Reenactment Legion Uniformity vs Variety

[caiusbeerquitius]

In a certain sense one could speak of a functional uniformity. But that´s it.

Graham: I am still very cautious of using painted state relief and "high-quality" statues, and wall-paintings (hellenistic / hellenistic influenced) and the like as a source for clothing colour. There´s too much convention in Roman art. That´d be the art-historical approach, so to say. I general they show the same colours for all kind of stuff, and often show stuff in colours that were definitely not the original object´s colours. Seems there was a high demand for red/blue effects on these objects, e.g. look at the Igel tomb stone. Just as one example for hundreds of others. Far away from "reality", almost like pop-art, IMO.
So instead of looking at these at all, the same step should be made as was made for armour: Look at the material findings exlusively, and then try to understand the art / depiction, not the other way round.




Etruscan & Samnite / Campanian armies were far from uniform, just look at the tomb frescoes, esp. Paestum. We don´t know a lot about the legio linteata, and most of what we know seems to have been made up, so I´d be also very cautious with this.

We do have textiles in abundance (compared to earlier periods) from the first c. AD onwards from the Near East and Egypt, as well as numerous findings from the northern bogs, and here and there well-excavated reports, as from Rome and Paris sarkophagi, or from humid local spots here and there, like e.g. the warrior-grave from Kemathen, and tons of ill or not at all described textile fragments from all over the Empire. On the one hand you have loads of local traditions of textiles, on the other a certain likeness that Roman citizens and their families will proudly wear "white", which is in accordance with the large majority of the tunic findings (I´d say more than 90%) and mummy portraits. Late antiquity is a different thing, though.

Textile fragments: The main problem with these is the difficulty to define to which kind of clothing these belong. A "white" piece of wool fabric is not evidence for white tunics as such, only for the existence of "white" wool fabric in general. So only fragments that actually let you know what they were are of any help. A madder-dyed wool-twill square could also have been a tapestry or so.

I´d very much like to hint again at

M. Pausch, Die römische Tunika, Augsburg, 2003.



IMO none of the works concerned with the topic has consummately investigated the fabric findings themselves, and tried to bring the knowledge gained from these into the discussion, be it colour (of course... ) or weaving technology. For some reason the major part of the reenactment world seems not to be overly interested in this topic anyway.

To get back to the discussion directly: I think that local clothing traditions play a large role in all this, and also local necessities. A tunic good for the North African Desert mustn´t be good in lower Germany. (Nonetheless we find fragments of North African Tunics there THERE it gets complicated...

As far as military dress goes, my interpretation based on the material findings mainly from the Eastern part of the Empire, is that the large majority wore "white" tunics and coloured cloaks, the latter are also attested through the Thorsbjerg etc. findings. To which degree this combination seems to have been the case in the West is difficult to say at the moment.
This rules coloured tunics as such not out. Especially if Auxiliaries are concerned, which stand in the tradition of "German" and "Celtic" tribes, the textiles are better attested for, and were very elaborate and are quite expensive nowadays. E.g. the (quite early) Hochdorf findings... and their tradition... In which also Legions could suddenly find themselves..

home.arcor.de/crumbach/fachartikel/textil/textil.html


All in all a quite complex topic, and not at least as much investigated, as so that one could make clear definite statements (apart from Dura Europos).
Would make a good doctoral thesis.

[Salvianus]

After Matthews argument we'll have to re-think our policy on uniformity of scutum design.

My experience is that significantly smaller (or larger) shields can cause problems in the tight shield formations - testudo etc. causing imperfections in the wall.

That's not an argument against their existence, as already noted. I seem to recall standard bearers depicted with smallish oval shields and smaller shields recommended for light patrols. They were obviously used successfully by skirmishers of various periods. They presumably would not be deployed mixed in with heavy infantry shields.

I have no reason to believe that a few inches would matter and a few very exceptional shields might easily fall back etc in a large scale formation.

Spot the little'un and it's effect:

http://www.comitatus.net/Vindolanda06/vindo20.JPG

[Hibernicus]

Since we depict a Centuria sized unit we decided to be relatively uniform.. not based on any historic factoids or trends .. maybe base it all on the fact that our Centurio is a picky bastardus with his own fashion sense....

