Uniformity

[Agin]

Greetings!
I am new to this forum, so please excuse me if this topic has been discussed before. I did, however search for it, and did not find much.
So, here is my question..
I am wondering, how much evidence is there about the degree of uniformity with roman legions, and how it may have varied over time? I have read, quite often that legionaries could purchase old gear which may have been cheaper, or shell out for fancier equipment. I have also read (I forget where, I'm sorry) that there were almost no specific uniform standards. But, on the contrary, after the Marian Reforms, is would appear that uniformity was a goal, and most monuments I have seen, such as (the disputed) Trajan's Column show a very high degree of uniformity. Of course, even in the depictions, there is some variation, but it would seem that at least, as depicted, the uniformity is as high as modern militaries. Was there a such thing as uniform inspection? Just how inaccurate are the modern portrayals of clone-like soldiers marching in perfect formation? Most reenactment groups also seem to exercise an amount of standardization. Would it be more authentic to have a much more hodge-podge group with mismatched gear from different eras?
Please excuse me if this is a silly or overtly novice question))

[A_Volpe]

Not a silly question.

This is a tricky question to address, as we just don't know with 100% authority on what's going on with the Romans at any particular time.

The idea that ancient Romans are "just like" modern armies and with modern uniforms, etc, is a modern thinking and is misleading. There are times, as it seems, that Romans tried to "standardize" what kind of gear they were using (as you mentioned, Marius), but, the problem is people are questioning that conclusion and re-research seems to draw up more questions than answers.

Romans, as far as we can tell, did not have what we think of today as a "uniform". That concept of every single soldier wearing identical clothing and weapons, gear, is a modern concept. That's something that started to become a thing in the 1600's. There are moments in time where there are small units of "bodyguards", "personal regiments", and Gendarme sort of things where the whole unit wore identical, distinctive uniforms, but that doesn't seem to necessarily be the case with the Romans.

As you mentioned, there were times where the Romans appeared to have tried to be standardized, but, it didn't last for long or was never really achieved. There is just too much variation in the details of the archaeological records.
There is also nothing that shows up in surviving literature or records (like Ostraka or Papyrus, wax tablets, etc) that mentions anything to the level of detail in uniformity of gear like we have had in the past 200 years. (and trying to maintain "uniformity" has been exceedingly difficult for armies to maintain anyway for 200-300 years). Nothing has been found that says anything like "This Legion on this day in the Emperor's reign were issued this type of helmet to replace the old type of helmet". Compare that to records of say, American Revolutionary or Civil War, when a regiment was supposed to be outfitted with identical specific gear - that rarely happens, and re-examination of photographic evidence shows there is so much variety in gear, many times not at all matching up to the "supposed to have" standards!

There is a book called "Wearing the Cloak: Dressing the Roman Soldier", that mentions the Oxyrhynchus papyrus found in Egypt, that mentions "55 Syrian coats" dated around the 2nd century, intended to be shipped to Leg III Cyrenaica which had moved to Syria from Egypt around that time. Ok, so, there's some indication of a bulk-order of coats or a specific style. But, what the heck is a Syrian style coat, and were 55 ordered to supplement an earlier order or to furnish newly transferred soldiers? Was it to replace old/"obsolete" gear? Was this "standard practice" or an exception? We have NO idea!

Roman records seems to follow a pattern of being kept if there is exceptional or rare instances of things. The mundane, every day boring stuff that everyone wouldn't have taken a second look at, got trashed, burned or destroyed, lost to history. Incidentally, the vast majority of these records turns up in trash piles….But these may have been "temporary" records and notes that were then transferred to "permanent" records that have since, ironically, been lost…Or…Haven't been found yet!

