Tunic wool

[Anonymous]

I dont think ive seen this "new" tunic sighting myself, but it sounds interesting. Exactly what shade of red is shown? is it the familiar salmon pink that we see all to often on military frescoes in the later empire? I do wonder whether the pink tunics we do see are either<br>
i)simply a result of the artists palette<br>
ii) a representation of well seasoned faded red tunics<br>
iii) originally pink in the first place.<br>
<br>
It is unfortunate that many of the waterlogged woolen madder dyed fragments do not retain their original colour, as madder can be used to produce a whole spectrum of shades, whether you want it to or not!<br>
<br>
Its great if we can freshen the debate by adding more evidence, though im not at all sure we can identify these figures as military by their cloaks. Correct me if i'm wrong but im sure i've seen the paenula depicted on hundreds on civilian stelae in North west europe.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, I've seen how mucky white tunics can get with armour, especially under hamata, but these seldom had arming doublets over the top of them, which is something many of us leave out. <p></p><i></i>

[Daniel S Peterson]

Ennius,<br>
There is a large and very clear photo of this mosaic in the Time Live, "What Life was Like" series, Roman Empire volume.<br>
It is a very red, red, like the red tunic from the Cave of the Letters metnioned previously on this thread. All three of the red tunic men have their tunics cinched up with a belt or cord, while the white tunic man's tunic hanks loose, down to his ankles. While one wears the yellow brown paenula, the other might actually be a blue gray scarf instead of a Paenula. Three out of four men wearing red, girded up tunics in a 1st century AD context would be quite remarkable if they were not soldiers.<br>
<br>
There is also another, probably republican fresco of a Roman wearing a red tunic and helmet plume in the same book.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Flavius]

Ave Crispus,<br>
of course we haven't "contemporary evidence" or reenactment experiences about the effects of blood on the tunics. It would be penally considerable!<br>
Otherwise I could draw the attention on the kind of wounds that occurred in the ancient battles: double-edged spears and violent sword cuts, not to tell about limbs cut off, were able to cause to the fighters huge haemorrhages.<br>
Ancient authors refer often to this effect: in the battle of Zama, Polybius (XV, 14) and Livy (XXX, 34) report the soldiers "slided" on the battleground because of the blood poured out; Plutarch (Aem., XXI, 3) tells the river near Pidna became "red" because of the blood of 25.000 macedonians killed, and so on.<br>
Human body contains about five liters of blood or more, depending on the body weight: if every casualty poured off 2 liters, it means that for example in the battle of Pidna about 50.000 liters of blood soaked the ground, often in a very narrow area (interesting about this the prof. Hanson's study:"The Western Way of War"). The blood pressure ranges between 10 and 120 mmHg: the cut of an artery can therefore throw blood largely around, and one could get dirty even without physical contact. (Sorry for these macabre and harsh descriptions...)<br>
The effects on the garments of a battle in a close scuffle is easy to suppose.<br>
So I don't think that 2000 years ago, without chemical products, washing blood stains was easier than today, especially with white garments: a dark red tunic, when the blood is dry, gives the better concealing effect (well, we can test with a drop, without killing someone!).<br>
About the second point I could report just tiny personal experiences (but in accordance with Dan and mr. Junkelmann hugely more significant experiences). In the group I reenact with, the auxiliaries wear a light tunic: after a 2 or 3 hours march, also due to the fact they generally march at the bottom of the legionary group and "eat" a lot of dust, their colour becomes...brown. Not very nice to see (and unpleasant to wash for their wives, too!)<br>
Optime vale. <p>---------<br>
Fecisti patriam diversis gentibus unam;<br>
profuit iniustis te dominante capi;<br>
dumque offers victis proprii consortia iuris,<br>
Urbem fecisti, quod prius orbis erat.<br>
(Rutilius Namatianus - De Reditu Suo, I, 63-66) </p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

Flavius,<br>
<br>
These are the bits I was referring to:<br>
<br>
"The red colour means, at least in the republican period, the status of the citizen-soldier, different from that of the citizen-civilian. Virtually everything dealing with the war is red..."<br>
<br>
"But he is completely relieved of his "normal" duty of citizen ..."<br>
<br>
"In this sense the red tunic should have to be worn not only in the battle, but during the whole service, as a symbol of his actual condition of soldier."<br>
<br>
Can you cite evidence for them? I would be most interested.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>

[Flavius]

