Tunic color

[Daniel S Peterson]

Robert, I wasn't referring to the tunic colors museum curators use for their Roman reconstructions, but the actual colors of tunics when color survives in original classical artwork of soldiers wearing armor. Actually the evidence is quite consistent throughout the Roman era and ARMORED Roman soldiers in the Dominate are also depicted in red tunics. Red must have been so common in the late period that as one source tells us, the soldiers were nicknamed "the Russetti". Surviving boys tunics of the period seem to often be red so they can look like "little soldiers", a popular fashion tendency for boys that has continued to this day. I think I remember one in Trier.

Most people seem to have a "black or white" mentality, or in this case a "red or white" one. It is incorrect to categorize me that way, and in articles written over a decade ago I fully acknowledged that the day to day fatigue, and also "dress" tunics of the Roman army, as for virtually every other inhabitant of the Roman empire was unbleached natural white, and bleached white with clavi, accordingly. But as surely as soldiers today almost universally don camouflage clothing when going into combat, so the soldiers of the classical era donned red to do their butchery. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

Dan

Ps. Our Batavian auxilliaries also wear blue, not much evidence for this, but like the absence of crest mounts on helmets identified as "auxiliary" it is intended both for identication purposes and to denote lesser status to non-citizen troops. As it may have been generally thought that these non-citizens had different religious beliefs, it may have even been considered "blasphemy" for them to wear the red war tunic sacred to Mars/Aries, in this early period, at least, when provinicials had not yet been thoroughly "Romanized".

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, I wasn't referring to the tunic colors museum curators use for their Roman reconstructions, but the actual colors of tunics when color survives in original classical artwork of soldiers wearing armor.

Ah, I see, my mistake.

Actually the evidence is quite consistent throughout the Roman era and ARMORED Roman soldiers in the Dominate who are wearing armor are also depicted in red, and red must have been so common late period that as one source tells us, the soldiers were nicknamed "the Russetti".

Is that a fact? Interesting, can you tell me which source that is?
Actually, as to armoured soldiers of the Dominate wearing only red, I'm not convinced. There aren't that many showing the colours of the tunics, and even the one most prominently red (Via maria catacomb afaik) shows big purple decorations, but no armour.

Surviving boys tunics of the period seem to often be red so they can look like "little soldiers", a popular fashion tendency for boys that has continued to this day. I think I remember one in Trier.

Nice theory, but until you have some proof for that it's just that - a theory. Red children's tunics could be just red tunics, as there were green and yellow ones, etc. Of I course I could not tell otherwise, but was there even something like children's 'fashion for playing soldiers'? With the military profession being not that popular under the Dominate, I doubt it somehow.

Most people seem to have a "black or white" mentality, or in this case a "red or white" one. It is incorrect to categorize me that way, and in articles written over a decade ago I fully acknowledged that the day to day fatigue, and also "dress" tunics of the Roman army, as for virtually every other inhabitant of the Roman empire was unbleached natural white, and bleached white with clavi, accordingly. But as surely as soldiers today almost universally don camouflage clothing when going into combat, so the soliders of the classical era donned red to do their butchery. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

Oh, don't mistake me, I not for red or white either. It just mystifies me a bit that soldiers would don red tunics when wearing armour or just in battle. Especially the latter would be difficult when you're not on campaign. But modern soldiers don't don camouflage clothing when going into combat, that's either standard uniform or it isn't.

[Theodosius the Great]

even the one most prominently red (Via maria catacomb afaik) shows big purple decorations, but no armour.

You mean this one, Vortigern ?

but no armour

True, but (if Vegetius is to be believed) most soldiers ceased wearing armor. He is wearing a helmet though :wink:

[Daniel S Peterson]

Robert, Theo,
Yes, that's the point, that soldier is typically girded for war, with helmet spear and shield, so he is also wearing his red "war" tunic. The Via Latina soldier who is also wearing chainmail, and and Identical crested ridge helmet also wears his red "war" tunic. But yes, the possible soldiers hunting african beasts are wearing tunics of other colors, but then, they are not girded for war.

I don't know of any color impressions of ARMORED (key word) Dominate period soldiers who are NOT wearing their red "war" tunics. Even on the trier shield, fighting africans, though the red is somewhat pinkish, they are still "red" tunics.

Dan

[Caballo]

Dan

"trier shield, fighting africans, though the red is somewhat pinkish, they are still "red" tunics."

Could you give us more info on the Trier shield (eg where is is kept, published)- it is a new one for me?

Thanks

Britannicus

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Dan,

I disagree on both accounts.
Your point was that red was worn 'under armour'.
Well, this guy does not wear armour. Sure, he carries helmet, shield and spear, but that's to identify him as a soldier. Why would he be dressed for war? Maybe he was a member of the guards! The tunic is not a 'red war tunic', it's a decorated tunic which happens to be mainly red. The decoration by itself should be enough to disqualify it as a 'war tunic'.
I mean, that what you're saying against the 'white' tunics, right? that these are ruined under armour? Well, so would this one, and all other decorated tunics. That's why we wear tunics or other protective clothing over our decorated tunics when we don armour.

