Late Republican Re-Enactment groups + handspun fibre query

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

where are you located? there might be a group nearby.

also, be sure to tell me where to get the book once it is done.

[Helena Pictoria]

Thanks, Flavius. I live near Melbourne, Australia. I think there is a small group near Sydney. I think Medieaval is bigger in Oz than Roman (they don't teach latin in schools here).

Naturally I'll credit you guys in my acknowledgements, and I'm sure I'll manage a few signed copies. Don't hold your breath though - it can take as long as a year or more from first query to getting it on the shelf. Hoping to have it written by the end of November, but not at the expense of poor research. Its amazing, once you start writing - you think you know something, then you discover how much you don't know.

cheers
Helena Pictoria
aka Helen South

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

feel free to ask as many questions about this sort of thing as you like, somebody around here will nearly always have an answer.

Remember, don't trust fight scenes in movies, actual roman hand to hand isn't as glamorous, and wouldn't hold the audience's attention nowadays.

Also, in prolonged combat the shield really starts to feel heavy, but you are glad it is there. while marching after a few hours it also gets heavy.

[Lepidina]

I actually imagine that the fibres, being less mechanically wound, might have felted a little more, and that, in combination with a slightly more open weave, might have resulted in a fabric that would be softer, draping better, but still very warm and relatively windproof.

There's a good thread (heh, pardon the pun) in the Roman Civ section on fabrics but basically the notion that handspun and handwoven fabrics were of a lessor quality than moder machine-spun and woven fabric is false. The oldest fabrics I've examined have been about 250 years old but they were definitely handspun with a wheel and handwoven on a mechanical loom. The "spinning jenny" wasn't invented until later in the 1700s.

Anyway, this fabric was so tight and even that you could cut it and it didn't ravel. Edges didn't need to be finished and most things were not hemmed, esp. wool felt. Slubby yarn, that is so popular with reenactors, would not have been used because it would be a sign of poor work. I'm a novice with a drop spindle and I can make a decently even yarn. If I was doing this all day, every day, I could probably make perfectly even yarn every time.

The other big difference between modern fabrics and ancient ones is fewer seams. Aitor pointed out that late era tunicas were woven cuff to cuff leaving a slit for the nect opening. The sleeves would not have been sewn on separately nor would there have been seams along the top of the shoulders. He also pointed out that there would have been a seam concealed by the belt where the bottom piece was sewn on.

Lastly, the fabrics probably would have felted LESS because they were woven tightly and extensively fulled after being woven. For example, I wash and dry my linen on hot before I sew it. This does shrink it by a bit but it also tightens up the fabric considerably and makes it wear longer. Ancient fullers (my ancestors would stomp on the fabric over "fuller's earth" and wash it several times over through separate processes, including dyeing, to make the finished fabric.

Deb

[Lepidina]

Oh, on "scratchy" fabrics, I've got wool that people don't believe is wool so it comes in all types. In fact, I'd rather wear a good summer-weight wool on a hot day than most synthetic coolmax type fabrics. Wool absorbs sweat and odor far better than synthetics.

I've read a bit on Roman sheep and supposedly they were trying to breed sheep with longer staple wool, which would have made the wool stronger and softer. And with use, wool softens up nicely.

deb

[Helena Pictoria]

Lepida, thanks -so- much for your knowledge on fabrics. I'll go check out the civ thread - I imagine I'll find many other answers there, too. (I hadn't actually realized we had a civ thread.. *duh)

(Incidentally, I wasn't implying that it was poorer quality - on the contrary, I recognize that anything handmade by an expert can be very fine - but simply DIFFERENT. I expect that the properties required for efficient mass-mechanical production are not always compatible with properties of wearability! Perhaps the 'scratchy wool' we have nowadays is so because the of type of fiber needed for inexpensive mass production... just mentioning it because a few people have commented on this, so perhaps I didn't express myself well.)

Interesting about them not hemming -that's what I meant about felting - the texture of the fibers is able to lock together. However, I do have my heroine at one point stitching the hem of a cloak! Guess I'd better rethink that scene - perhaps she'll be spinning...I've seen a wall painting of a woman with a drop-spindle. she's upper class, but I believe in many families, even though they could afford slaves to do this work, spinning and weaving were considered appropriate womanly pursuits. Part of her character is to be slightly inept at this sort of thing - so (she's upset in the scene) - so she ends up with this thick, slubbed yarn - (which would then be pretty useless, right?)

I'd love to get my hands on some really good reproduction garments - a nice cloak or something - I'm so over crappy foreign-made synthetics.

I've read that Egyptian linens were so fine as to be transparent (this supported by many of the paintings I've seen.)

