03-09-2008, 07:45 PM
interesting points you all make, good thread- agreed and i do agree that almost all in every culture seek to emulate the best and brightest- i just dont think most could manage.
i maintain that the soldiers emphasis would be his equipment but not until later in history or further along in rank were most soldiers given to excessively decorating their gear, sure near all of them had evidence of SOME artistry and excess, but i dont think most were bling blinging on the battlefield.
the blander monteforntini and coolus types were still in use in the 2nd century, and as i understand it is debated what decorative armors were worn in battle or merely paraded.
simkins assertion, i'll have to look more into, i found his information cited on another legions website.
to tie another modern thought/sentiment to our(or atleast my) ancestors is this, today most men couldnt give a shit about their t shirt or jeans, but things like watches, handguns, cars, whatever is a measure of their "success" by what particular items their caste may covet. now mayhaps the patrician roman, the tribunes, and the like were more concerned with clothes....like these douchbags on wallstreet in their suits n ties all day, but a soldier like myself, then and now, most of us concern ourselves with our gear and form and function take the drivers seat.
wanted to say also clever that you tied fashion to the tattoo bit, in further reflection ...agreed, nicely stated.
also i looked into the dye process and availability...to your credit, seems there were a variety of reds rather inexpensive as well. the purple was the most expensive and was developed by the phoenicians, tyrian purple i believe it was? derived from sea snails...guess it was grusome process and reaked something awful!
i maintain that the soldiers emphasis would be his equipment but not until later in history or further along in rank were most soldiers given to excessively decorating their gear, sure near all of them had evidence of SOME artistry and excess, but i dont think most were bling blinging on the battlefield.
the blander monteforntini and coolus types were still in use in the 2nd century, and as i understand it is debated what decorative armors were worn in battle or merely paraded.
simkins assertion, i'll have to look more into, i found his information cited on another legions website.
to tie another modern thought/sentiment to our(or atleast my) ancestors is this, today most men couldnt give a shit about their t shirt or jeans, but things like watches, handguns, cars, whatever is a measure of their "success" by what particular items their caste may covet. now mayhaps the patrician roman, the tribunes, and the like were more concerned with clothes....like these douchbags on wallstreet in their suits n ties all day, but a soldier like myself, then and now, most of us concern ourselves with our gear and form and function take the drivers seat.
wanted to say also clever that you tied fashion to the tattoo bit, in further reflection ...agreed, nicely stated.
also i looked into the dye process and availability...to your credit, seems there were a variety of reds rather inexpensive as well. the purple was the most expensive and was developed by the phoenicians, tyrian purple i believe it was? derived from sea snails...guess it was grusome process and reaked something awful!
-Jason
(GNAEVS PETRONIVS CANINVS, LEGIIAPF)
"ADIVTRIX PIA FIDELIS"
(GNAEVS PETRONIVS CANINVS, LEGIIAPF)
"ADIVTRIX PIA FIDELIS"