The Via Latina soldier wears a long hamata, no tunic color is even visible.

If that's all you've got to base the theory of 'Dominate soldiers wearing red in war' on, it's too thin in my opinion. You may be right for earlier periods, but for the Dominate I'm by no means convinced.
So, where did you find in the sources that soldiers were nicknamed the 'Russeti'?

[drsrob]

in two cases they were given these tunics while they were tribunes.

No mention of milites, and the association to officers is quite specific. Coupled with the status given to red shoes it suggests red was a colour of higher authority.
[...]
Red tunics could just as much be for special ceremonies, or necessarily close to hand in case of promotion, or for special duties, or carrying out physical punishments, etc, which all justify the white/red ratio.

Red can be a mark of high status or punishment, but hardly both. As I see you have accepted part of Dan's argument I'll not go in to this any further.

Crimson as a red colour is modern - it originally meant brightly coloured, any colour (and that could go for Caesar's cloak).

Interesting notion; do you have a source for this?

Citizen soldiers from the Early Republic and before surely didn't rush out to buy red tunics when called to arms. Legionaries were a professional version of these, and I believe it is as likely the military kept their citizen status obvious through plain uncoloured tunics in the absence of the toga virilis/pura.

I don't recall ever having read that the colour of the tunic (or, for that matter, of the toga) was a mark of citizin status. It was only the toga itself.

The case of the centurions requesting they be allowed to wear white suggests to me they were incredibly proud of 'their boys', and wished to show their camaraderie and appreciation by the simple gesture of dressing the same as them.

What case is that? I would very much like to read your source for this.

The men always need to know who their superiors are at all times, and a differently coloured tunic is an obvious means of ensuring that. Recognition of other rankers was easy through the belt.

Fuentes' theory alive and kicking!

[drsrob]

Yes, that's the point, that soldier is typically girded for war, with helmet spear and shield, so he is also wearing his red "war" tunic. The Via Latina soldier who is also wearing chainmail, and and Identical crested ridge helmet also wears his red "war" tunic. But yes, the possible soldiers hunting african beasts are wearing tunics of other colors, but then, they are not girded for war.

Basically this figure can be more easily used against the theory that red was worn under armour than in defense of it.
The solution in my opinion is most likely that he was an unarmoured infantrymen. That is: red was worn not so much under armour, as "under arms".

[Daniel S Peterson]

Tarbicus,
The silly white-red ratio of Fuentes was based on a single piece of artwork which we now know (and explained in an earlier post here), is UNQUESTIONABLY Ptolemaic Greek and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROMAN ARMY!
With this gone, the whole article is gone. This was the capstone which would have convinced me too, if I had not looked at the original evidence he cited. Yes, there are some good notes about issuing white tunics, etc, but I do not think anyone has ever said there were no white tunics, just that white/undyed tunics were the day to day dress of every "working man" in the Roman empire, but NOT what Roman (or Greek, or Macedonian, or Assyrian, etc. etc. etc) soldiers wore in combat.

Virtually EVERY piece of evidence indicates that Red was almost universally worn as the "war tunic" in the classical age by every rank of soldier. Anyone who takes the time to "inventory" all of the surviving colored artwork of the Greco Roman world will see this.

Robert,
The Russetti quote, is truly authetnic but don't have it readily available now. I suspect it is in Graham's clothing books though. As for the dressier red tunic of the catacomb frescoe, I suspect this soldier is from a unit that did not wear body armor. Yes, his tunic is decorated, but we do not know how elaborate. My late unit wears tunics of this type, with the decoration being only darker red appliques. Such tunics are not tht much more expensive to make, and could have been worn under armor as well.

The late Roman soldiers fighting africans on the Trier shield also do not have body armor, but wear "red" tunics with darker red trim in a combat situation so I believe this certainly is a "war tunic", and we already have solid literary evidence that "war tunics" were red just a few decades earlier. I'd say that is pretty good evidence.

Hey, I have a nicely decorated white tunic for my late Roman impression too, but wear it going to the vicus, and not on campaign. It would get ruined there!

Dan

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert,
The Russetti quote, is truly authentic but don't have it readily available now. I suspect it is in Graham's clothing books though.

I'll have a look.

As for the dressier red tunic of the catacomb fresco, I suspect this soldier is from a unit that did not wear body armor.

As far as I know, no unit in the Roman army 'did not wear body armour'. That's not supported by evidence whatsoever. Yes, I know Vegetius makes such claims, but research has shown that body armour continued to be worn under the Dominate (Beltrán Fortes, José and Adolfo Raul Menéndez Arguín (1999): New Evidence on the Use of Armour by Roman Soldiers of the Fourth Century AD, in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 10, pp. 21-26 and Coulston, J.C.N. (1990): Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th centuries A.D., in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 139-60).

