Login

01-18-2005, 10:29 PM

What would the average Northern European Tribesman at war with the Roman Empire be wearing? 
 
Specifically, Armour, Helm, material and color of trousers and tunic? 
 
Any help would be useful.

Vadormarius · 01-18-2005, 10:57 PM

Tacticus gave a good description of what an early German would be wearing and equipped with, but I view it with a little bit of suspicion as he may be engaged in a little bit of propaganda as well as recording history. Of course, he may be spot on. Who knows? I am somewhat more familiar the later finds out of Nydam. Basically, armor would have been rare in the lower ranks and maybe even the upper ranks. Most would have been armed with a spear and shield only with a few carrying swords and even a lower number carrying bows. Also, I understand that the belt in the 45h/5th century would have been the same as a Roman belt, as would the sagum. The tunic was different from the Roman pattern, being a checked pattern pattern I think, but don't hold me to that one. Of course trousers would be worn as well. This link may help with the equipment: www2.rgzm.de/navis/ships/...07Engl.htm 
 
The link below was excellent but has been discontinued in the last few days. Does anyone know what happened to it? It detailed and had good photos of the Nydam finds. 
sejren.natmus.dk/ 
 
I hope this helps and hopefully I'm not too far off base in my knowledge. 
Vadormarius/Jim

Crispvs · 01-21-2005, 02:44 AM

In his 'Germania', Tacitus declares that German men went naked apart from a cloak, fastened with a thorn in place of a brooch. Indeed, one of the column bases from Mainz (which is not on the imagebase as yet) shows two Germans chained to each other who are naked and wearing short cloaks. Normally though, Roman art depicts Germans as bearded, sometimes with a 'Schwaban' knot at the side of the hair, bare-chested and wearing slightly baggy trousers, which generally seem to exhibit a large overfold at the waist, which may cover a belt or drawstring or could be a means of holdig the trousers up in itself. It has also been suggested that it may be a sash of some sort. Tunics were also worn by many, if maybe not all, Germans. These German tunics were probably long sleeved and much narrower in the body than Roman tunics. The clothing from Thosberg consists of a long sleeved plain dyed tunic with tablet woven braids around the cuffs, a pair of reasonably close fitting undyed trousers with integral feet, and a rectangular blue check cloak. 
The weapons used by Germans developed as time went on. German society seems to have been very 'iron poor' and the number of metal weapons in the archaeologial record increases with time, suggesting the importing of increasing amounts of wapons and other metalic good from the Roman empire. In the earlier period of Germanic contact with Rome, it is likely that very few warriors posessed metal bladed weapons and most warriors would probably have taken the field with a club or sharpened spear shaft (the point possibly having been baked in a fire to harden it) and a planked shield. As time went on, iron spearheads would have become more common, along with a much smaller number of swords. The dominance of the spear as the typical German weapon is demonstrated by the fact that the spear was seen as the prefered weapon of the god Woden, as well as the remains of spears being present in much much greater numbers than swords in early Anglo-Saxon burials in England. Most warriors would have carried a shield, made of planking and most ccommonly round, although small rectangular examples with 'barleycorn' bosses are known. As time went on one might expect to see knives being carried increasingly by Germans. 
 
I hope this is useful 
 
Crispvs

Vadormarius · 01-21-2005, 10:55 AM

What date was the Thosberg deposit? 
 
Thanks, 
Vadormarius/Jim

Crispvs · 01-21-2005, 08:12 PM

I think Graham Sumner may be called for here, but from what I have read over the years the Thorsberg finds have been variously dated from the 1st century BC to the third century AD. This confusion may originate from-mid nineteenth century excavation methods, although I have never had the chance to see the excavation notes so could not say with any authority. 
 
Crispvs

01-22-2005, 02:32 PM

For Germanic clothing i would ignore most historical mumbo-jumbo and dive straight after the archaeological evidence. The best textile group for your purposes will be that of the North German/Danish bog finds. Chase up references to Authors like Margerethe Hald and Karl-Heinz Schlabow. 
 
I think the Thorsberg finds were deposited over a range of dates, though i think the costume set decsribed by Sumner is unlikely to date much earlier than the third century A.D. 
 
The cloth is almost always a woolen twill weave (I think 2/2 is most popular), although capes of skin are very popular (though there is debate as to whether these usually still had the fur attatched or not, and if so if the skinside was inside etc, etc!) I am unclear as to when/if the more advanced method of vegetable tanning was introduced for leather items. 
 
It is also debatable how colourful the woollen garments would have been, i know recent analysis has found much more evidence for colour, and that woad is suggested as quite a common dyestuff. However, there is also an argument that most white sheep were uncommon in northern iron age europe,(at least until contact with the R. Empire) which would perhaps restrict the colours available.

01-22-2005, 10:45 PM

or i guess you could just look at what these blokes are wearing: 
www.chasuari.de/ 
 
top notch!

Daniel S Peterson · 01-23-2005, 04:22 PM

The archaeological material does seem to back up Tacitus' statements regarding the paucity of metal armor and weaponry of the early 1st century AD Germans. Despite all of the graves which have been found, I know of no armor actually made by them. There are captured Roman helmets, stripped of neckguards, and cheekpieces, reduced to simple skull caps, a few metal bosses (probably also Roman). I recall a shield from a chieftains grave, but even here, the shield boss was converted from a Roman food bowl. Save for some simple swords and spearpoints, it seems the Romans of Augustus, deep in the heart of Free Germania, were practically fighting Cro magnon man. It is no wonder the Varus disaster was such a shock. 
 
Dan

01-23-2005, 11:02 PM

Though i'm only just starting to read up on this area, im not sure i agree with the "cro-magnon" idea, i think the ancient germans were probably several notches up from the flintstones, theres a very good essay on german ironworking on the Chasuari website which backs up this argument with archaeological evidence (not so clear cut after all), its well worth taking the time to read. 
 
I've always been a bit wary of tacitus "Germania" and its relationship with archaeology, although it is undeniably a fascinating piece of literature. 
This should be a great debate, though as finally im off to basic training tomorrow morning i've run out of time to argue!!

01-28-2005, 01:26 AM

I've also had issues with the descriptions, and the idea of fully nude warriors charging into Roman ranks. 
 
I mean, I can understand the intimidation factor of having crazed, lime-covered, fully-nude "barbarians" racing towards me with a sword or spear looking to kill me screaming all the way...Yeah that can be a little scary. 
 
But I've always pondered the description of "naked" from say Tacticus as has been mentioned. Unfortunately I don't [yet] have this translation available, so I wonder if the term "Naked" or "Nude" in Tacitus and others isn't meant to be "without clothing", but perhaps "without armor"...meaning they went into battle without much for "protective clothing/body armor". Would we not consider someone who is just in underwear to be "naked"? as in, Without shirt and pants? (like the difference between "nude" and "fully-nude" or "Buck-Naked"?) 
Perhaps it could mean "shirtless"? 
 
Could we consider a Roman Legionary who was not in armor "Naked"? (I'm sure some of us Reenactors feel "naked" when we don't have the shiny-pretty armor on! ) 
 
I could be totally wrong. I don't know what the specific word/phrase is that is translated as "Nude/Naked" in Tacitus, it could very well be Litterally "Nude" (nudus/nudatio?). But even at that, could it be a reference as I stated above to mean without armor or a second or third layer of clothing? Titus Vulpius Dominicus ~ Your Friendly Neighborhood Roman Dude. 
 
Svaviter in Modo, Fortiter in Re (Soft in Manner, Strong in Deed) 
 
www.higgins.org 
www.higginssword.org

02-04-2005, 12:04 AM

Warning Some Nudity 
 
www.keltentruppe.de/galer...age06.html 
 
www.keltentruppe.de/galer...age06.html 
 
www.keltentruppe.de/galer...age06.html 
 
www.keltentruppe.de/galer...age08.html 
 
 
I just can't see the advantage of this? I Mean, Combat is not a game, it's a deadly business. 
Armour against Naked Skin??? 
 
I think there may be a 20000 year old translation issue. 
Just my uneducated opinion.

Carlton Bach · 02-04-2005, 05:54 PM

Well, going into battle nude may not give you an advantage. but it might well have some religious, spiritual, cultural or macho significance. Sources indicate that the Celtic warrior aristocracy took great care of their bodies and were proud of their appearance, so a habit of showing them off is not out of the question at all (strolling about bare-chested, weather permitting?). Why not take it one step further and actually go into battle thus 'stripped' to show your disdain for the enemy? They wouldn't really need to be totally in the buff, I'm sure to Roman eyes stripped to the waist would be quite disconcerting enough. And with the kind of significance that self-sacrifice, personal risk and battle frenzy could be imbued with, a religious context is certainly believable. 
 
The Zulu, among others, went into battle practically naked and it didn't blunt their effectiveness.

**Robert Vermaat** · 02-05-2005, 12:10 AM

At least they kept their boots on.. 
 
Maybe nudity also had liks to a body culture, muscles, etc.? Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]

Tarbicus · 02-05-2005, 10:15 AM

I think pride in one's body was definitely high on the agenda. I once read that if a man was overweight to the point where his belt/girdle would no longer fit, he was publicly humiliated by the tribe and put on rations until it did fit.

02-05-2005, 04:28 PM

I Read something similar on another board, something to the point of a "fat" tax. 
 
Either way, you won't ever see me running around an event butt "nekkid" , that just aint gonna happen!

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me