Winter Clothing in 1st century AD legionary re-enactment

[Crispvs]

Should we rename this thread into 'Winter clothing'

Yes, I agree that that would be a good idea.

Tarbicus - thanks for that link! I had no idea so many such handles had been found. Lauds to you.


Crispvs

[Kegluneq]

But aren't you doing doing exactly that, and transposing most modern westerners' preference for trousers in cold weather onto "a hardened, beaten up, legionary who could probably eat dirt and ask for seconds"?

There is an excpetion - kilts. Many wearers don't even use underpants. Kilt wearers at this forum link complain mostly about cold ears and hands.

There's also the 50% of the population who have probably at some point worn skirts outside in snowy weather. I know many girls back at school didn't seem unduly discomforted by wearing knee-length skirts (or shorter!) in winter...

[M. Demetrius]

Done.

[Doc]

Tarbicus,

I am not imposing any modern notion on the Romans but based on the evidence that exists there is no Absolute that Roman legionaries did or did not wear whatever. We go back to the same argument. People use sculpture when it suits them and unless a source is very specific about something, interpretation does have its allowances. You are conjectring and assuming based on what Cripvs did. Cripvs did this so the Romans......

Another thing, you forget that the Romans wanted to distance themselves in language and acts from others that were NOT Roman? So any characteristic of so called barbarians either clothing or otherwise, would be downplayed. Of course someone would write its barbarian to wear femenalia....how else would you distinguish yourself. Propaganda. Because in the end the Romans did wear according to sculpture trousers. So what happened? All of a sudden they thought barbarian fashion to be OK or maybe its cold and we need to cover up.

Also, this concept of moder vs ancient is totally off the wall. What makes anyone think that because we do things a certain way that 2000 years ago there were not also done albeit differently?

The idea that we today see something and they did not see it the same way has not weight whatsoever. Granted there are things that are different but the same can be said about different people in modern cultures as well.

There is time for evidence and there is time for extrapolation based on surrounding evidence. The extrpolation part can be very plausible if done carefully.

People just look at sculpture.....yep no pants 1st C AD. Then you go to the 2nd C and Oh....there are pants. Therefore NO ONE in the 1st C AD EVER wore pants. Please.......

I have looked at the same evidence on the RAT database, have all the books from Graham, Bishop, Connolly etc. Nonetheless, my approach is less rigid. This comes from being a scientist.....we accept all possibilities UNLESS COMPLETELY PROVEN WRONG.

That is all I will say upon this because it is apparent that it will just be a wheel going round and round between seeing is believing and believing what you do not see.

Oh well.

[M. Demetrius]

That is all I will say upon this because it is apparent that it will just be a wheel going round and round between seeing is believing and believing what you do not see.

Yes, that about sums it up.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

People just look at sculpture.....yep no pants 1st C AD. Then you go to the 2nd C and Oh....there are pants. Therefore NO ONE in the 1st C AD EVER wore pants. Please.......

This is of course, as you say, a false conclusion. It isn't proof they were not used. But neither is it proof that they were used. As we don't have proof they were, it might be safest not to use them ourselves, as in that way, one does not contradict the evidence in any possible way. ("Common sense" does not count as evidence by the way.)

Do we have evidence for feminalia (I believe it is with an "i", regardless from the fact that it comes from femen; as the plural of femen would be femines) from before the 1st century AD? If we do, it would be safer to assume, in combination with 2nd century evidence, they were used in the 1st C AD as well. But even then it is not 100% sure.

[Joze Noriker]

1. The socks could be felted as well or seving tohether with the pants.
2. Heringbone woven-pattern on the leg: seems, the old tradition of the weaving did survive.
3. Are you talking about feminalia, or braccae, or about the (wraping=fascia)pants? It is absolutely different platform of the both items. The skinclose pants+socks (ala Thorsberg style) were never made on the sculpture-figures. (there are only a few evidences)
4. Throusers by the legionary, or throusers by the cavalry?
5. Long tunic/short tunic&cold weather. There are literary evidences about extreme heavy felted, hairy winter tunic in tripple weaving-style in xxl shapes (sculptures), like gallic coat (tunic). For Gallia Cisalpina is evidence of therm: "gausapina clothes" what means: extreme heavy weaving-style, hairy wool, felted wool, animal skins (like the relief from the Cividale/Italy).
Translator (but is not exactly correct) here in to english: http://glosbe.com/la/en/gausapinus

Joze

[Tarbicus]

Someone's been making Vindolanda socks for sale on Ebay.

Roman legionary army socks found at Vindolanda Roman Fort design

Interesting to see.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would be leary of socks with seams...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Actually, I think there is quite a lot of evidence for socks. As well as the well known letter from Vindolanda from a soldier's mother, telling her son of her gift to him of socks and underpants, there is the child's sock from the same site. Okay - it was for a child, but the child must have been closely associated with a military establishment.

Byron, I am well aware that you have lived in both cold conditions and hot conditions as well as working amongst the hazards of the open sea and I would not seek to discount your own experience of this. However, how often did you spend a week walking in thigh deep snow wearing shorts, socks and lower leg insulation? This is the experience I am drawing on here, not simply that of having experienced cold weather.

Crispvs

Yes Crispus, I'm also aware of your expedition in modern leggings and shorts....
Try bare foot in the snow, in -25C

[jvrjenivs]

Someone's been making Vindolanda socks for sale on Ebay.

Roman legionary army socks found at Vindolanda Roman Fort design

Interesting to see.

Looks like Terry Nix of Nix imperial.

[Gaius Colletti]

Another thing, you forget that the Romans wanted to distance themselves in language and acts from others that were NOT Roman? So any characteristic of so called barbarians either clothing or otherwise, would be downplayed. Of course someone would write its barbarian to wear femenalia....how else would you distinguish yourself. Propaganda. Because in the end the Romans did wear according to sculpture trousers. So what happened? All of a sudden they thought barbarian fashion to be OK or maybe its cold and we need to cover up.

Doc, I was thinking the same thing. What would the citizens back in Italy think if they saw sculptures of Romans wearing "barbarian" clothing in their monuments. Are we forgetting that the Romans may be some of the most arrogant people?

They are also some of the most practical people, not being afraid to adapt enemy weapons and tactics, the gladius from Spain, the maniple formation from the Samnites, the "triumph" from the Etruscans, the chainmail and gallic helms from the Celts...

If it worked, they used it.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

"What would the citizens back in Italy think..."

"Are we forgetting that the Romans may be some of the most arrogant people? "

"They are also some of the most practical people"

"If it worked, they used it."

Not a very scientific way of putting it. I see this kind of assumptions far too much on RAT to justify an opinion or being used to declare a hypothesis as truth. Some of these assumptions present themselves as answering questions which might only be answered by a methodology of a history of mentalities; some of them are just plain wrong (e.g. "if it worked, they used it" - the ancients knew of the steam engine, yet did not use it).
If anyone who uses these assumptions can back up those statements with sources and/or scientific literature, I would be happy to see them and learn something new (no sarcasm intended).

I do not say of course that they are completely wrong - I only question the 'method'.

[spoiler]In addition, however it might seem like that, this is of course not a personal attack. It's just that we don't get any further in finding answers to our questions using non-scientific non-referenced assumptions. Comparable remarks have been given in other topics.[/spoiler]

[Jori]

The steam engine of Hero of Alexandria didn't work from a practical point of view. It was just a toy : they didn't had the technology to make strong enough cauldron to make sufficiently powerful engines...

That's what I read. Where? Oh... don't remember, as always, sorry (I will work on that).

Scientific approach or mere logic : you see someone beats you easily with something you could do yourself if you knew how. Will you remain in your stubborn way of thinking and do not adopt what could put you at least at the same level than your ennemy?

Common sense, yes, not scientific, yes, but it's way different than the steam engine here : Romans had before their eyes a way to be more protected against cold and knew how to do it. Would it be pride not to adopt something better?

Those clothes were bad considered, and that's why it would never be represented officialy (like street wear for a photograph in your curriculum vitae).

[Tarbicus]

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert Einstein