"No No NO, Thiliuth Thluriuth! You have no color sense at all! Now listen very carefully.. close your eyes, open your small mind and envision this: the color should evoke the emotions sensed when the sun sets over the Mare Hibernium on a partly cloudy mid October eve, at that moment when the sun just touches the waters.... "

Regarding scutum size uniformity...
.... in simulated combat mixed shield sizes and weight even of the same general shape do not work as well as uniform shields. We train the man to optimize his shield. We also arrange men by hieght whenever possible.

.... testudo... in our practices we have found that a testudo works best when the scutums are all the same size

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

In my cohort (2. century), we have blue shields, blue tunics, wear imperial-helmets and closed boots.
But, if you look exactly on our soldiers, no one has the same equipment! The paint on our shields, and even the emblems are different, all tunics are in brighter or darker blue or from wool or linen, the helmets are of late gallic- or italic-style (Theilenhofen, Hebron, Carnuntum, Mainz, Augsburg and so on) and the closed boots show a wide variety.
My centurio dreams from a "CloneTrooper-Legion" in which each soldier look like the other, but i think, if you have a wide variety of uniformity, you can show the public even more (and each soldier can go a little bit his own way).
Thats what the public want to see i think, a difference in uniformity like the difference in the armys today.

[Gaius_Calvus]

I am with Christian on this one -- functional uniformity as opposed to a modern army's relatively complete uniformity. Speaking as a modern Soldier, I can tell you that armies in the field are much less "uniform" than most would suppose.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

They look pretty uniform in the testudo on Trajans column too, but that is only an sculpture after all!

[Gaius_Calvus]

Right, Byron -- and not only a sculpture, but a sculpture devoted to propaganda. The column shows how the state would like the army to appear to the public, as opposed to being an accurate representation of its appearance.

The column has many good uses, but must be viewed in light of its original purpose.

Regards,

Edge

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yet, I would still go with the idea that they had fairly uniform scuta size to enable a solid testudo. I wonder if you could drive a cart over a testudo that was not tightly locked together?

[Marcus Mummius]

In a certain sense one could speak of a functional uniformity. But that´s it.

That's the term that I was trying to describe in my post

[Graham Sumner]

Christian

You have raised a lot of interesting points which I agree with.

Graham: I am still very cautious of using painted state relief and "high-quality" statues, and wall-paintings (hellenistic / hellenistic influenced) and the like as a source for clothing colour.

So am I, which is why I also like to include as much archaeological and literary evidence as I can find too. There are however many instances when pictorial evidence even if not technically competent is supported by archaeological finds.

There´s too much convention in Roman art. That´d be the art-historical approach,

I still prefer to have a look at the evidence myself rather than read the opinions of modern art historians who may not have up to date knowledge of military equipment. That is also why I try to find and present as much evidence as I can so other people can make their own minds up as well.

As far as military dress goes, my interpretation based on the material findings mainly from the Eastern part of the Empire, is that the large majority wore "white" tunics and coloured cloaks,

That is interesting as that is exactly what the "Hellenistic influenced and the like" sources seems to show too! :wink:

And yes more work needs to be done on this subject. In particular within the many disciplines. Not all art historians are interested in the military I am sure, probably many textile historians are not either and many of the Roman finds come under unhelpful headings such as Coptic, Egyptian and Byzantine. You can also find many standard works on the Roman military which hardly mention clothing at all. Thankfully things do appear to be changing for the better.

Graham.

[jkaler48]

A really great discussion and some interesting insights from the "field"
which is of course the intent of the original post! Thanks Guys!

[AuxArcher]

My own two cents is to take a look at decent photos of 21st and 20th century armies of any nation, or look at artifacts in a collector's collection or in a museum. There are so many variations of color in just, say, web belts, and even the same contractor could and would produce many varient shades for a web belt or canteen cover, etc. Age, field wear, competency of the person performing maintenance all factored in.

As for a bit of my own experience in the US Army, I had an old style Vietnam pistol belt as part of my TA50 in Germany in the 1980s with the blackened metal buckle, while other guys had the newest nylon kind with a plastic belt buckle. We had 1960s flak vests, and the new kevlar stuff side by side. Yet we were uniform.

