Winter Clothing in 1st century AD legionary re-enactment

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, but common sense led Albert to Leave Germany....

[Tarbicus]

You don't need much common sense when you're getting serious death threats.

[Jori]

Like dying frozen

[Crispvs]

"You are conjectring and assuming based on what Cripvs did. Cripvs did this so the Romans......"

It is not so much a case of 'because Crispvs did it then the Romans must have done it', but rather, it is a case of knowing, though my personal experience of using that level of clothing in extreme conditions, that it is entirely possible that hard bitten Roman soldiers could have survived perfectly well with bare knees in cold weather. This means therefore that the level of cold weather clothing that we actually have evidence for prior to the early second century AD would be sufficient to keep them sufficiently insulated against the cold without the need to add trousers, which we do not have evidence for that early.

It is entirely possible, of course, that trousers, of whichever type, may have been worn earlier. Suggesting however, that trousers are as likely to have been worn as cloaks, extra tunics, socks and lower leg coverings, is to place the possible on an equal weighting with the certain, which we should never do. We should base our reconstructions primarily on what we are certain of and resort to the possible but unproven only when the certainties are insufficient to provide a clear enough picture or solution. That is not the case here. It is true that trousers did later come to be commonly worn, but it is equally true that prior to that, they already had clothing which would keep them sufficiently protected from the elements which did not require them to cover their knees.

For what it is worth, I have also worn a kilt and calf length socks in cold conditions (although not in the mountains, I admit) and not noticed the cold much on my legs. Again it could be said that my experience does not prove anything, but there is plenty of evidence to show that Scotsmen did not always feel the need to wear trousers when it was cold, despite being well aware of them.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9w3po...o1_500.jpg

http://www.genealogyintime.com/Images/im...ldiers.jpg

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=ht...oQrQMwADg8



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

So much like the single sock which I am aware of from Vindolanda in fact, that they are entirely different in size, shape, fabric, and construction. Definitely another Terry Nix product to avoid, I would say. As far as I know, linen has not survived at Vindolanda, or if it has it is only in the tiniest of samples.


"Yes Crispus, I'm also aware of your expedition in modern leggings and shorts...."

Modern leggings - hmmm - that would be three pairs of woollen socks and a pair of heavy canvas snow gaiters which ended immediately below the knee. The stripy leg coverings you may be thinking of from a 1990 photo you may be recalling were actually the oh-so-1989 tubular support bandages I was wearing on my thighs following a cycling accident a few days before that photo was taken. Such things did not form a regular part of my alpine kit.

"Try bare foot in the snow, in -25C "

Ah - that would explain your height then, I suppose. :wink: I don't think I would try it myself. As you know, I am a strong advocate of socks. :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ha ha..no, my height is from carrying slack asses for 30 years....

[Gaius Colletti]

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'.

So you didn't like my "more" scientific mention of how the Romans adopted the gladius, triumphs, chainmail, helmets, maniple formation? Please don't take me out of context in order for you to look more intelligent.

If you want to talk about the steam engine, then by your extended logic "nuclear fission worked well but people of the 20th Century didn't adapt it for their cars because they were stubborn".

I'm amazed you actually compared a steam engine to a pair of pants. And I'm the one being put down for using logical conclusions base on analysis and experience?

[Tarbicus]

So much like the single sock....

Fair enough.

[Jori]

Men are not equal, faced to cold.

Scots are used to it, they are born in it.
But put a spanish guy in front of the snow?

Flavians soldiers were not that much used to cold. Even if you're a strong guy, cold is a different matter.

Let's say that the feminalia were used, but not always. If I look to modern football players, when they are playing with cold weather, they have their knees unprotected. But if they are waiting to enter the game, they have pants.

So : in still position, feminalia. Marching, no feminalia.

I have a march to do here in France by the end of march ( http://www.leg8.com/2012/samara_marche.php the one from last year), I will do it with no feminalia (but with wool tunics!) and compare with what I felt last year.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You don't need much common sense when you're getting serious death threats.

you'd be surprised....I'm still here!

Crispus, I believe Scotsmen wore trousers as often as kilts, even before they became British!

I would not advocate the wearing of Feminalia in the invasion period of Caesars Romp into Gaul,
although possibly, if they were stationed in the Alps, they may have adopted local custom prior to this too.
Or, perhaps, they just glared with envey at the locals they came into contact with during the winter, while they huddled near the brazier while on guard duty.
The disdain for the smelly barbarian custom could just have been a front back in civilised Rman cities....
Who knows for sure?
What we do know is, there is much said about painting of details on reliefs to fill in 'what must have been there'.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

So you didn't like my "more" scientific mention of how the Romans adopted the gladius, triumphs, chainmail, helmets, maniple formation?

Have I ever said this? I stressed the fact that it are not the statements that I doubt, only the method of assumptions. I also never questioned in my post the fact that the Romans adopted gladius/triumphs/... But I do question the validity of saying that the Romans adopted something like feminalia because they adopted other things as well.

If you want to talk about the steam engine, then by your extended logic "nuclear fission worked well but people of the 20th Century didn't adapt it for their cars because they were stubborn".

No, it's not because they were stubborn. It is because they had more efficient energy production for car-use (implementing nuclear fission in a car would be too expensive), and it was not deemed necessary. (In the ancient world: use of the steam engine wasn't quite necessary because of other kinds of energy production, e.g. hydropower, animals and slaves.)