So now there's this idea of "standardization" - That does seem to be what the Romans were trying to achieve for much of the time.
"Standard" gear is different than "Uniformity" - That each Legionary ought to be equipped with some kind of body armor, helmet, sword, shield, spear/pilum - but nowhere has it been found that says what -specific kind- of gear. The Romans never distinguished between a "Mainz" Gladius and a "Pompeii" - That's what we call them now. The Romans didn't seem to care one way or another. They didn't seem to specify between body armor types either, none that I am aware of. "Lorica" seems to show up in the imperial period meaning "metal body armor". "Lorica Segmentata" is a modern term. We have no idea what the Romans called it.

But, we have a problem as modern historical re-enactors….There's only so many [helmets] that have been found. If your group is trying to be as accurate as possible and copying actual artifacts down to the minuscule details, you're going to run out of "variety" rather quickly, so, we end up having to look sort of "uniform" no matter how hard we try. But IMHO it is "better" to have a lot of very accurate copies of a handful of items, than to have hundreds of "inspired" or "looks close enough" or "looks to us what we like to think they might have possibly had" gear.

It also depends on what time period you're looking to portray. In the Republic, the army comprises of men who own land and have a particular social status, which then determines where they are in the ranks, and what kind of gear they are supposed to be able to equip themselves with as part of their rank and role in the army. So, gear was probably quite varied, as some of it may have been handed down from father to son, but oddly enough, the Montefortino style helmet, which is thought to be the most common helmet in use in the Republic period, archaeologically are nearly identical to each other in shape, style and features, and appear to be unchanged for almost 200 years. In the Imperial period / Principate, there seems to be a huge variety in helmet styles and types (although the vast majority seem to share common features and shapes ~ brow guards, neck guards, "crest" rings) then as we get to the Late Empire period, gear seems to look "similar" again.

Whichever way you look at it, there is still more to uncover (literally) with these Romans. What we thought we knew 10, 20 years ago has undergone a complete change with new discoveries and re-examination of existing finds. They appear to be "similar but different".

[A_Volpe]

Not a silly question.

This is a tricky question to address, as we just don't know with 100% authority on what's going on with the Romans at any particular time.

The idea that ancient Romans are "just like" modern armies and with modern uniforms, etc, is modern thinking and is misleading. There are times, as it seems, that Romans tried to "standardize" what kind of gear they were using (as you mentioned, Marius), but, the problem is people are questioning that conclusion and re-research seems to draw up more questions than answers.

Romans, as far as we can tell, did not have what we think of today as a "uniform". That concept of every single soldier wearing identical clothing and weapons, gear, is a modern concept. That's something that started to become a thing in the 1600's. There are moments in time where there are small units of "bodyguards", "personal regiments", and Gendarme sort of things where the whole unit wore identical, distinctive uniforms, but that doesn't seem to necessarily be the case with the Romans.

There is nothing that shows up in surviving literature or records (like Ostraka or Papyrus, wax tablets, etc) that mentions anything to the level of detail in uniformity of gear like we have had in the past 200 years. Nothing has been found that says anything like "This Legion on this day in the Emperor's reign were issued this type of helmet to replace the old type of helmet". There is also so much variation in the details and features of the helmets and other gear found - What it seems to suggest is the Romans had a "standard", that soldiers are supposed to have some kind of helmet, body armor, shield, sword, etc. But nothing tells us if they made any kind of distinction between one type and another. The names "Mainz" and "Pompeii" Gladius are terms that we refer to them today. The Romans didn't seem to ever have been that specific. We don't even know what the Romans called the metal plate armor that we today call "Lorica Segmentata". "Lorica" seems to show up in the surviving literature to refer to "metal body armor" but that's about it.

There is a book called "Wearing the Cloak: Dressing the Roman Soldier", that mentions the Oxyrhynchus papyrus found in Egypt, that mentions "55 Syrian coats" dated around the 2nd century, intended to be shipped to Leg III Cyrenaica which had moved to Syria from Egypt around that time. Ok, so, there's some indication of a bulk-order of coats of a specific style. But, what the heck is a Syrian style coat?, and were 55 ordered to supplement an earlier order or to furnish newly transferred soldiers? Was it to replace old/"obsolete" gear? Was this "standard practice" or an exception? We have NO idea!