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

We go for a look that conveys the facts of materiel culture, as we understand it, in the legions. It occured to us that if we all bought our kit from the same manufacturer, and arranged it in the 'approved' way, we'd look uniform enough to our modern tastes that the public and ourselves would know it and ask why. We don't want to, so....

Our tunics are red. You all know the pros and cons by now and we do too. The evidence points that way, so we're doing it. 'Nuff said. I have an off-white tunic for occasions when I'm not under arms.

Armor. 2 of us have segmentata, I have a butted hamata and our 4th guy is either getting or has a riveted one. Our period is Nero's reign and both were in use. We can explain why when people ask about it, and educate them in ancient fabrication and supply methods. And the age old datum that the new guy gets the worst crap in the shed when he doesn't chip in for the supply guy's vacation fund Our helmets are different too for the same reason, though scuta aren't.

Weapons. We all have gladii of differing styles. Bill has a Mainz, Greg has a Fulham and I have a Pompeii. Don't know about Chris's yet, though I'd like to see at month's end. Besides the differing blades, the scabbards and handles aren't alike but conform to Roman styles and materiels. Our understanding is that arms and armor were a cottage or individual industry and supplied by those worthies of varying skill. Thus, everything will look similiar as it needs to be to fufill its function and paymaster's requirements (stabbing, with occasional cuts) but different in the details, according to the skills and whims of the artisans. It's why my pila look brutal, effective and ugly and nothing more (No offence, Wes! If I could repair them I'd love to throw yours that I bought). Plus it's a nice way of excusing my novice workmanship for the things I made myself :lol:

Belts. I made mine, and the others bought theirs, according the styles of our time. We know the significance of this item and tailored them to our pocketbooks, which is pretty close to the truth as it was then.

Shoes. We have caligae from Par Fabrica, and they're all the same. We don't believe the miles did his own cobbling, and men of the same conteburnium would likely have patronized the same cobbler.

Furca/Sarcina. Thus far I think this is a matter of function and taste over form, despite what Trajan's Column says. For the most part, that's what we have to go by. Correct me if I'm wrong; I need advice. I threw mine together, balanced the patera with a jug of olive oil and marched.

All in all, I get the impression that compared to Hollywood or popular image, the legions looked more like a medieval mob. Albeit one with a plan and a few more clues what they were doing.

[afmayer]

Matt,
Really, not all legionaries wore body armor? What did you mean by this?

Avete!
...

Strictly speaking, there is evidence that not all legionaries wore body armor! So you could throw that in as another option.

...
Valete,

Matthew

[Matthew Amt]

Matthew if you are in charge and your wife can not pick you out then I would suggest that your not wearing the right gear. I.E not flashy enough. Even if officers wore the same colours as their men their clothing material would be more expensive and they would use the more expensive dyes. The same would apply to whatever armour and equipment they were using.

Oh, agreed! Usually, I'm just "head grunt", sometimes I go as an optio. But the problem is that so much of my gear is years old and home-made, cuz that's what I can afford. Then these new recruits all go buying wonderful blingy swords and belts from Holger Ratsdorf and David Hare, and all I can do is get grumpy at them and threaten to confiscate it! Not fair... My stuff isn't *bad*, mind you, it just doesn't stand out from the crowd. Maybe I'll try splattering all the troops with mud before marching out, leaving myself all clean and neat! Yeah, that's it...

I MUST make a new tunic this year, but just don't have much time and money for other new Roman projects.

Really, not all legionaries wore body armor? What did you mean by this?

Some of the legionaries shown on the Arch of Orange and the Mainz column bases do not seem to be wearing armor, and I've also seen at least 2 little figurines that appear to be unarmored legionaries. Caesar states that his men at Dyrrhachium had to make coats of hides and such to protect themselves from Pompey's archers, which shouldn't have been necessary if they were wearing mail. So I don't think body armor was universal. That wouldn't have been a big deal, since MOST men on any ancient battlefield were unarmored--it was the norm, and armor was the exception. I still expect that *most* legionaries were armored, so they still have a massive advantage overall.

Valete,

Matthew