Republican-Era Shoes

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

"If anything it should be used to show the hanging on of official attitudes.
"

What are these "official attitudes" you mention? The only ones I know of are where and when you were supposed to wear a toga, what colour you were permitted to use for a stripe along its edge and how wide this and the clavi on your tunic were allowed to be.

Err seriously? You are indeed expressing a cultural attitude towards trousers yourself. :grin:

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

Guys, while interesting this is the "Show your Roman Soldier Impression" thread.

Can we move the "offending" posts to a new thread?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I forgot the do not discuss the equipment rule! 8+)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Can we move the "offending" posts to a new thread?

Done

[Crispvs]

Thanks Evan I had been going to suggest it myself.

Byron - I find your last comment a little hard to fathom, given that, like you, I do not come from a culture which eschews the use of trousers. The Romans did however, no matter how much you wish to deny it. I have yet to see you come up with any shred of evidence to support your position either, while my position on this is based entirely on the available evidence.
Evidence trumps assumption. So bear in mind as you continue your forwards charge carrying the banner of modern assumption, that I will continue to hold you to a standard of evidence if you want me to take your protestations seriously. :wink:

http://www.romanarmy.net/coldweather.shtml

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry, blow our own horn a little louder! LOL
What evidence have you shown to support your cultural view point, which would not be the viewpoint of the soldiers at the sharp and pointy end of the spear??
Merely the viewpoint of the elites and plebs in Rome and italy.

And closed boots? You have evidence to support your viewpoint that they did not exist in the Republican Period?

And what evidence do you have that Romans used leg wraps only?

You should understand surely when I said the Romans mocked the greeks, I was referring to the fact that they mocked them for many things, as an example of them still using and taking part in practices they condemned.

And to compare the Scots, a modern british culture with the ancient mediterranean troops? Really, that is grasping at straws.

[Crispvs]

"What evidence have you shown to support your cultural view point, which would not be the viewpoint of the soldiers at the sharp and pointy end of the spear??"

Really? How do you know what the common soldier's viewpoint was? Do you have access to some previously unknown ancient soldier's dairy? I am arguing from the point of view of the attitudes we know about. By contrast, you are assuming an attitude to suit your own desired viewpoint, on behalf of people who admittedly did not leave a record of their attitudes, but who may very well not have agreed with your modern viewpoint. Start with the evidence and work outwards from there. Never start from an assumption!"

"Merely the viewpoint of the elites and plebs in Rome and italy."

How do you know? Evidence????

"And closed boots? You have evidence to support your viewpoint that they did not exist in the Republican Period?"

That isn't what I said. In fact I said nothing of the sort! Go back and read my post again properly.

"And what evidence do you have that Romans used leg wraps only?"

I have never said that. Why pretend that that is my view, when you know perfectly well that it is not? We know they used cloaks, undercloaks, socks, extra tunics and almost certainly leg bindings. They may possibly also have used leg wraps.
I have spent time in cold conditions with this level of kit on a number of occasions and I know it works. You have not even tried to dress according to the evidence. Why on Earth should I want to reassess my own experience in the light of your assumptions?

"You should understand surely when I said the Romans mocked the greeks, I was referring to the fact that they mocked them for many things, as an example of them still using and taking part in practices they condemned."

Actually, according to our main source, ordinary Romans despised Greeks, and for a lot more things than that. I'll lend you my copy of Juvenal next time we see each other if you like.

"And to compare the Scots, a modern british culture with the ancient mediterranean troops? Really, that is grasping at straws."

You have completely missed the point of the example. The point was that 17th century AD Scotland was a lot colder than 1st century AD Britain (according to pollen analysis), but in those colder conditions, Scots were satisfied to wear a belted plaid and no trousers, which were not part of their cultural frame of reference. There is no need to assume that the Romans in a Britain with a similar climate to what we have today would have felt any need to take on an item which was not part of their own cultural frame of reference, especially when they already had so many ways of stopping themselves from getting cold. The formula: 'cold = the need for trousers' is clearly not a valid one.

There is no rigour in your 'arguments'. If I had dared to misquote and argue on the basis of assumptions, as you have done, when I was at university, I would still reek of red ink!

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ahh, Crispus, as usual, you make assumptions about other people, to reinforce your argument.
You do indeed say they wore leg wraps and as you also add, bindings.
You also insist other people wear these. But what evidence do you have to support this?
And what proof do you have I have not worn what you argue is correct?
I have photographic evidence I have, and also know how inadequate it is in even summer conditions. Protective clothing is not just for
keeping warm, as you so frequently state my reason is for wearing it.
It also prevents insect bites, and ticks attacking. Insects and infection I would think were high on a list of things to avoid back then.
Many more solid points to my argument that "keeping warm"
I have also spent half my life outside working in harsh environments, not just a boys weekend out here and there.

Caesar spent ten years fighting in Gaul, and the troops were away from Italy for almost all the time. They Would have adapted.
I know I don't have a degree, and this is only my opinion. But human nature is one thing that seems fairly constant, despite cultural changes.
Rules were always broken. Many rules were broken.

[Crispvs]

"Ahh, Crispus, as usual, you make assumptions about other people, to reinforce your argument."

Hmmm - that seems like a slight to me.

"You do indeed say they wore leg wraps and as you also add, bindings."

Do I? Can you point to where? If you mean my article on cold weather clothing, go back and read it again. I did not say they definitely wore them. 'Almost certainly'; 'we can be fairly confident'; 'probably'; and 'may have been' do not mean the same as 'did'. In fact, if I was writing that article now, rather than eight years ago, I would avoid using terms such as 'almost certainly' and prefer instead a term like 'quite possibly'.


"You also insist other people wear these. But what evidence do you have to support this?"

I do not insist. You overstate the case. As for their use, I have been over the evidence for you many times before but here we go again:

- Depictions of travellers on fourth century BC Attic white ground pottery showing travellers often show, in addition to cloaks, hats and shoes, hatched or diagonal lines painted onto the calves which appear to be leg bindings.

- Augustus, in addition to his customary four tunics, is also reported by Suetonius to have often worn leg wrappings.

- 'Fascia' are listed next to boots in pay receipts to C. Messius, from Masada and Q. Julius Proculus from Alexandria, both dating to the third quarter of the first century AD. In the case of Messius they are listed after boots and before tunic and cloak (in that order). The positioning of the word 'fascia' in the lists of items suggests that the 'fascia' in question were garments to be worn wrapped or wound around the legs.

- 'Bandage-like material' has been found at Vindolanda which resembles the material of puttees, making an identification as the remains of leg bindings a possibility.

- Leg bindings are shown being worn by agricultural workers in depictions dating from the late first century onwards.


"And what proof do you have I have not worn what you argue is correct?
I have photographic evidence I have,"

Well, perhaps you have, but I do not recall having seen you wearing leg bindings while depicting a first century AD soldier when you have not also been wearing your red Cossack trousers (sorry - but that is what they look like). But if you say you have done, then I must accept that. But please, do supply the photographic evidence, as your usual call for trousers as cold weather kit always seems to suggest that you have not seriously tried to use the level of kit I recommend during inclement weather, as I have done.

Ironically, the only time I actually recall seeing you wearing leg bindings without trousers was when we were depicting fourth century AD soldiers a year or two ago. The use of trousers in the fourth century is, of course, not disputed by anyone


"and also know how inadequate it is in even summer conditions."

Perhaps we are at cross purposes on this particular point - I have stated often that I do not recommend wearing cold weather kit on hot days. mile:


"Protective clothing is not just for keeping warm, as you so frequently state my reason is for wearing it."

I agree - I think when you read my article on cold weather clothing again you will see I addressed that point there too.


"It also prevents insect bites, and ticks attacking. Insects and infection I would think were high on a list of things to avoid back then."

Hmm - eat more garlic or use insect repellent. They have biting insects in the Mediterranean countries as well, by the way, just in case you hadn't noticed. :wink:


"Many more solid points to my argument that "keeping warm"
I have also spent half my life outside working in harsh environments, not just a boys weekend out here and there."

I know that already. In what way though, does that affect what we know of Roman practice? For what it is worth though, I might remind you that I myself have spent a week or more on several occasions in snow bound sub zero conditions wearing shorts and snow gaiters (along with two pairs of socks, several layers on the upper body, gloves and a hat) but no trousers and did not seem to suffer unduly from cold.


"Caesar spent ten years fighting in Gaul, and the troops were away from Italy for almost all the time. They Would have adapted."

How do you know? That seems like another assumption on you part there. By the way, it was eight years, not ten.

Of course, if they had left their leg bindings at home, I suppose they could have got hold of some of the local socks, some of which went up as far as the knee, as you will recall when you look again at Alex Croom's book on Roman clothing, which I believe you own a copy of.


"This is only my opinion."

True, very true.


"But human nature is one thing that seems fairly constant, despite cultural changes.
Rules were always broken. Many rules were broken."

That may or may not be true. To state with confidence that it is true is yet another assumption my friend.

Enough red ink for the time being.


Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So glad you agree with me! Resistance is futile.

[Crispvs]

On the use of lower leg coverings as protection against undergrowth and to support calves, yes we are agreed, as we have always been.

No so on trousers I am afraid. The terminus post quem for trousers remains the AD90s, no matter how much theorising or assuming of conclusions might go on. Unless further evidence shows up to change that, if you are doing an impression of a soldier prior to the AD90s then you should not be wearing trousers.

This may seem dogmatic, but trust me - I have searched hard for evidence of trousers before this point for infantry and it just isn't there.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think you only have to read a few of the sources to realize how often they bent and broke the rules Crispus! Come on now! 8-) Pompey alone was a walking endightment of the roman rule book ignored.

[Crispvs]

Sorry to have neglected this until now - it had not been my intention but I have been distracted by other things lately.

Anyway, to address your points:

Firstly, comparing Pompeius Magnus to your assumption about trousers is like comparing apples not so much with pears, but with medicine balls - two entirely different things, both in nature and scale. Pompey's unique career came about through two things:
- a) he was living in what could only be described as extraordinary times; and b) his father, Pompeius Strabo, had been the only general who had celebrated a triumph for a victory in the Social War - probably the bitterest and most intense war the Romans had ever fought up to that point in history.

Celebrating a triumph had a significance to the Romans which we can barely grasp at today. On the day the triumphator paraded with his army through Rome, he was literally considered to stand alongside Jupiter. This gave him a status among other influential Romans which lasted for life. His son was undoubtedly talented and audacious, but he would have followed the normal cursus honorum like any other talented and ambitious young man, had Strabo not had the status of Triumphator, and in particular, the sole such glory in Rome's bitterest war and perhaps most terrifying war. That opened doorways we can only dream of today and a portion of that glory naturally dripped down onto his son and allowed him a latitude which was otherwise unheard of.

Added to that, in the chaotic aftermath of the Social War, and Sulla's unprecedented seizure of power, under emergency conditions Sulla took him under his wing and allowed him to make use of his talent, as well, no doubt, as his impeccable connections.

You cannot, under any circumstances, compare that to an assumption (in the absence of even the tiniest scrap of evidence) that trousers were worn by Caesar's soldiers - or any other Roman infantry before the AD90s, for that matter.


As to looking at sources, as someone who did my degree in Roman history, I would respectfully suggest that I may have read a greater range of original sources than you are likely to have done.

So - sorry, but the terminus post quem remains the early AD90s and the terminus anti quem remains the Trajan's first Dacian campaign (where the sculptural evidence would still suggest that their use was uncommon).
If you want to challenge that, don't continue to make assumptions about what 'rules' may or may not have been broken. Go out and find some evidence to support your position - perhaps a new tablet from Vindolanda or Carlisle or a new piece of sculpture of an appropriate date.

Sorry to be blunt, but it is essential to realise that assumptions do not carry any weight, unlike proper evidence.

Crispvs

[Jonathan Fletcher]

2nd from right has something going on on his lower leg: Socks, wraps or boots. Sadly the forefoot has gone the same way as his nose.