Crispus,<br>
are you maybe asking to me the proofs the tunics were red? Eh, eh…<br>
You know, the debate is actually open. If I, or anyone, had the evidence you’re asking for, the debate should be definitevely closed! And then, which other argument we should talk about here in RAT?<br>
"The red colour means, at least in the republican period, the status of the citizen-soldier, different from that of the citizen-civilian. Virtually everything dealing with the war is red..."<br>
Why not point out this difference? Every colour has, and had , a meaning: the colour of the war is red. Evidences? There are several reference coming from Livy, Polybius, Plutarch and other, to the red colour as the war signal: red flag on the Capitol, red flag on the commander tent the day before the battle and so on… (A little bit laborious to find and count all them, but I promise I’ll do it, sooner or later).<br>
This is the idea I’ve matured after long readings, a strong clue about the symbolic meaning of the tunic’s colour. It’s a personal idea of course, but at the moment we have just ideas to debate…I think, besides looking for proofs and evidences we don’t find, we should be more close to the ancient mentality, approaching through the readings of the classics (not only “militaryâ€ÂÂ

[Anonymous]

Well, I happen to agree 100% with dan on this one, in the context of red for battle, white for undress. My legion is early 2nd century, and we have also adopted clavii on our white undress tunics. Going along with the established size of clavii for a tribune vs a full senator (about 1 inch vs 2 inches), I've done the same for my troops. The centurion using a red stripe of about 2 inches, and decreasing in width in proportion to the pay scale, down to a milites, who simply has his sleeves and bottoms hemmed in red. Now, there is absolutely no evidence for this, though I simply tried to follow the upper echelons of rank in how their clavii indicate status.<br>
<br>
So feel free to jump all over me for that.<br>
<br>
PS - I may just keep tiny clavii for the milites instead of having the hems done in red. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"<br>
Niagara Falls, Canada</p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

I worry that we are using too many assumptions to base our ideas on. Obviously, with so many gaps in our knowledge we must assume some things but we should also bear in mind that all too often, as the saying goes, to assume is to make an ass out of you (u) and me. What are our assumptions based on then?<br>
<br>
1. Isidore of Seville, writing in the seventh century, suggests that Roman soldiers wore red on the eve of and during battle, a practice he says they shared with the ancient Spartans. As Isidore was writing in the seventh century he could easily have confused known late Roman military practice with less well known earlier practice through the usual telescopic view of the past. Isidore is not recognised as being the epitome of reliability and therefore to take what he says about Republican and early Imperial practice at face value is to make a possibly dangerous assumption about his reliability. We do not know that Roman soldiers during the Republic and Principate wore a different colour during peace to what they wore in wartime. If we say this we are making an assumption.<br>
<br>
2. Images of Samnite warriors come overwelmingly from funerary contexts. Given that ancient sources describe them as wearing bleached white or parti coloured tunics in battle it is possible that the association of red tunics and armour in Samnite images is to do with the conventional depiction of death (given the context of the images). To state that Samnite warriors wore red in battle is to argue against writers closer in time to them than ourselves and makes an assumption about the conventions of Samnite art. Similarly, to state that because most depictions seem to show a certain colour ones which do not are unimportant and to say that the majority therefore marks the standard is to make an assumption about ancient thinking on the depiction of images.<br>
<br>
3. The Ein Gedi tunics are not all deep red, and the fact that one of them is does not necessarily mean that it is any more speacial than the others. To see them as Roman tunics could be justified, but this would still be an assumption and to single one out for greater significance would be an even greater assumption, its possibility notwithstanding.<br>
<br>
4. It is a assumption, surely, to say that red tunics were the exclusive preserve of soldiers, especially when we know that it was easy to produce red dyes. Flavius accurately states that many things associated with war are red. To his list we might possibly add the helmet crests of the soldiers in the Judgement of Solomon fresco. Interestingly though, the soldiers wear different coloured tunics, namely white (or possibly pale blue) salmon pink and red. It is an assumption therefore to suggest that soldiers always wore specific colours for specific occasions.<br>
<br>
5. It is also an assumption to say that only soldiers wore belted tunics.<br>
<br>
6. Whilst it is known that candidates for high office wore shining white togas and that Tacitus says that senior officers wore shining white clothes when they paraded before the emperor, it is again an assumption to say that the rank and file of the army did likewise.<br>
<br>
7. There is painted evidence for red, white, green and blue tunics being worn with armour during the Republican and early Imperial periods. To say that any or all of these are typical of their type is to make an assumption.<br>
<br>
8. The 'military' tunic and its difference from the civilian version is well attested by ancient sources. What was the difference though? Was it a matter of colour, or was it a matter of cut and weight of fabric. How many assumptions do we make about the appearance of the 'military' tunic?<br>
<br>
9. When we compare ancient soldiers and their practices with modern soldiers we are making assumptions which may not really hold water.<br>
<br>
In closing then, while obviously any assumption may turn out in the long run to be a fact, until that time it remains an assumption and should be recognised as such. Obviously we need to make assumptions to make sense of what we see but let us not be blind to the tools we are using.<br>
<br>
Crispvs<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Ave,<br>
<br>
I have a book called "What Life was Like When Rome Ruled the World: The Roman Empire 100 BC-AD 200" also a Time Life Book. On page 90 there is a fresco of a physician removing an arrow head from a mans leg. It only shows a portion of the fresco, but the man is wearing a white tunic, with a red tunic over it. It is definitly belted up to "soldier height", and is pulled up for access to the wound on one thigh. There are what appear to be two white ribbons hanging down from his chest, which is off "camera" and there is no belt visible. He is wearing off white mesh sandals. I figure he must be a soldier, why else would he have an arrow in his leg? Is there some way for me to scan this picture and post it?<br>
<br>
Vale <p></p><i></i>

[Flavius]

Saluete omnes,<br>
let's examine for example the text written by Isidore of Seville (Episcopi Etymologiarum Sive Originum Liber XIX, XXII, 10):<br>
<br>
"...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..."<br>
<br>
"Russata", the name of the garment, in Latin means more or less "made red" or "red-dyed", while "coccina" properly means "scarlet" or "purple": so "russati" means "the reddish", "the reds", maybe involving they were seen wearing red suit very often.<br>
"Sub consulibus" can mean "during the Republic", or early Principate (maybe involving that during the late period this custom fell into disuse), but also, broadly speaking, "when subject to the authority of the consuls", i.e. under the ancient republican military service. I recall the symbolic meaning of the colours: my personal idea is that the red tunic concealed the blood as well as the military service concealed the status of civilian-citizen. It's an idea, compatible with the mentality of the early republic and maybe then accepted just as a tradition, not an assumption...<br>
"...ante principia proponi" means that a red suit or more likely a vexillum was raised in front of the headquarters as a warning of the imminent battle, and not necessarily that legionaries put on it just on the eve of the battle...<br>
<br>
Isidore (560-636) lived just a couple of century after the fall of Western Roman Empire, and certainly had very reliable sources for his definitions and statements, being one of the Fathers of the Church, besides being considered one of the most wise and listened men of his era. Of course in some of the statements of his work (a sort of encyclopaedia of his time), for example about medicine or other arguments, he seems today not very reliable, but we're talking about the 7th century... We don't know exactly, but at least about the our arguments we can't exclude he had then solid knowledges and sources, now missed, recent and reliable (the famous, and for us unknown, "Ars militaris" written by Cato? or that by Cincius mentioned by Gellius, or other unknown one?).<br>
The assertions of Isidore are certainly an assumption for him, but a serious clue for us. And a clue, together with plausible hypothesis, helps to approach the truth, if there is one (I personally guess there are more than one), or at least to increase our knowledge about the matter.<br>
<br>
Valete. <p>---------<br>
Fecisti patriam diversis gentibus unam;<br>
profuit iniustis te dominante capi;<br>
dumque offers victis proprii consortia iuris,<br>
Urbem fecisti, quod prius orbis erat.<br>
(Rutilius Namatianus - De Reditu Suo, I, 63-66) </p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