I'm finding it tricky guaging the relative expense of things too - there's rich and then there's rich. My characters are reasonably upper-class, without being filthy rich - so I'm thinking she'd be able to afford imported linen and perhaps something special in silk, but without going overboard. Any thoughts? (well perhaps I'll find more on this in the civ thread too....)

thanks
Helena

aka Helen South

[Lepidina]

(Incidentally, I wasn't implying that it was poorer quality - on the contrary, I recognize that anything handmade by an expert can be very fine - but simply DIFFERENT.

I'd start visiting local weaver's guilds and look at their work as well as visit historic costume collections from pre-1800 when cloth was still being woven out of handspun yarn. It's really not that DIFFERENT when you look at it.

I expect that the properties required for efficient mass-mechanical production are not always compatible with properties of wearability! Perhaps the 'scratchy wool' we have nowadays is so because the of type of fiber needed for inexpensive mass production... just mentioning it because a few people have commented on this, so perhaps I didn't express myself well.)

That is true for a lot of mass produced wool. Most of that stuff is from sheep that have been bred for meat, not wool and has had a lot of chemical treatment to it. Once you start getting into the more expensive wools, then you start getting wool from sheep that has been bred for cloth, not meat. Again, there are a bunch of local sheep farms that specialize in fleeces and not meat sheep. They can tell you the different properties of wool from each breed of sheep.

Interesting about them not hemming -that's what I meant about felting - the texture of the fibers is able to lock together.

That's technically "fulling". Felting happens when fibers mush together so much they cease to be separate fibers. Sometimes cloth was intentionally fulled so much it felted which is how felt is made.

Part of her character is to be slightly inept at this sort of thing - so (she's upset in the scene) - so she ends up with this thick, slubbed yarn - (which would then be pretty useless, right?)

I'm extremely inept at spinning as I usually only break out my drop spindle twice a year for demos at events and I can spin a thin, even yarn. The spindles back then were small, usually about the size of a quarter or a 50 cent piece and were made to spin thin yarn. So again, someone who's had a lot more practice than me would be able to do it without thinking. If your character is distressed, it would be more likely that she would keep breaking her yarn or get the roving all matted from not drawing properly or spinning the spindle fast enough. Everyone flubs drawing the yarn or slipping their fingers off the spindle shaft when they are trying to spin it.

As for affording slaves to do spinning and weaving work, Rome was pretty industrialized so the wealthy could buy ready-made garments and cloth. Women would know how to spin and weave but it wouldn't be a daily chore unless they did it as a hobby.

deb

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

garments did not need to be hemmed, that doesn't mean they weren't some tunics were still heemed at the bottom, some garments especially from gaul, or from the 3rd-5th centuries had desingns at the hems woven in.

[John M McDermott]

The best wool came from Northern Europe as did the best weavers.

There is a thread entitled "Crowd Behavior and Ancient Battles". The subject is the tendency of crowds to "collapse" when densely packed. There is one good quote from an ancient battle observer where this happened.

It is my belief that when an ancient army became tightly packed that it was in a critical state where collapse could and did occur. If a collapse did occur, it was over for that army. Veterans, we might assume, avoided getting too packed in together, and, we might further assume, were more effective in combat. Romans had a regard for veterans all beyond their numbers.

[Helena Pictoria]

Well, talk about diverse topics in a single thread!

Lepidina, - I guess "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" as they say - some of my ideas have been well off the mark. I guess as far as describing textures and fabrics, I can be pretty safe to describe high-quality modern fabrics of the same fiber - it will be close enough (in terms of drape and feel) to be reasonably accurate. I'll do some more research on color and design to ensure that those are correct too.
(in part my harping on 'difference' is because some of the re-enactor's tunics and togas I've seen look so much like cheap, nasty cotton...)

I had read that even quite well-off women were expected to do handiwork - Cato had 'home-made' clothing - though I believe he was being deliberately old-fashioned. I get the impression that with slaves doing everything, wealthy women must have been termially bored. I need my heroine to be engaged in some sort of activity which her aunt can harangue her about.

OH now here's a statement from the University of Richmond website:
"Women in ancient Rome, like the men, wore long togas made of silk in the summer or wool in the winter. " - now according to what I've read so far (Adkin's Hbook to Life in Ancient Rome, I think) - only prostitutes wore a toga. What gives? (should I move this part of the discussion to the Civ threads?)

An article on Legion VI's website mentions "Soldiers’ tunics should be of fairly coarse wool, but need not be blanket weight or “homespunâ€ÂÂ

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

no, gear of the 1st century B.C. is very different from that of the first-2nd A.D., basically, a bronze montefortino helmet, and a mail shirt for armour, and a longer more oval version of scutum though. John M. Mcdermott can tell you more than I can, I am 1st century auxiliary, still in mail with a bronze helmet though, if you mean the gear was similar to 1st century auxilia, yes, that is a better thought, except the shield.

