Posts: 5
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
0
Hi folks! I've been lurking here for a while and have a few questions.
Right now, I'm trying to put together an impression of a Late Roman soldier, particulary a member of the pseudocomitatenses unit Corniacenses, circa 380-400 AD. From what I have read online, this unit may have started out as limitanei at Cornacum in modern-day Croatia before being raised to pseudocomitatenses with the Gallic field army. As such, I'm trying to figure out if the lower-status unit has an influence on clothing and equipment, namely:
-- Pannonian cap. I handmade one myself for another project last year, but it's made of red wool. Does the color red signify authority/higher rank? I was thinking of making a brown one if red was reserved for officers and the like.
-- Tunic. I have my tunic cut out and ready to be sewn up, but I have been waiting to apply the clavi first. Would lower-status troops have highly decorated tunics or would they be unadorned? I know plain clavi/orbiculi are now seen as a sign of a inexperienced/inaccurate reenactor, but would a poor-man tunic ever just have, say, plain clavi and nothing else? Also, are orbiculi or segmentae more accurate for 380-400 AD?
-- Brooch. I have read that the crossbow brooch is tied to authority as a symbol of rank, especially gold ones. Would an old tarnished bronze one still be considered too "high-up" for a common soldier?
-- Spatha baldric. For this 20-year time period, is the thin baldric more accurate? I have seen highly decorated thick ones with metal openwork pieces and phalerae, but was there any decoration commonly seen on the thin ones aside from a buckle?
Thanks for any help you can give!
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Hi Matt, welcome to the ranks of the Late Roman army!
Quote: -- Pannonian cap. I handmade one myself for another project last year, but it's made of red wool. Does the color red signify authority/higher rank? I was thinking of making a brown one if red was reserved for officers and the like.
The colour does not signify any rank that we know of. Perhaps purple excepted.
Quote:-- Tunic. I have my tunic cut out and ready to be sewn up, but I have been waiting to apply the clavi first. Would lower-status troops have highly decorated tunics or would they be unadorned? I know plain clavi/orbiculi are now seen as a sign of a inexperienced/inaccurate reenactor, but would a poor-man tunic ever just have, say, plain clavi and nothing else? Also, are orbiculi or segmentae more accurate for 380-400 AD?
Decorated tunics signify wealth, and a common soldier would not be so rich to be able to afford that. besides, it's not something you'd wear into battle, with the chance to damage it.
Monochrome decorations can easily be 'enhanced', so it's no shame to start with those. I'd satert with segmentae, they are the easiest to fluff up.
Quote:-- Brooch. I have read that the crossbow brooch is tied to authority as a symbol of rank, especially gold ones. Would an old tarnished bronze one still be considered too "high-up" for a common soldier?
Bronze is just fine. Silvered and gilded brooches are for the officers.
Quote:-- Spatha baldric. For this 20-year time period, is the thin baldric more accurate? I have seen highly decorated thick ones with metal openwork pieces and phalerae, but was there any decoration commonly seen on the thin ones aside from a buckle?
A thin baldric would be best for the later 4th c. Wider baldrics are better for the 3rd c.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
AFAIK there is no evidence actually tying tunic decoration to status, although certainly wealthier men would have more decorative items.
Most of the tunics from Egypt, which I have photos of on my PC, are HIGHLY decorative and belonged to commoners. I think overall we underestimate how much fashion played into the common man's clothing.
And don't forget even Limitanei were paid far more than a common man in that day. You're looking at 4 Solidi per Annum in 380 AD, which under 6th Century Frankish law would almost buy you a helmet, or quite a few tunics, or even two plowhorses. Certainly those items would be much cheaper under the Roman system, especially considering the 4 Solidi didn't have to cover most of your provisions which were supplied in the other 12 solidi or so.
Also, on that note, the Notitia Dignitatum does mention facilities like the fabricae for the mass-production of textile items, presumably tunics and whatnot for the soldiers, so I see no reason why what Robert calls an "officer's tunic" would be inappropriate for a Limitanei or Pseudocomitatenses grade infantryman.
The only truly differentiating factor would be dye, and unless you were using Saffron or Tyrian Purple or something, most colors weren't expensive.
As for a gilded or silver brooch, IIRC all crossbow fibulae that have been found were made of Gold or Silver. I'd imagine the Penannular brooch remained the common man's brooch. Soldiers probably used bronze or tinned crossbow fibulae based on art.
And wide baldrics seem to disappear around 350 AD. Thin baldrics are better, and by 380-400 AD you could even be looking at a method to attach it to your belt.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:Decorated tunics signify wealth, and a common soldier would not be so rich to be able to afford that. besides, it's not something you'd wear into battle, with the chance to damage it.