And what if we take the problem the other way around?<br>
What if white was the special color, and not red?<br>
I am beginning to suspect that white was a color specifically associated with civilian status and that maybe soldiers could wear any color they chose BUT white.<br>
The toga, the very symbol of civilian status, was of a single color: white.<br>
As for the military, they generally wore red or reddish tunics because it seems that red dye was cheap.<br>
There are a few hints about white being a "non-military" color: an episode, I think in the Satyricon, but I'm not sure, when the heroes, disguised as soldiers, are noticed by a real soldier because they are wearing white --civilian-- shoes.<br>
Granted it's about shoes, not tunics, but...<br>
There is also the permission granted by Septimus Severus for the centurions to wear white on triumphal parades. And that obviously implies they were not allowed to do so before... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 6/19/04 12:18 pm<br></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Antoninus, I think that the problem with the shoes on Satyricon had more to do with the kind of shoes -indoor slippers (socci)- the protagonist was wearing than with their colour. After all, a soldier was expected to be sporting calligae, wasn't it?<br>
<br>
About colours, maybe Romans perceived off-white as different from true bleached white...<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Yep.. Maybe..<br>
In his excellent -- although expensive-- book on Dura Europos, Simon James has another interesting suggestion.<br>
It's clear from the evidence that at Dura, around 250 AD, soldiers wore white tunics decorated with clavii and decorative patches.<br>
Simon James suggests that wearing a white tunic was a sort of status symbol indicating a relative degree of wealth, since wearing a white tunics meant not only that you had more than one tunic, but also that you had the personel --slaves or servants-- to do your laundry. In a military environment, a white tunic does not remain white for long.<br>
I am more and more inclined to think that the turning point in military fashion --soldiers wearing white tunics-- occurred during the Severan period. Septimus indeed not only allowed centurions to wear white but seriously increased the soldier's pay, allowing them --maybe-- to afford fine white wool tunics instead of lower quality garments, woven from non white lower grade wool and thus dyed, probably red because red madder dye was the cheapest available.<br>
There is undoubtedly a world of difference between Tacitus' description of the dismal condition of the legions during the rebellion in Germany when Augustus passed away, and the luxuriously dressed soldiers of the mid third century AD like those at Dura Europos. <p></p><i></i>

[Carlton Bach]

Sorry to be butting in here. I have no intention of starting religious wars, but this bit might be of interest to some:<br>
<br>
tiberius lantanius magnus: "Well, I happen to agree 100% with dan on this one, in the context of red for battle, white for undress. My legion is early 2nd century, and we have also adopted clavii on our white undress tunics. Going along with the established size of clavii for a tribune vs a full senator (about 1 inch vs 2 inches), I've done the same for my troops. The centurion using a red stripe of about 2 inches, and decreasing in width in proportion to the pay scale, down to a milites, who simply has his sleeves and bottoms hemmed in red. Now, there is absolutely no evidence for this, though I simply tried to follow the upper echelons of rank in how their clavii indicate status."<br>
<br>
Actually, while is most likely does not belong in any military context, the Reepsholt tunic (once believed to be Germanic, but conforming very closely in design to the Gallo-Roman 'coat' type seen on many gravestones from the Rhineland) has a tablet-woven ribbon around the cuffs and neck opening that probably was originally red (the last analysis I found was made in 1941, so the chemistry is dodgy). There you have your red edging.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I'm glad this thread has been kicked into touch again, as i think we missed half of the original question, being concerned with both weave and colour.<br>
<br>
I think we've had quite an excellent debate on colour, but have completely missed the weave question. As i understand it, from what little i've read on roman period textiles, (M Hald, J.P Wild etc) roman wool normally featured a twill weave, unlike plain 1/1 tabby weaves. Apparently diamond twill, in which the whole tunic would appear as tessalated woven diamond patterns, is noticibly very popular on roman military sites (according to Dr Wild) Other evidence:<br>
<br>
<span style="text-decoration:underline">The Danish bog finds</span> (ok not strictly roman military perhaps, but much found with roman military equipment) I think nearly all of this which dates to our period (C 1-4 AD), certainly including the thorsberg finds, is twill.<br>
<br>
A <span style="text-decoration:underline">praetorian guard relief</span> shows what appear to be socks, though on closer inspection turn out to be cloth strips, with a herringbone effect sculpted onto them. Apparently lengths of wool in herrig bone weave have been found at <span style="text-decoration:underline">Mainz</span>....<br>
<br>
Finally, it seems that nearly all linen, unlike wool, was plain (1/1) tabby weave, (and also, unlike wool, it was almost universally undyed. Although i have been told that although linen is a bit more tricky to dye than wool, it should still have been easily achievable for Roman dyers, so maybe this is a case of being able to but not wishing to.)<br>
<br>
Anyway, i'm hoping this will be added to/ corrected by someone who knows a lot more than me about weave patterns!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

We should add the Deurne textile remains, probably part of a cloak and woven in herringbone twill (wool, of course) There was part of an, unfortunably shapeless tapestry woven inset. Similar but better preserved remains come from Dura (earlier too, dura is mid thid century and Deurne early fourth)<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>