Yes, his tunic is decorated, but we do not know how elaborate. My late unit wears tunics of this type, with the decoration being only darker red appliques. Such tunics are not that much more expensive to make, and could have been worn under armor as well.

Most tunics that we have found have decorations that are far more elaborate than the frescoes and mosaics show. Although it is possible that only the very very elaborately decorated ones have survived, it is also very possible that the images of such tunics simply show a lack of detail (which is also common when armour and equipment is shown) than that tunics have only single-color decorations. besides, as you claimed earlier, why should well-paid soldiers have only simple tunics when they could afford highly decorated one with which they could show off?

The late Roman soldiers fighting africans on the Trier shield also do not have body armor, but wear "red" tunics with darker red trim in a combat situation so I believe this certainly is a "war tunic", and we already have solid literary evidence that "war tunics" were red just a few decades earlier. I'd say that is pretty good evidence.

That's interesting. can you point me to a picture or the publication where it's published? When you speak of 'a few decades earlier', to what time is the shield dated? But for the trim and lack of detail, see my comments above.

Hey, I have a nicely decorated white tunic for my late Roman impression too, but wear it going to the vicus, and not on campaign. It would get ruined there!

As I'm sure it would. Nonetheless, a load of men are hunting animals in white tunics as shown on the Piazza Armerina mosaics, which can't have been an activity in which they kept squeaky clean..

But please Dan, I'm not promoting a white battle tunic! Please remember that. I'm just by no means convinced (yet) that red was a the normal colour for a tunic worn in battle conditions during the Dominate!!!

[drsrob]

Robert,
The Russetti quote, is truly authetnic but don't have it readily available now. I suspect it is in Graham's clothing books though.
Dan

It is in part 1, p. 22. and it's source is Isidore of Sevilla (ca. AD 650) Origines, XIX, xxii, 10.
According to Sumner the tekst states that when Rome was under the consuls, there was a dye called russata (in his own days coccina), invented by the Spartans to conseal blood and therefore red.
He adds that the Roman soldiers also used it and were therefore called russati.
Graham himself is not entirely convinced, nor am I, at least about the meaning and use of the word russati. russati was the name of the red circus faction in Isidore's own days. It's a word of germanic origin and therefore late rather than early.

Russata, quam Graeci phoeniceam vocant, nos coccinam, repertam a Lacedaemoniis ad celandum coloris similitudine sanguinem quotiens quis in acie vulneraretur, ne contemplanti adversario animus augesceret. Hanc sub consulibus Romani usi sunt milites; unde etiam russati vocabantur. Solebat etiam pridie quam dimicandum esset ante principia proponi, quasi admonitio et indicium futurae pugnae.

He is also the source for the idea that red was only worn on the eve and day of battle.

[aitor iriarte]

The shields at Trier are fragmentarily preserved painted leather facings belonging to four early VIth AD circular dished shields. Unknown Egyptian findspot.
Report with colour pics and reconstruction drawings: Klaus-Peter Goethert 'Neue römische Prunkschilde' in Marcus Junkelmann 'Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz' pp. 115-126.
On one of the shields there is a standing officer unarmoured but with shield and spear. His cloak is red and his tunic, pink.
On other shield, there is another standing officer holding a volume in his hand. His cloak is dark blue and his tunic, pink. He is depicted three more times, fighting unarmoured (holding a spear, bow on horseback and shield and spear) against Nubians. In all cases his tunic is pink.
From this last shield we can notice that the man wears a pink tunic in both circumstances, while fighting in war and while receiving an appointment or promotion.

Aitor

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, so we have pink tunics (Trier scuta), a mid-7th c. reference (Isidore of Seville) to what may refer to Medieval practises rather than the Roman army (in whatever period), one red tunic with purple decorations (Via Maria), one with armour but no visible colour (Via Latina) and many different colours in a non-military connection (Piazza Armerina).

I think that from all that, we can at least draw the conclusion that we can't be sure that any colour tunic was worn as 'war tunic' during Dominate.

[drsrob]

OK, so we have pink tunics (Trier scuta), a mid-7th c. reference (Isidore of Seville) to what may refer to Medieval practises rather than the Roman army (in whatever period), one red tunic with purple decorations (Via Maria), one with armour but no visible colour (Via Latina) and many different colours in a non-military connection (Piazza Armerina).

I think that from all that, we can at least draw the conclusion that we can't be sure that any colour tunic was worn as 'war tunic' during Dominate.

Actually, the quote from Isidore clearly suggests the habit of wearing red when soldiering was a custom from the remote past and not one of his own days.

[Tasciavanous]

Arghh!

invented by the Spartans to conseal blood and therefore red.

Having been stabbed with a bayonet whilst wearing my Napoleonic red coat I can confirm that the "Red hides the blood" is total rubbish!
Red coats turn black when bled on! and when the blood finally dries it leaves a rusty colour stain behind.
My coat was a madder dyed "stroud water red" so it isn't just that modern dyes react by turning black its just that's what happens.
So back to Shield blazons now