I agree with the first part but not the second. There is plenty of evidence for expensive and heavily decorated items being taken into battle; some even survive with battle damage. Conspicuous consumption was the whole point; spend a fortune, display it to as many people as possible, and let them watch you use it up
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Quote:Conspicuous consumption was the whole point; spend a fortune, display it to as many people as possible, and let them watch you use it up
True, IF you can afford that, and I doubt very much that a common soldier (which was the original inquiery here) would be able to replace his richly decorated tunic time and again.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Don't we have at least one heavily decorated helmet that was shown to be owned by a lower ranked soldier?
Posts: 4,226
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
172
Quote:owned by a lower ranked soldier?
The Theilenhofen 2 'cavalry' helmet (the big attic one), despite often being referred to as an 'officer's helmet', was apparently owned by an eques cohortis.
The Deurne helmet was marked STABLESIA VI - this could mean that the owner was a trooper (presumably - would officers need to mark their own equipment?) of the otherwise-unknown Equites VI Stablesiana, or an abbreviation of 'Stablesia Vicit' (the Berkasovo 2 helmet was marked 'Vicit Liciniana'), which might not be as revealing.
Nathan Ross
Posts: 1,966
Threads: 79
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
22
Robert Vermaat wrote:
Decorated tunics signify wealth, and a common soldier would not be so rich to be able to afford that. besides, it's not something you'd wear into battle, with the chance to damage it.
Dan Howard wrote: I agree with the first part but not the second.
I would echo Dan's comment here.
The 'Sword of Tiberius' is another example of once thought Imperial equipment presented to an officer which turned out to be owned by an miles.
It is generally thought that parade equipment as we would think of it did not exist in the Roman world. The best stuff was worn into battle, possibly on occasion covered to protect it. You can see the same mentality in the Napoleonic period. In a number of sources 'parade' wear is a bleached tunic with no mention or representation of armour.
While it is expensive and difficult now for a re-enactor to replace his kit if it gets dirty or damaged we should not assume it was the case in Roman times. Equally there were also other means aside from the regular pay of obtaining funds to get new gear. Robert if you charged every passer by at your turret you would soon be able to buy a replacement tunic!
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Posts: 34
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation:
0
"As for a gilded or silver brooch, IIRC all crossbow fibulae that have been found were made of Gold or Silver. "
Definitely not true--bronze crossbow fibs are found all over the Empire. I would argue bronze was the most common material used, certainly not gold and silver.
Steve in WA
Pone hic aliqua ingeniosum.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
Quote:Robert if you charged every passer by at your turret you would soon be able to buy a replacement tunic!
Shaking down civvies for "donations" is a great way to fund your reenactment group.
You just have to be really good at getting new people out to your events each time...
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Quote:Quote:Robert if you charged every passer by at your turret you would soon be able to buy a replacement tunic!
Shaking down civvies for "donations" is a great way to fund your reenactment group.
You just have to be really good at getting new people out to your events each time...
Not to mention avoiding the local constabulary. :grin:
Guys, although I agree that milites could own very costly equipment, and that this equipment was indeed used in battle. However, are we saying that a) this could occur or b) that this was common practise? Also, we are still discussing the original question which was if this was common for a late Roman miles.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "common practice". It wouldn't have been common for milites to be able to afford expensively decorated weapons and armour. It would have been common practice for those who did have them to take them into battle.
Posts: 1,966
Threads: 79
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
22
Robert if you charged every passer by at your turret you would soon be able to buy a replacement tunic!
Shaking down civvies for "donations" is a great way to fund your reenactment group.
You just have to be really good at getting new people out to your events each time...
Robert wrote "Not to mention avoiding the local constabulary".
Robert I was thinking more in terms of the actual Roman soldiers doing this, although many modern groups ask for donations. In Roman times you would have been the local constabulary and if you read some of the documents from Egypt soldiers adding their own cut to the local taxes is a matter of course. Often this is done on demand from the soldier. So anyone who paid a road tax to go past your turret would also have to give you personally something or else! This practice was so common it appears in local business accounts.
The surviving late Roman helmets are all silvered or gilded are they not?
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
They are Graham, barring I think 3 (the two Christie's Auction helmet and one other are the only ones that don't have even traces of Gilding or Gold/Silver plating).
This is likely because Gold and Silver are more likely to survive long periods and skews the record, IMO.
As for common soldiers wearing fancy tunics and cloaks and stuff, all the archaeological and artistic evidence points to the common soldier wearing decorated tunics. In fact it's usually the fancy soldiers who don't in Roman art (take the Santa Maria Maggiore where the soldiers all wear plain tunics, but the citizens, religious figures/imperial family, and others wear decorative ones)
Posts: 5
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
0
Thanks for all your help, gentlemen!
One other small question ... I'm guessing that by this time period, the short braccae were out and the long, footed ones were in?
|
