Late Roman mosaic

[ValentinianVictrix]

Many of the painted Late Roman surviving artworks show mounted and dismounted cavalry such as the Luxor paintings. Unfortunately paintings of infantry are more difficult to determine the tunic colours. My point is that there could be even in the 6th Century evidence of infantry, possibly Legionarii, still wearing the red tunics associated with legionary troops.

One of the tunics in the Victoria & Albert museum in London dated to the 6th Century is indeed red.

[AMELIANVS]

Many of the painted Late Roman surviving artworks show mounted and dismounted cavalry such as the Luxor paintings. Unfortunately paintings of infantry are more difficult to determine the tunic colours. My point is that there could be even in the 6th Century evidence of infantry, possibly Legionarii, still wearing the red tunics associated with legionary troops.

One of the tunics in the Victoria & Albert museum in London dated to the 6th Century is indeed red.

Hello Adrian,
Although rather rare,much more depictions of soldiers in red tunic survived then just one.the easiest accessible and I think for this purpose still the best existing source of quick information is work Of Graham Sumner(and D'Amato)on Roman military clothing,if you alredy dont know it.
I must confess that I actually wanted to mention that Goliath have red tunic but I forgot it.

I believe most Roman army enthusiasts are more or less obsessed with what was the color of usual military tunic and if it was red,when this color is somehow strongly captured in popular imagination.
From all what we know it seems Red color was probably considered as typical for soldiers at least from the time of the height of Spartan glory,but we still have no conclusive proof that it was also kind of a uniform color(at least in the Roman army).And if it really was an army color,it would be too naive to associate it only with legionary troops.So if purely because Goliath on that mosaic have red tunic it does not point necessarily on legionaries but rather onRoman soldiers in general.That Victoria & Albert museum-what context it was found?Red color alone says nothing about if it was military.

You also mention that most soldiers are shown in white tunics-that is truth,but the same is valid for civilians.Moreover most of such pictures presented soldiers in non combat situation and without armour so assumption that it is their normal,everyday clothing mostly wore while not in battle is quite likely.Also those frescoes from Luxor probably depicts infantry as well not only cavalry.

Personally,after all what I know at a current moment,I believe in much more colorful and diverse picture of the Roman soldier with very wide open space to every single soldier's personal taste and preferences, with red color having been only popular as Evan already said and kind of the traditional color for military tunic.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The piazza Armerina Mosaics show white, red, and yellow tunics. Other colors too. The vergilius vaticanus shows soldiers in greenish tunics. The Saint Magiorre mosaics show White and Blue, and some sort of Teal or aqua-green.

[AMELIANVS]

This is virtually as I see it.It seems he have helmet similar in design to Deir el Medineh exemplar rather with cheek pieces or mail avantail.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I find the shoe interesting in that the artistic depictions show a shoe similar to some of the shoes in the Vergilius Vaticanus and the Santa Maggiore mosaics.

[AMELIANVS]

Truth.Unfortunately we could only speculate on what century this mosaic is from.

[AMELIANVS]

Another nice one-Amazonmalchy dated second half of the 4th century:

[Urselius]

Nice illustration of a type of pauldron on the muscle cuirass armour - as shown in some later Byzantine images of klivania.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Another nice one-Amazonmalchy dated second half of the 4th century:

Looks pretty cool. Probably wearing some sort of Lamellar or Scale Klivanion, classicized as muscle armor, as Urselius mentioned.

I still prefer my Late Romans.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Another nice one-Amazonmalchy dated second half of the 4th century:

Looks pretty cool. Probably wearing some sort of Lamellar or Scale Klivanion, classicized as muscle armor, as Urselius mentioned.

I still prefer my Late Romans.

Evan, why would the artist depict the soldier as wearing a muscle cuirasse when he could just as easily depicted him wearing those armours you mentioned, it just does not make any sense I'm afraid.

The double headed axes are similar to those depicted in the Notitia, so why the accuracy with the axes and not the armour, again it makes no sense.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have to say the kicker with the muscle cuirass as a classicization is the use of the Varangian Bra. Those Bras were usually worn over top of Lamellar, Scale, or Chainmail as they were supposed to support the armor. I think some were made of Plate, which would be redundant over a Metal Musculata.

The other thing is the guy is clearly bending his torso, which you can't do with a musculata.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Does not look like he is bending to me, in fact it looks like he is being held bolt upright due to the cuirasse he is wearing.
And as to the shoulder pieces, the ones on the statues I have seen all appear to be moulded onto the armour rather than being separate pieces.

[Urselius]

And as to the shoulder pieces, the ones on the statues I have seen all appear to be moulded onto the armour rather than being separate pieces.

I can't see how that would work, the pauldron (shoulder guard) would overlap both the front and back plates of the cuirass where they join. A fixed connection to either plate would render the shoulder of the wearer almost immobile, or at least restrict freedom of movement of the arm to an unacceptable degree.

[ValentinianVictrix]

And as to the shoulder pieces, the ones on the statues I have seen all appear to be moulded onto the armour rather than being separate pieces.

I can't see how that would work, the pauldron (shoulder guard) would overlap both the front and back plates of the cuirass where they join. A fixed connection to either plate would render the shoulder of the wearer almost immobile, or at least restrict freedom of movement of the arm to an unacceptable degree.

I did post in a thread showing lots of photographs of several Roman statues with the wearer having a muscle cuirasse. You can clearly see that the cuirasse was made in two halves, joined on one side by hinges and on the othe side by clasps. The shoulder pieces are generally only modelled on the front of the cuirasse, but I have seen statues where it also is modelled on the back as well. They are not joined due to the split in the cuirasse which extends across the top and sides.

[Urselius]

Are we talking about the same thing? I mean the rounded plate covering outer aspect of the shoulder - as also shown on a figure on one of the leaves of the Barberini Ivory, which is of probable 6th century date:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...nistro.jpg