[Helena Pictoria]

Flavius, I didn't mean gear as in mail/helmet (though of course, any and all info is useful - so thanks) , I meant the peripheral stuff - what they carried with them on campaign - food pots and utensils, water vessels, and so on.

Have found some great pics of C1st soldier's personal effects.

Helena

[Lepidina]

"Women in ancient Rome, like the men, wore long togas made of silk in the summer or wool in the winter. " - now according to what I've read so far (Adkin's Hbook to Life in Ancient Rome, I think) - only prostitutes wore a toga. What gives? (should I move this part of the discussion to the Civ threads?)

Hmm...silk? That was a really rare fabric. I'd move this over to the Civ list and see if Togaman is around to answer your question. He's the expert.

As for some reenactor's tunicas looking like cheap, nast cotton, well they just might be.

I think all women would do some sort of handiwork so they wouldn't be considered completely useless. I don't know if Roman women were into decorative embroidery or did more along the lines of tablet weaving. IF nothing else, they would still be in charge of running the household and would at least make shopping lists, dinner menus, see that the house is kept up, arrange social parties, and even spent some time with their children.

On the "coarse wool" tunicas, you want a tuncia that can stand up to daily wear and tear so fine, Summer weight wool isn't going to cut it. But that doesn't mean it has to be rough and sloppy looking. It just means that you need thicker wool. Again, good quality wool can be as soft as cotton, though these days, it's hard to find and heniously expensive. Back then, it probably would have been easier to find and not as expensive. Plus I think people tended to buy the best they could afford because it would last longer and to "keep up appearances" so to speak. If something wouldn't last long, it turns out to be more expensive in the long run because you keep having to buy more of them which adds up.

John, I've seen an animation on TV about the collapse of a battle. I've forgotten the specific battle they were using as an example - there was a funneling of troops into a sort of valley....

That sound like Varius' battle of the Teutonburg forest where one German commander wiped out 3 Roman legions in 9AD. Not a good day for the Romans.

deb

[John M McDermott]

Actually, the battle was Agincourt, but the principle remains the same. Hannibal reported seeing Roman soldiers who had buried there heads in the dirt at Cannae. A collapse of this type would have trapped plenty of people and induced unbelievable panic. It also explains why many ancient battles were simply over in a few minutes, the result was route and 10s of thousands of casualties on one side with only a few hundred on the winning side. Armies with good commanders and well trained, experienced troops avoided the conditions for collapse and tried to create it in the opposing army.

There is an academic disagreement about colors. One view is that Roman army colors were always drab: browns and mustards. The other is that they were colorful. Fabrics recovered from bogs are almost always brown. However, chemical analysis has revealed that they had another color, though I don't know what the results were. Mosaics show Roman officers wearing blue and green sagums. I tend to agree with those who believe the Romans wore colors, not just drab stuff. I think the drab idea is based on modern prejudice which favors colors that are camoflauge in nature.

Silk, I think is a product of Hollywood, and much of Hollywood's "info" has found its way into mainstream academic "fact".

The Roman of the 1stC BC wore mail for sure, but there is some evidence the lorica segmentata existed earlier than we think. The most common helmet was the simple Montefortino, but there were a variety of others in use: Gallic A, Agen, Port, and even leftover Greek style helmets. Swords from the 1stc BC are longer, not the compact Mainz-Pompei style of the 1stc AD.

As Romans conquered new lands and peoples, they encountered craftsmen and equipment that were many times better than their own. Examples are: iron helmets, the prized sagum, probably the segmentata. If your characters are compaigning in Northern Europe, they will probably be encountering this new and high quality stuff for the first time, and the financially better off will buy them to replace the lesser Roman stuff.

Probably, Romans had the same "marching kit" though we don't know for sure.

Keep asking re-enactors, though, there are many individuals out there who have discovered unusual, unpublished stuff.

[Crispvs]

Going back to fighting for a moment, if you are close enough to clash shield on shield or fight with a short sword you are also close enough to kick. Bending down to attack an enemy's lower legs with your sword is a surefire way to end up with a serious head injury as the act of bending slightly will bring your head and neck lower and closer to your opponent. Conversely, the occasional judicious and well aimed kick with your hobnailed boot to your opponent's lower leg can be very painful, and in the long run, debilitating. If he has a long shield, and especially if he is not very experienced, a kick against the base of his shield can affect his balance and his ability to defend himself for a fraction of a second, which might be all the time you need to get the point of your sword into his neck.
Using the feet in this way could certainly be hazardous, but probably not so much as many would assume, as few men with any knowledge of real combat conditions would be likely to compromise their own safety by bending forward to slash at your leg (unless he was wielding a very long sword, but in any case, if you were that close the chance of him or his offsiders getting their weapons into a suitably low position in time would be relatively low - the long Celtic sword seams normally to have been aimed at the head, neck and shoulders).
I hope that adds a bit of colour for your battle scene.

Crispvs