The history of \'uniforms\'

[hoplite14gr]

I wonder how greeks would look different to greeks. :roll:

I intent to give a small lecture on Greek heraldry and IFF next summer at the hoplites gathering but for now:
There are examples of confused hoplite fights where friends got killed amognst them - Delion for example.
But most City states had some short of defined emblems even before the Pelloponnesian War shield Monograms. Certain renowned families were assosciated with their city so their emblem in battle was recognised (i.e Seilinos for the Athenian Megakleidae, three white feet for the Alkmeoneidae)
There are potery designs showing showing emblems even for peltasts and in Athens now there is an exibition from Crete where clay statuests buckler fragments showing the city emblem from Gortinian and Eleftherna auxilary archers are exibited.
Usually the biggest mess was among light troops and scouts but this to my knowledge is a problem even for our modern armies
Kind regards
Stefanos

[Crispvs]

Actually, I did not say that!

Rob,

Please, read what I write before you reply to it.

I mentioned mercenaries to emphasise the importance of standards. I thought that that should have been obvious.

I would have thought it should also have been obvious that I see shield blazons as being significant. This is why I mentioned it.

Incidentally, can you cite Tacitus' exact reference to shield blazons? As far as I am aware he simply says that under the cover of darkness two of Primus' soldiers picked up shields dropped by Vitellian dead and, using them to hide behind, got close enough to the enemy lines to destroy a catapult. This simply shows that the shields were different to their own. Does this necessarily mean that blazons are the significant factor here? Could some units have used particular shaped shields? I don't have my copies of Tacitus handy. Does he even say that the soldiers who picked up the shields were legionaries? Primus had plenty of auxiliaries with him. If the soldiers were auxiliaries their own shields could have been flat rather than curved like the scuta they picked up.

"Wearing this helmet and a sagum a Roamn soldier of the late republic would have had much the same silhouette as a Gallic warrior."

True, except that Gallic warriors would probably also be wearing trousers and have Celtic style shields with Celtic style decoration. Also, I doubt that silhouettes were quite so important in an age when you could see your enemy's face and battles were generally fought in daylight (and prior to the introduction of gunpowder). I also doubt that most soldiers would have fought whilst wearing their cloaks. I have tried to fight in a cloak on a number of occasions and every time have found the cloak to be a liability which got in the way and could prevent me from drawing or effectively wielding my weapons just when I needed to.

"a distingushing mark of the Roman soldier"

Could you cite all of your evidence for this statement. I was under the impression that the distinguishing marks of a soldier were his military belt and the tunic hitched up above the knee. I would also suggest that weapons are quite a good indicator of military status. You will have to try very hard if you want to try to convince me that the Roman rank and file gave a damn about the colour of their tunics.

[drsrob]

Actually, I did not say that!

Rob,

Please, read what I write before you reply to it.

I mentioned mercenaries to emphasise the importance of standards. I thought that that should have been obvious.

I admit it: I'm guilty of careless reading.

I would have thought it should also have been obvious that I see shield blazons as being significant. This is why I mentioned it.

Incidentally, can you cite Tacitus' exact reference to shield blazons? As far as I am aware he simply says that under the cover of darkness two of Primus' soldiers picked up shields dropped by Vitellian dead and, using them to hide behind, got close enough to the enemy lines to destroy a catapult. This simply shows that the shields were different to their own. Does this necessarily mean that blazons are the significant factor here? Could some units have used particular shaped shields? I don't have my copies of Tacitus handy. Does he even say that the soldiers who picked up the shields were legionaries? Primus had plenty of auxiliaries with him. If the soldiers were auxiliaries their own shields could have been flat rather than curved like the scuta they picked up.

The quote is from Tacitus, Histories, III, 23.

Sustinuit labentem aciem Antonius accitis praetorianis. qui ubi excepere pugnam, pellunt hostem, dein pelluntur. namque Vitelliani tormenta in aggerem viae contulerant ut tela vacuo atque aperto excuterentur, dispersa primo et arbustis sine hostium noxa inlisa. magnitudine eximia quintae decimae legionis ballista ingentibus saxis hostilem aciem proruebat. lateque cladem intulisset ni duo milites praeclarum facinus ausi, arreptis e strage scutis ignorati, vincla ac libramenta tormentorum abscidissent. statim confossi sunt eoque intercidere nomina: de facto haud ambigitur."[...]

The story runs that the praetorians are engaged and at first succesful. Then they are repelled by a large catapult, operated by the 15th Legion.
The tekst indeed does not specify directly what unit the soldiers or the shields belonged to, but in the context it seems obvious.

"Wearing this helmet and a sagum a Roman soldier of the late republic would have had much the same silhouette as a Gallic warrior."

True, except that Gallic warriors would probably also be wearing trousers and have Celtic style shields with Celtic style decoration. Also, I doubt that silhouettes were quite so important in an age when you could see your enemy's face and battles were generally fought in daylight (and prior to the introduction of gunpowder). I also doubt that most soldiers would have fought whilst wearing their cloaks. I have tried to fight in a cloak on a number of occasions and every time have found the cloak to be a liability which got in the way and could prevent me from drawing or effectively wielding my weapons just when I needed to.

