02-29-2004, 05:17 PM
Dave,<br>
Of course the red tunic helped mask blood. This is why it seems to be virtually universal throughout the ancient world. I think most people have no idea how much blood would be spurting everywhere in a hot ancient battle. The notion of wearing white in this environment is simply idiotic.<br>
<br>
Regarding the mosaic, don't know the website but found a photo of the whole thing in an art history book. The soldiers are only a small and insignificant part of the complete work, near the bottom. Much of the rest shows the fantastic and exotic animals seen on the expedition of Ptolemy, and everything is written in Greek of course, even though it was found in Italy. (What does this have to do with Augustus and Agrippa???--<br>
nothing of course, Nick didn't volunteer that information as it would have taken all the wind out of the 'keystone' of his entire white tunic "study". Without this, the only thing his "evidence" proves is that "when soldiers weren't wearing armor, they wore the common, off white, unbleached tunic of every other 'blue collar worker' in Rome, and for dress occasions they wore bleached white tunics with clavii like every citizen of Rome. I have always supported this, I only believe that when going into combat he wore the red military tunic as so much evidence before and after the Principate period establishes. The only piece of real evidence for the 1st century in color of a contemporary Roman soldier in armor is the green tuniced praetorian. But this confirms darker colors, other than white were worn under armor. Green because Nero liked this color but more commonly red.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>
Of course the red tunic helped mask blood. This is why it seems to be virtually universal throughout the ancient world. I think most people have no idea how much blood would be spurting everywhere in a hot ancient battle. The notion of wearing white in this environment is simply idiotic.<br>
<br>
Regarding the mosaic, don't know the website but found a photo of the whole thing in an art history book. The soldiers are only a small and insignificant part of the complete work, near the bottom. Much of the rest shows the fantastic and exotic animals seen on the expedition of Ptolemy, and everything is written in Greek of course, even though it was found in Italy. (What does this have to do with Augustus and Agrippa???--<br>
nothing of course, Nick didn't volunteer that information as it would have taken all the wind out of the 'keystone' of his entire white tunic "study". Without this, the only thing his "evidence" proves is that "when soldiers weren't wearing armor, they wore the common, off white, unbleached tunic of every other 'blue collar worker' in Rome, and for dress occasions they wore bleached white tunics with clavii like every citizen of Rome. I have always supported this, I only believe that when going into combat he wore the red military tunic as so much evidence before and after the Principate period establishes. The only piece of real evidence for the 1st century in color of a contemporary Roman soldier in armor is the green tuniced praetorian. But this confirms darker colors, other than white were worn under armor. Green because Nero liked this color but more commonly red.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>