So that suggests this idea of "standardization" - That does seem to be what the Romans were trying to achieve for much of the time. "Standard" or "typical" gear is different than "Uniform".

But, we have a problem as modern historical re-enactors….There's only so many [helmets] that have been found. If your group is trying to be as accurate as possible and copying actual artifacts down to the minuscule details, you're going to run out of "variety" rather quickly, so, we end up having to look sort of "uniform" no matter how hard we try. But IMHO it is "better" to have a lot of very accurate copies of a handful of items, than to have hundreds of "inspired" or "looks close enough" or "looks to us what we like to think they might have possibly had" gear. That's how we ended up with that abomination called the "Trooper" helmet. (but that's worth a separate entry/rant)

Whichever way you look at it, there is still more to uncover (literally) with these Romans. What we thought we knew 10, 20 years ago has undergone a complete change with new discoveries and re-examination of existing finds. They appear to be "similar but different".

[Agin]

Thank you, sir, this is exactly what I was wondering! The 55 syrian coats is a very interesting reference.

[A_Volpe]

In addition to "Dressing the Roman Soldier", you'll also want to consult MC Bishop's monograph "The Distribution of Military Equipment within Roman Forts in the First Century", and "The Logistics of the Roman Army at War", by Johathon Roth, which should be available on Academia.edu. Anything by Bishop is excellent. Also look for "Roman Military Equipment" from Bishop and Coulston (Coulston also is excellent). Also try to find "Roman Military Dress" by Graham Sumner (…excellent), there's a 3-volume series similar to this singular work available through Osprey Publishing (Men At Arms, "Roman Military Clothing I, II, III).

As I'd mentioned earlier, The Romans did seem to have a lot of similarity in their gear, at particular time periods. The Montefortino style helmet is considered the most common helmet used by the Romans (and dates back to the Etruscans) in the Republic period, and several examples are nearly identical to each other, the helmet appears virtually unchanged for some 200 years. But the rest of the gear used by a Punic Wars Legionary or otherwise during the Republic, is very hard to nail down. In the Augustan period and much of the Principate, helmets found seem to sport similar, if nearly identical features, such as brow-guards, decorative bosses, and what are thought to be crest attachment rings on nearly all helmets. Belt plates in the early Empire seem to follow similar patterns, like the "typical" mid-first century square shaped belt plate with concentric circles, that appears to be very common from around Nero until around Hadrian (close to a century). But, there appears to be enough slight variations in found belt parts that seems to indicate some level of "individuality" that each soldier could put on their belt. In the Late Empire, we see nearly identical examples of the so-called "Intercisa" or Berkosovo style helmets, and those seem to be in use for…About 200 years, much like the Montefortino from the old Republic!

So, this is what I mean by "standard" but not "uniform identical" gear. It appears with all of the archaeological evidence that gear tends to follow themes or styles that are "typical" in fashion for a few years, but then slowly change. If you look at Lorica Segmentata (Bishop by the way has an excellent 2-volume series dedicated to it), there seems to be a similar fashion and arrangement of the armor for it's 200-300 year existence, but, styles seem to change over those years. The Corbridge Hoard has what has been determined to be 3-4 slightly different types of the same armor.

The so-called Coolus or Bugenem style helmet all seems to be of the same basic manufacture, of a spun bowl, but no 2 cheek pieces are the same. If the Romans were trying to establish identical uniformity, then why don't we find identical helmets in the archaeological records? So, more questions than answers there.

As I stated earlier, we don't have anything that says the Romans were supposed to have identical gear and to look identical to each other. The shield designs, however, seems to be where identical design is needed, for Unit identity, which posed a problem during the Year of the Four Emperors civil war in 69. The battle of Cremona was the example of this, as according to the story, soldiers from Vespasian (?)'s side picked up dropped shields from Vitellius' side, and were able to walk up to the enemy Romans and destroy a siege-engine crew, as their helmets and armor were so similar to their own as to not be distinguishable.