Also true, but I was just emphasizing that the influence of fashion tended to reduce differences in dress between various peoples.

"a distingushing mark of the Roman soldier"

Could you cite all of your evidence for this statement. I was under the impression that the distinguishing marks of a soldier were his military belt and the tunic hitched up above the knee. I would also suggest that weapons are quite a good indicator of military status. You will have to try very hard if you want to try to convince me that the Roman rank and file gave a damn about the colour of their tunics.

This needs a longer answer. There are a number of different things involved here.

• Firstly: if, when and why red was adopted as the colour of the military tunic.
  Secondly: if, why and for how long was it retained.
  Thirdly: if, when and why it was abolished.

The answer to any and all of these questions is bound to be different.

• To the first: The Spartans adopted crimson or red as the colour of male dress during the classical era. In the 4th century most Greek armies followed suit. Judging from fresco's etc. the Italian peoples quickly followed this example. Look for instance at Connoly, Greece and Rome at War. Of course the Roman Army could have been an exceptian, but imo anyone stating this would have the burden of proof. At this time the Roman army was still a citizen army. As such it would be formed only for the duration of a campaign. At that point the soldiers would equip themselves for war. When the campaign was over the men would lay aside their arms and become civilians again. The red tunic would have been worn when soldiering only; put on at the beginning of the campaign and taken off at the end. At this period the red tunic would really have been thé distinguishing mark of the soldier, as the studded belts were not yet in use.
  To the second: By the end of the Republic the Roman legionary had become a professional soldier. As such he was a soldier even when off duty. Assuming the use of both red and white tunics, the first would have been used under arms and the second as a daily and off duty wear. The military belts however were worn at all times. The belts therefore marked the status of the soldier and the red tunic showed that he was acting as such.
  To the third: I have no answer yet.
  

As to evidence, I'll refer basically to the list in Graham Sumner, Roman Military Clothing (1). For red being the mark of battle, see: Isidore of Seville, Origines, XIX, xxii.

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.

For soldiers wearing red tunics, see Tertullian, De Corona Militis, I, 3.

Ibidem grauissimas paenulas posuit, releuari auspicatus, speculatoriam morosissimam de pedibus absoluit, terrae sanctae insistere incipiens, gladium nec dominicae defensioni necessarium reddidit, laurea et de manu claruit. Et nunc, rufatus sanguinis sui spe, calciatus de euangelii paratura, succinctus acutiore uerbo dei, totus de apostolo armatus et de martyrii candida melius coronatus, donatiuum Christi in carcere expectat.

(that's all I have available or time for to look up at the moment)

[Tasciavanous]

Hi Rob could you clarify this statement for me

The red tunic would have been worn when soldiering only; put on at the beginning of the campaign and taken off at the end. At this period the red tunic would really have been the distinguishing mark of the soldier, as the studded belts were not yet in use.

I really don't know enough about the very early Roman military. But I was wondering what evidence we have that can back up this assertion.
I had always imagined the early army to be more like the trained bandes of the ECW. IE enthusiastic armatures that wore there own clothes and carried their own equipment. This of course would mean that there was little if any standardization.
As I say I don't know much about this aspect of Romes history but it seems odd that every one would have two tunics one for war and one for peace in an age when fabric was such a relatively expensive commodity.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
I know from reading about the Hoplite that personal shield designs could sometimes lead to confusion in battle if you did not know your allies...
However, if the only real standard of recognition amongst the legions, was the shield design, what if an enemy had acquired a certain proportion of equipment during a raid or battle. how would they be distinguishable from the genuine legion (assuming of course, it was not very obvious) Germanics posing as Germanic legionaries for instance on the field where they were expected.
(I think something similar is mentioned in one of the posts)
Would the issue of older style helms alongside the newer reflect the importance of the legion or cohorts. The better helms being given to the Elite forces and the older battered ones issued to lesser legionaries and new recruits (non officer) etc?
On the question of red tunics, red is the colour connected with war as it is the colour of bloodshed and anger (seeing red gnerally means :evil: ). That seems a very obvious reason to wear it...
Regards
Arthes

[Arthes]

There must have been something similar in the army. There must be at least one thing that identified every Roman soldier as Roman. I wonder what it was.

The typical Roman hairstyle when off the battlefield...and didn't they have some sort of mark or tattoo..that was mentioned in Vegetius.
Of course that would not be immediately recognisable on the battlefield unless they went for facial tattoos like the Pictish peoples..although a large distinguishing mark on the back of the hand that held the pilum or scutum might suffice.
Regards
Arthes

[drsrob]

Hi Rob could you clarify this statement for me

The red tunic would have been worn when soldiering only; put on at the beginning of the campaign and taken off at the end. At this period the red tunic would really have been the distinguishing mark of the soldier, as the studded belts were not yet in use.

