Tuniic color in the army

[Graham Sumner]

Travis wrote:

Now an interesting corollary off of this is what dyes provided the greatest value for the lowest hassle. It's likely if you are talking big dye lots then it would be a readily available, durable yet affordable dye.

Madder Red perhaps? Or better yet, just natural wool.

Hi Travis

Or even both Travis. :wink:

No one could be more penny pinching than the British war office in the eighteenth century, which was why they liked madder red dye. It was cheap! It seems somewhat of a contradiction then to realise how much time effort and presumably money was then spent on all the lace work for individual regimental identification around the coats buttonholes and edging. A bit like all the money that must have been spent on Roman soldiers armour, unless most of it was in leather :wink: :wink:

A number of Roman paintings show soldiers in pink tunics. I asked the Textile Research Centre in York if this was evidence of fading. The reply was it was evidence that the tunics had been given one very quick dip in the dye!

Graham.

[Peroni]

The reply was it was evidence that the tunics had been given one very quick dip in the dye!

Could it also be that the dye started out a deeper red, but as more and more fabric was dipped and dyed, the colour weakened? (The first batch of fabric taking up more dye from the solution than the latter batches).

[tlclark]

The reply was it was evidence that the tunics had been given one very quick dip in the dye!

Could it also be that the dye started out a deeper red, but as more and more fabric was dipped and dyed, the colour weakened? (The first batch of fabric taking up more dye from the solution than the latter batches).

Or that it started out dark red and faded over time?
vegetable dyes are cheap, often made of argicultural by-products that are cheap, but they aren't terribly resilient.

Also the interesting thing about frescoes is that it's VERY hard to get very dark colors in certain shades. Frescoes, especially ancient ones have lots of pastel and muted colors. We love to look at the house of the Vetii and the Villa of the mysteries, but they are the exceptions. A lot are very pale and probably were always so.

Also, presumably any pigment that could be used for a fresco could be used for a dye, (assuming they had binders which is in evidence from trade in guma arabic and other raw chemicals, salts etc.) but dyes take differently than pigments, so a dark red on a wall may be a different color on a tunic.

Heck even now there is a huge variation in difference between what you can see on a computer screen and what you can print, so there's always a note of caution to be made when you use frescoes as an example.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

It seems somewhat of a contradiction then to realise how much time effort and presumably money was then spent on all the lace work for individual regimental identification around the coats buttonholes and edging.

Could the latter have been paid for by the Regiment's commander to personalise it to him?

[claudia crisis]

Can I also throw in a word of caution on colours in frescos (not just in relation to tunics).
The colours we see today are not the original colours of antiquity.
The frescos particularly of Pompeii have also been subjected to heat which will have affected the chemical components of the colours.

Hilary

[Caballo]

Hilary,

Good point- can you tell us more? For example, what might the colours in the tavern gaming scene at Pompeii originally have looked like?

Regards

Caballo

[Tarbicus]

If the flesh tones are good wouldn't that mean the other colours are okay?

[Matt Lukes]

Not necessarily Jim, it's all dependent on the chromatophores- the compounds that empart a particular color- and how they react to heat, oxidation, etc. So while some may remain just as they looked in 79AD, others could be rather different. Thus each color must be taken on its own as to its stability. That would probably require some complex chemical analysis and experimentation to determine what they might have been if indeed they have changed.

[Tarbicus]

Merci beaucoup.

[tlclark]

More on frescoes and the process.

Frescoes are different than wall painting in that the color reacts chemically with the pigment, bonding to the lime in the plaster.

This gives the paints a high degree of durability/ colorfastness. Fading in frescoes is far less than in other media, but that doesn't mean it won't change. Calcification, water leeching, lime and scale deposits, oxidation, all of these things can change the color.

It can even change as you paint it! The color of the paint you have on the brush may not end up on the wall. Anciently, you would've had to have been a very skilled chemist as well as an artist. I could imagine painting this horrible color having faith it would turn out ok.

If a fresco is buried and remains untouched by water/etc it in theory could be very stable. In reality that presumes your plaster is just the right consistency and you've done your homework to make sure reactions end up ok.

Short answer: Frescoes are a b*tch. No wonder we moved to oils, which are far more versatile but don't hold up as well.

Now presumably, an ancient artist would have all his particulars worked out just right through years of apprenticeship and practice. Some of the stuff we painted didn't hold up over a year, let alone a thousand or more. The difficulty of colors (or their general inavailability) led to a very limited palette. As hard as it is to believe, most of these frescoes only have a half a dozen colors. All other colors are created by optical fusion, including crosshatching, and pointilism.

Oh gad, it's been years since my Roman Painting seminar but just check out Roger Ling's book for most of this stuff.

The basic thrust of this is that while frescoes are fairly durable, we can't make any final judgements. Too bad.

In a way it's not as big a problem as the distortions introduced into our visual culture by Photoshop. Oh vey! Is that going to cause some poor future art historian headaches.

I think the frescoes give us a "range" or "feel" for possibilities. Other than that it's probably best to track it from the other end and look at available dyes.

Travis

[Caballo]

Great answer- laudes to you and thanks!

Caballo

[drsrob]

It seems somewhat of a contradiction then to realise how much time effort and presumably money was then spent on all the lace work for individual regimental identification around the coats buttonholes and edging.

Could the latter have been paid for by the Regiment's commander to personalise it to him?

That definitely was the case. Even in the early 19th century British Army coats were distributed while only stiched and without lace. The Regimental tailor took them apart, fitted them to the soldier and added regimental lace and buttons.

[petrinus]

red says rome to me!!!! white is also acceptable
i think white for recruits maybe support role soldiers and red for "blooded" seasoned troops

or perhaps red for the troops who get bloody and white then for the more distinguished, centurions, legatus, tribunes?

its nice to speculate there was some order and uniformity, eh?

i'll be wearing red should you see me out!

[Casmin]

I remember a while back (maybe a year ago) some scientists did a test on Augustus' famous statue and found that red paint existed on his tunic. Of course, this isn't irreputable proof but it's a step in some direction.

*Edit*

Soldiers putting a "purple" cloak on Jesus?! How in the world could they afford purple?

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

easy, it was the reddish purple you can get from madder dye, which we do see used on byzantine garments, it wasnt the royal purple.