Later on Vegetius (in the 5th century) writes that soldiers are "supposed to have" gear such as a helmet, body armor, sword, etc. But he does not specify what that looked like or that it followed a particular pattern. He also states that soldiers should write their name and unit on the inside of their shields, so they can identify them if they are dropped, etc. That also supports the idea that shield designs are supposed to be identical for that particular unit.

But again, none of that tells us if they wore a "Bugeneum style" helmet for 30 years and then changed to a "Italic C", which of course are the terminology we assign to those helmets and artifacts today. The Romans just didn't seem to have a tradition of recording things to that level of detail. We do, today. The Romans may not have even cared, so as long as orders and supplies were met.

There is also nothing that survives that tells us the Romans marched in-step to a cadence, etc in robotic precision. That is entirely modern, and has been a tradition for only about 300 years. The Romans, by all accounts, are not Robotic. We don't even know if they had a "salute" hand gesture, which is also a modern concept - They never seemed to have had a tradition of such a thing. It seems as if the Romans were very similar to the Late Medieval/15th century and onwards to 18th century armies that the Romans themselves influenced. With a little bit of regular training and practice, a body of soldiers can maintain intervals and positioning, and maneuver as a cohesive unit, without stepping on each other's feet, and without the need for drums (which is also entirely modern, Romans only ever used trumpets to relay signals)

[Scipio Second]

Primus Pilus,

I would agree with your assessment. It is my opinion that Roman soldiers would adapt their clothing and equipment to the local clime. While there may have been some "standardization" of armor and equipment, the degree is subject to at least some dispute. The Marian reforms would seem to have more to do with legion organization than specifically with personal equipment. The reorganization emphasized heavy infantry, which dictated the need for armor. The reforms appear to have eliminated light forces. But that may be somewhat inaccurate as auxiliary forces probably supplied them. So the debate goes on.

Petrus Augustinus
(Pierre Kleff)

[agrimensor]

In my opinion also the armour and clothing would be locally made, (how many new recruits came to the legion every year?) the soldiers would get their fabric from the legion, because it was deducted from their pay. but the legion would buy lacaslly i presume so . if the legion was moved from spain to gemany some items would differ from the ones used in spain. italian helmets and gallic style. Is in different climates the fasion is different.

[Luca]

Interesting question.


This is one of the problem that puzzled me since when I started "working" in the roman reenacting.


My current opinion is more or less the same as stated Andy. I can just add some additional thoughts that unfortunately are not supported by citations because when I read them I use rarely to take note.

Trajan Column seems to be completely different from reality from the uniformity point of view, also comparing the Adamklissi moument as discussed in many ther topics. But even if we can accept that Trajan Column can lie about reality about uniformity, it says also an important thing: "who created it had that concept of uniformity".
So someone believed uniformity was "something", it was also important to be shown on the column. We could think that it was important to people living in Rome, but we can also thought that the artist who made it (Apollodorus of Damascus) that was an expert of the Trajan's wars considered it as an important value.
So my opinion is that a sort of uniformity was intended in the Trajan period at least "officially", but in the warfield reality is always different from antiquity to modern times for a lot of reasons. This can explain the difference from what could be defined "official" to what was the reality.

Next: is the roman uniformity uqual to the modern one? I think no. I believe that there was a complete freedom on balteus, on shoes, on gladius and pugios shape, but the Strategikon (ok I know is VI cent. AD) suggests that centurions must have to decide equipment for their unit, so as example which kind of lorica, how many plumbatae each man, if get an helmet and which kind of.
All of this 5 centuries back make me thinking that soldieres could have all the same shape/design/colours of the paenula at least in the same unit (centuria or cohors) and this is clearly resulting from the study in the book "Wearing the Cloak: Dressing the Roman Soldier".
We have to remember also that the scutum was the most important sign of recognition of a military unit and when looking a roman soldier the scutum is more than 60% of what human eyes can see. Uniforming scutum and paenula you could have the 90% of the soldier appearance "uniformed".

At the end I would talk about helmet. Monterfortino helmet was already discussed so other two things come to my mind: the first is the Mainz relief with the so famous two soldiers wearing to helmet of the same shape with the "fish" on it, the second is the known detail about legionaries of the Legio V Alaudae that used to get on the helmet a feather.
Even if we don't know if the alaudae legionaries were using the same helmet pattern, is clear that the "concept" of uniformity is present. The reason why the uniformity was a "value" is very easy to understand starting from the fellowship arriving to the disciplina and the "order".


Talking about the "perfect marching" it is stated that romans had different ryythm when marching, even if this is different from the perfect mordern that sinchronizes the legs movement of an entire centuria.
Personally I love to have a rhythm without pay attention to steps. Even if sometimes we do it for the public that wants it, and after to have shown that we can do it we say: "ok, now you see that we are trained, but this is wrong".
Far I know in Italy the only other two groups that refuses to step perfectly in order to try to be more philologic are the Cohors II and the DecimaLegio.it

[A_Volpe]

In my opinion also the armour and clothing would be locally made….

Here I would agree that things like clothing may have been locally made and bought - although as I mentioned the receipt of "55 Syrian coats" being sent from middle Egypt to Syria isn't exactly "local", but as the evidence seem to indicate often times than not, that Romans kept records of "exceptional" news and items, and not necessarily "mundane every day" (which seems to end up in trash piles but managed to survive to be found today!), so this particular instance may have been something different from the norm.

I tend to think that the armor or gear maybe have been Repaired and components replaced "locally", which might be the case of the Corbridge Hoard. But yeah, perhaps more information will come available at some point.


As about Trajan's Column, I purposely avoided commenting on it because it is so controversial. I tend to regard things like it and other triumphal pieces as large public commemorative displays, details seem to be generalized and are not as emphasized. We tend today to have this idea that similar commemorative or memorial sculptures that have a lot of specific details (I tend to think about U.S. Civil War memorials and how detailed they are versus how "accurate" those details are) - One thing I try to keep in mind is it doesn't seem that hyper-detail accuracy is not as "important" with sculptures like these, but that the "Story" being told is what is important. Similarly if you look at Funerary sculpture and tombstones, many of the "bodies" and clothing are very vague and "generic", but the faces (of the deceased), are obviously very detailed and "accurate" as they are intended to be an accurate depiction of that person. Sort of a "who cares what they were wearing, they're dead". Comparing it to today - funerals that have a portrait of the person, rarely do people comment about the clothing, but comment about the person wearing that clothing. This seems to be a similar concept with the Romans.

I do find it somewhat amusing how much attention is paid to depictions of people's clothing from Renaissance and later paintings and portraiture, and not necessarily any attention to the person's face or sometimes who they were/what they did….But that's another topic!

With things like T-C, repeating specific details and layering them over each other is used to produce a perspective and to "move" the story being presented. So we see almost a "copy/paste" with the soldiers (and we can "tell" Legionaries, versus Officers, vs Auxiliaries, even Slingers, etc) with identical gear, but the faces, for the most part, and fairly distinctive. To me it seems to follow a typical pattern in Public art and Commemorative art that the Romans favored for much of the Empire. By the time of say, Constantine, I think we start to see a change in how public art is executed. I'm reminded of the mosaic of Justinian and his "staff" - Very vague details including the individuals, except of course, Justinian himself. Here it might be a slightly different narrative and purpose, but, the "standard" of the art seems to change.

I'm not trying to down-play the importance of T-C, but I think we tend to over-emphasize it and look too hard at the details trying to find something that's not really there (and may not ever have been there). The "story" of the war is what is important, and its design and flow in telling that story is what is important. Individual details and "accuracy" of those minutiae details, does not appear to be what was important to them at the time. It appears to be designed for being "Easy" to read and understand the story unfolding. A Roman public looking at T-C may never [have seen] see a military camp or war being conducted (see: Soldiers in Rome = Usually Bad), and those public apparently wouldn't know the difference between one helmet design and another, and they probably didn't care.

To venture a bit off-topic, a comparison that tends to come to my mind is something like US made War movies from the 1960s or so, something where the "Germans" or "Japanese" in US Films are shown flying US aircraft (usually T6 Texan trainers) that are repainted and sport the obvious enemy "Iron Cross" or "Meatball". Since there are so few actual surviving, flyable German or Japanese aircraft available, let alone in any significant number for a movie production, compromises need to take place. Or, something like "Top Gun", everyone who knows their aircraft knew the "Enemy Russian MiG-28" were really F-5's, and the MiG company always numbers their production aircraft ending with odd numbers, not even….But, Is the movie-watching Public going to know the difference and are they really going to care? No, it's more important to know if Maverick is going to succeed in the end and save the day. (although only now with CGI there are less excuses for having inaccuracies in hardware and vehicle looks and details! As insultingly awful as "Pearl Harbor" was, they did a somewhat good job of depicting the aircraft fairly accurately, something that was virtually impossible 20 years ago)

[A_Volpe]

Hmmmm….

I've been doing a lot of think about this topic (perhaps more than I should…) and I think I'm having to revise my statements and thinking about "uniformity". Maybe there were moments of "uniform standard", like with the Montefortino (which as mentioned appears to have been virtually unchanged for 200 years), but then we see new styles coming in (such as a 'brow guard' and 'neck guard' on Coolus/Bugenem helmets; which many examples themselves appear to be "mass produced" from spun bowls); and near the end of the 3rd century we see very large neck, brow, and check guards on types like the Neidermorter/Italic H. The later Intercisa/Berkosovo types seem to lose the brow-guard but retain a neck/nape guard, although it became a rather flat plate suspended from the back of the helmet.

Also, going back again to the "55 Syrian Coats" receipt from Egypt. Why only 55 wearing such a specific style? We seem to agree that Romans may have adopted "local" styles and fashions partly to meld with the local population and to be more 'appealing' (allegedly Caesar was known to wear long-sleeved tunics to "impress" Celtic tribesmen during the Gallic wars; Hadrian was obsessed with the "Greek-Egyptian" look; we also have the story of Vitellius' troops coming into Rome from the Germanic regions in the Year of the Four Emperors, and apparently they were not recognized as "Romans" by the people in Rome! Apparently they were "too barbaric looking" I believe that was from Seutonius?) Legions seem to appear to adopt local customs and even religions/gods/godesses. So, since III Cyrenaica was moved to Syria around the early 100's AD from Egypt, maybe they were looking to adhere to local styles in the new region? But 55 is only half of a Century, although it could have been for 55 Centurions. Since Centurions were usually the local town magistrates in Egypt nomes village districts, perhaps having them wear Syrian styled coats was an attempt at appealing to the local Syrian fashions and people?

This also seems to support the notion that some of us think the Romans had "Regional" styles. Germanic troops (via tombstones) seem to be slightly different from Egypt, from Britain, etc. (and, even T-C, or something like the Adamklissi monument)

Speaking of Egypt, the tunics that have been found (referencing Sumner's "Roman Military Dress"), the style in the late 1st or 2nd century seems to have been a white tunic with reddish clavi stripes (Fayum portraits; although one tunic found in Egypt was a yellowish color with black or very dark blue clavi); but the depictions of Romans in the Temple at Luxor has all of them wearing what we regard as 3rd of 4th century style long tunics, white with blue shoulder medallions and red cloaks.

More questions raised. It's been speculated that Romans might have had different clothing for different functions. If they had a "every day fatigue" vs a "dress" or "parade" outfit, that might explain why we see such variety in clothing. It might have also been a Rank Indicator or Status thing within the army. We're pretty sure the higher-echelons are allowed to wear different styles, such as shoes and belts, vs. the regular rankers (centurions and higher are never seen wearing the balteus with dangly straps, that appears to be specifically Miles for pretty much the 1st century). So, it MAY be that yes, there are "uniforms"/"uniform standards" after all.
Also, allegedly the Praetorian Guard were supposed to wear "older looking traditional gear" as part of their distinctive look….

What still seems to be true from my initial statement, is that the fashions and gear take some time to change. It does not appear necessarily to be "overnight" between one kind of gear and another. As I mentioned before, no document found has hinted on the idea of "we switched to this [helmet] on this day in this year". It seems the fashions and clothing change somewhat rapidly, as fashions do, but the metal armor and gear stays generally the same for a much longer time. Maybe that's the case. Sort of that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" mentality. We have one Roman helmet that has 3 different names inscribed in it, indicating it went through 3 different owners in its lifetime, which could easily have been 60 years, but the clothing those soldiers were wearing might have changed once or twice in that same time period. Styles and details of mass-produced items usually don't change that dramatically from one year to the next. We tend to see a similar thing with military gear today, as with the case with firearms. The M-16 and AK-47 is at their basic level and look, unchanged after some 50 years. Accessories and customization has been available for only the last 15-20 years?

[Agin]

This also seems to support the notion that some of us think the Romans had "Regional" styles. Germanic troops (via tombstones) seem to be slightly different from Egypt, from Britain, etc. (and, even T-C, or something like the Adamklissi monument)

I wonder how much admixture of the regional styles there may have been. For example, during the Iceni Revolt, Legions like XIIII GMV were brought from elsewhere to aid. I'm sure they would use the same equipment they had been while stationed in Germania, especially with the (relatively) similar climates.
Andy, you mentioned that III Cyrenaica moved to Syria from Egypt, and the coats they ordered were sent to Syria from Egypt. Of course, there's no way to know 100%, but, perhaps they had taken a liking to the style, and 55 legionaries put in for them, or 55 needed to be replaced, or perhaps they wished to introduce the style to Syria. I believe it's no coincidence that it was sent from the same province they had, until recently been stationed. Although, on the flipside, if I'm not mistaken, would Egypt not be the the place to go for cotton? It also could have been that they needed cotton coats, or wanted them because they were cheaper...would the cost of shipping them outweigh the price of linen?

[Luca]

cotton was rare in ancient times. In my life I didn't remember an example of cotton even if I found some references. I don't know exactly why cotton was not really used in ancient times (I have heard about costly manufacturing), but there are no evidences that cotton in ancient times was considered cheaper than linen, I think about the contrary.

[Graham Sumner]

"In my opinion also the armour and clothing would be locally made"

As to clothing you would think so but the documentary evidence suggests otherwise. Weavers in Egypt were indeed supplying soldiers locally but also at least the armies in Cappadocia and Judaea. Meanwhile soldiers from Vindolanda in Britain were in Gaul to collect clothing.

Egypt seemed to be geared up for wool production as well as linen. Cotton was also imported through there and grown across North Africa. It does not survive very well but it may have been more common than generally believed.

Gaul like Egypt was well known for woollens before the Romans. Likewise after the Romans arrived they presumably improved things even more and they were both major centres for clothing production quite capable of supplying large areas.

At times the Romans were very close to achieving uniformity, well as uniform as you can get in a pre-industrialised society. The army of the later Republic appears very uniform but the evidence both sculpturally and archaeology is sparse by comparison with later periods. Equally the third century army is very uniform in appearance. However both these periods ended in the chaos of civil wars and barbarian incursions which undoubtedly led to periods were equipment was less uniform. As usual our evidence is not great and open to speculation.

Why only 55 wearing such a specific style

That is Roman record keeping for you. At Vindolanda they were counting individual boot nails!

Graham.