I'm amazed you actually compared a steam engine to a pair of pants. And I'm the one being put down for using logical conclusions base on analysis and experience?

Yes, I do compare those. And why? Because of your very general statement that "if something worked, the Romans used it". You have just proven yourself that this cannot be applied to just 'anything' and that, therefore, this statement is not correct.

[Quintius Clavus]

I have been wearing multiple tunics, wool leg wraps around my lower legs and wool(woven) socks for a couple years now - in cold weather. Obviously, I wear a cloak, too. One could always wrap more wool around the leg above the knees, too, which is not wearing pants/braccae.
I suspect that some Roman soldiers did suffer frost bite/including dying from exposure in severe cold. Look at what happened to soldiers of the Syrian legions under Corbulo. However, I have found that the above basic winter extras do fine - for something like a winter parade - I've marched in a few! - with a biting wind and temoperatures in the 20's F. My toes are well covered in wool, and I can wrap my cloak some around my hands when standing around and doing the military's favorite thing: waiting.

[Gaius Colletti]

Ok Titus, I shouldn't have to explain this, but the Romans had no concept of what a steam engine could do, to them that was nuclear fission. It's too easy to look in hindsight and go "well they could have done this and this with engines"

But yes, comparing implementing a steam engine compared to implementing pants is about the most ludacris comparison I have ever heard.

I didn't say the Romans used "everything", I said they used things that worked well for them, and my statement is true, I just gave several examples (chainmail, gallic helms, gladius, fighting formation, triumphs), honestly why do you not give that any credit? The fact of the matter is that the Romans did adopt pants, why are we arguing if they adopted them in AD 70 or AD 100?

[Crispvs]

Well Matt, thirty years may not seem like much to you but don't forget that that is more than the full term of service for most Roman soldiers, even those who had to remain in for an extra year. A lot can change in that time. But then, if you are going to see thirty years as little or nothing, then how about two hundred? From 107BC onwards the Romans had fought against the Cimbri and the Teutones. Someone at least amongst these must have been wearing trousers. Could not the Romans have seen them then and thought: 'what a good idea - let's start wearing them ourselves'? Or we could go back further. The Persians had been wearing trousers as least as far back as the fifth century BC. The Greeks had encountered them during the Persian Wars but don't seem to have had any inclination to jump into trousers, despite it getting quite cold in some parts of Greece in the winter. The Romans would have been well aware of the Persians during that period and certainly had encountered them themselves and seen them wearing trousers by the early first century BC.
There were also the provinces of Narbonensis and Cisalpine Gaul, as well as the very cosmopolitan city of Massilia in southern Gaul.
Therefore, the Romans had been surrounded by people wearing trousers for centuries, yet there is absolutely zero evidence for them adopting them themselves at any time before Trajan's Dacian campaigns. As I have already said above, it is entirely possible that they were wearing them prior to the Dacian Wars but the evidence is lacking.

Therefore (and I repeat myself here but it is worth saying again), if you argue in favour of legionaries in trousers prior to the early second century AD without evidence to back yourself up, you are giving the same value to the possible but unproven as you do to the absolutely certain. This is not good historical method and lacks rigour. If I had tried to argue that way when I was at university I would have earned myself a lot of angry red ink and would almost certainly have earned lower grades.


As a side question, have you tried wearing a cloak, extra tunic, socks and lower leg coverings in cold weather yourself? Those of us who have, find little problem with that level of cold weather protection.

Crispvs

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

It's too easy to look in hindsight and go "well they could have done this and this with engines"
But yes, comparing implementing a steam engine compared to implementing pants is about the most ludacris comparison I have ever heard.

Yes, it might be. But I just showed that those nice-sounding statements like "if it worked, they used it" are just not true on the whole line, and can therefore not be used as evidence or argumentation. I also don't see how you compare a triumph to pants, if we're going down that road, but that's not my intention.
It is not because the Romans adopted X, they also adopted Z. Yes, they might have adopted pants, but you haven't got any proof for the 1st century AD. Simple as that. I might also say that as:
It's too easy to look in hindsight and go "well if they had them in the 2nd century they would have had them in the 1st century as well, because they had seen them by then".

I didn't say the Romans used "everything", I said they used things that worked well for them, and my statement is true, I just gave several examples (chainmail, gallic helms, gladius, fighting formation, triumphs), honestly why do you not give that any credit?

See my post above, as I already have answered this question.


We just do not come any closer to an answer to our questions with generalisations like this or with extrapolations based on no evidence.

[Gaius Colletti]

By end for the First Century AD the Roman Empire stretched from England to Egypt, Spain to Turkey. It encompassed millions of people, dozens of cultures and ethnicities. Merchants and travelers from all over the empire traveled to Rome, peregrini auxiliaries served in the army and very well sported pants, and you honestly believed no one wore pants until Trajan's monuments said it was okay?

It's funny how when we find a helmet dated from 69 AD we say it is acceptable from 50-120 AD, but when we find pants, well there's no way they could have been used a decade sooner?

By your logic, everyone portraying a first century legionary should toss aside their 40" x 33" scutums, as they are based off of the Dura Europas find 100+ years later. We have not found a first century AD scutum, and in Trajan's column, scutums are much smaller than most reenactors have. We have no evidence for our large scutum yet we all march along with them.