I really don't know enough about the very early Roman military. But I was wondering what evidence we have that can back up this assertion.
I had always imagined the early army to be more like the trained bandes of the ECW. IE enthusiastic armatures that wore there own clothes and carried their own equipment. This of course would mean that there was little if any standardization.
As I say I don't know much about this aspect of Romes history but it seems odd that every one would have two tunics one for war and one for peace in an age when fabric was such a relatively expensive commodity.

We know that soldiers were required to equip themselves according to certain standards. They had to pay for their own arms, at least until 123 BC, so they were not poor. The "Servian" constitution as described by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus were almost certainly based on actual documents. (cf. T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome) and it included a description of arms.
Most other Italian armies of the period were part-time armies as well. As all the Italian soldiers of the 4th centuriy BC and after (with the exception of the Samnite legio lintea) used red or scarlet tunics like the Hellenistic armies we must in the absence of evidence assume that the Romans did so too.

[Tarbicus]

A number of helmets have been found in the Danube area that has cross braces added as an afterthought. This is more likely a result of regulation than of fashion, but is definitely no proof.
Another case however is that of the bronze Imperial Gallic helmets type I.
They are made in bronze and with Coolus-type crest fittings, at about the same time that the Coolus pattern itself disappeared. These circumstances point strongly to the existence of some kind of regulations.

Some regulations seem to have existed anyway: the transverse crest and/or partly silvered helemet of the centurion. The centurion's cane and optio's staff. And the beneficarius' lance.

In "the Roman army as a community", there is a paper by R. S. O. Tomlin, "The missing lances, or Making the machine work".

Here are parts of a letter written by a 1st C. cavalry trooper, Docilis, found at Carlisle:

"Docilis to Augurinus his prefect, ..... we attached below all the names of lancers who .... did not have regulation swords. ..." (gladia instituta)

I've left out parts of the text. If you want me to post the whole lot let me know.

[drsrob]

He Jim,

Thnx, that is an interesting text! And yes please, post the whole

[Tarbicus]

Here you go Rob, latin first:

i
Docilis Augurino praefecto
uacat suo salu[tem]
ita ut praecepisti lanciaror[um]
quibus lanciae deessent om-
nia nomina subiecemus aut
qui lancias pugnatorias aut
qui minores subarmales* aut
qui gladia (i]nst(i]tuta non
hab[e]bant turma [s]enio[r]is
G[e]nialis [Ve]r[e]cundus lanciam
[pu]g[n]at[o]riam [item] subarmales duas


ii
[t]urm[a] A[l]bini . . .
. . . . . .]rma[ . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.arda[ . . .
turma . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .


iii
D[o]cca subarmales duas turma
[Do]ci[li]s Pastor subarmales du[as]
Felicio lanciam [pug]natoriam
turma Sollemnis [4-5]atus
lanciam pugnatoriam item subar-
males duas turma Mansueti
[6]s lanciam pugnatoriam
Victorinus [6-7]rae lanciam
pugnatoriam turma Martialis
[4-5]so lanciam pugnatoriam
turma Genialis Festus subar-
males duas Maior subarmales
[d]uas


iv
[. . . suba]rma[le]s
[. . . lanciam pugna]toriam tur-
ma Victoris . . .
. . .

uacat

bene valeas [Augu]r[i]ne
cum [tu]is d[o]mine

In English:

"Docilis to Augurinus his prefect, greetings. As you ordered, we have attached below all the names of lancers who were missing lances, either who did not have fighting lances, or who (did not have) the smaller subarmales, or who (did not have) regularion swords. Troop of Genialis senior: Verecundus, (one) fighting lance and two subarmales. Troop of Albinus (whole page lost.) Troop of (name): Docca, two subarmales. Troop of Docilis: Pastor, two subarmales; Felicio, (one) fighting lance. Troop of Mansuetus: [ ]s (one) fighting lance; Victorinus (?)son of [...]ra, (one) fighting lance. Troop of Martialis: [...]so, (one) fighting lance. Troop of Genialis: Festus, two subarmales; Maior, two subarmales; [name], [two] subarmales; [name] (one) fighting lance. Troop of Victor: [...].

May you fare well, Augurinus, with your family, (my) lord."

Tomlin believes the subarmalis is a lance smaller than the thrusting spear (not a garment), and the gladius referred to is a cavalry spatha, gladius being a general term for sword (as refuted by Bishop & Coulston).

[drsrob]

Thnx Jim,

That really is an interesting text. I see however that "instituta" is partly recontructed and I'm wondering whether any other reconstruction is possible (and plausible, which is not the same). But if not the text would tend to support my hypothesis.

[Tarbicus]

Thnx Jim,

That really is an interesting text. I see however that "instituta" is partly recontructed and I'm wondering whether any other reconstruction is possible (and plausible, which is not the same). But if not the text would tend to support my hypothesis.

No probs Rob. The footnotes say that the dotted . . . letters are damaged or uncertain, but the lost letters that can be restored are represented as [abc]. I had to use (i] or there was just a big string of italics. That means it's "instituta", so rest easy :wink: