using naalbinding).
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#14
It's a lost battle, Doc. Here's my free advice, for what it's worth. If you want to wear socks, and the unit you're in approves it, then wear socks. I wear socks --the sewn together 3 piece version-- since it's more comfortable for my feet. Most of the time, commercial caligae don't really fit very well in the first place, and I have not yet purchased a custom-fit pair for financial reasons.

Because I have a problem with my feet that makes it pretty difficult, even painful, to wear caligae on hard surfaces, I put a supporting insole inside the sock. I'm fully aware that probably never happened in any form except and unless a sock-wearing Ancient Roman put layers of wool felt under his feet. On the other hand, nobody can see it, my feet don't ache after a couple of hours, and I'm ok with it. Other people who are not of such a mind don't have to wear socks/insoles.

On caligae day, I'm gellin
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#15
It's a lost battle, Doc. Here's my free advice, for what it's worth. If you want to wear socks, and the unit you're in approves it, then wear socks. I wear socks --the sewn together 3 piece version-- since it's more comfortable for my feet. Most of the time, commercial caligae don't really fit very well in the first place, and I have not yet purchased a custom-fit pair for financial reasons.

Because I have a problem with my feet that makes it pretty difficult, even painful, to wear caligae on hard surfaces, I put a supporting insole inside the sock. I'm fully aware that probably never happened in any form except and unless a sock-wearing Ancient Roman put layers of wool felt under his feet. On the other hand, nobody can see what's inside my udones, my feet don't ache after a couple of hours, and I'm ok with it. Other people who are not of such a mind don't have to wear socks/insoles, and I won't say a word about their choice.

On caligae day, I'm gellin
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  4th Century Legionary Leggings Antoninus05 12 3,326 04-03-2011, 05:46 PM
Last Post: M. Demetrius
  Best Legionary Helmet for 43AD or Mid Century Antoninus05 6 2,036 02-06-2011, 12:01 AM
Last Post: texascavtrooper
  Late 2nd Century Legionary Infantry Caius Valens 22 5,162 12-11-2006, 09:33 PM
Last Post: Tib. Gabinius

Forum Jump: