Login

01-24-2005, 10:52 PM

Hello : 
I'm new to this forum, and full of questions on things I have not been able to read up on, find any information on in books, or have not seen discussed (please forgive me if I do ask previous questions). I have done a search to see if the topic has been discussed before, but have not found it. My question is: What is known about scutum colour? (in particular the period of Augustus to Trajan). I know that in the reenactment world most groups seem to go for the red scutum, while Legio XIV Gemina out of the UK have blue scutums. Peter Connolly in some of his reconstructions have illustrated some Legioaries as carying blue scutum, while most artistic reconstructions tend to portray Red scutum. I know the Dura Europos scutum is red. Please pardon my ignorance or lack of reading, but I can't seem to find anything about scutum colour. So what evidence or record is there of scutum colour, or did every single legion look the same (as far as colour was concerned)? Is there any evidence of specific Legions have specific differently coloured scutum from others?? 
Thanks, 
Pieter

01-24-2005, 11:59 PM

Your right, most legios paint their scuta fire-engine red. Maybe this is because that is the color scuta are shown on the cover of Robinson, "The armour of Imperial Rome". I painted mine a blood-red.

01-25-2005, 02:40 AM

Neuralmancer, thanks for the reply. I have not yet read, nor do I own Roibinsons "The armour of Imperial Rome." (I do not have the $ 200 to buy the available use copies), so I am not familiar with the cover art and whether it is by or approved by Robinson or whether it was just publisher chosen cover art. What I really want to know is, is there evidence written or otherwise in more than one case proving that red was the only colour and at the same time proving that no other colours were used. it is really easy to make any statement but I want some research, facts or even educated theories backed by some research. Are Peter Connolly, and groups such as the UKs Legio XIV Gemina wrong with their reconstruction of blue scutum? 
Thanks, 
Pieter

01-25-2005, 11:43 AM

You're opening a can of worms here. As I understand it, the colour of shields is usually shown as being the same as the tunic - which for years has been portrayed as red. Indeed I remember at school doing an exercise looking at the historical accuracy of part of an 'Asterix' cartoon, and one of the inaccuracies pointed out was that the legionaries were wearing green, when we 'knew' (ahaha) that they should be in red. That the Roman Army used red tunics as standard is now disputed. 
 
There is some suggestion - I think in Vegetius - that each cohort within a legion used a different colour (presumably for ease of recognition at a distance). If so, then there is no reason why a Roman soldier shouldn't have a blue shield. 
 
As for tunic colour, there is a summary of the evidence in Graham Sumner's 'Roman Military Clothing 1: 100BC - AD200'. This indicates that evidence points to either red or white or both - though of course there is the knotty question of whether or not they had 'dress' uniforms. Homo Homini Lupus Every Man is a Wolf to Another Man

L C Cinna · 01-25-2005, 03:23 PM

Here some Tacitus: 
 
"The Sixteenth Legion had an enormous field-piece which hurled massive stones. These were now mowing down the opposing front-line, and would have inflicted extensive havoc but for an act of heroism on the part of two soldiers. They concealed their identity by catching up shields from the fallen, and severed the tackle by which the engine was operated. They were killed immediately and so their names have perished, but that the deed was done is beyond question." 
 
So there was a difference, but sadly he doesn't mention if it was only symbols or colours as well.

Crispvs · 01-26-2005, 05:11 AM

It is true that most reconstructions depict the scutum and tunica as being the same colour, but I am not aware of any surviving evidence to say that this was actually the case. The two best known shields from Dura are red, but another scutum was apparently painted green and most of the shields found there seem to have been painted pale pink. Unfortunately there is little or nothing to tell us about colours of shields in earlier periods. Tacitus, describing an incident during the second battle of Cremona in AD69, gives us the information that there was something distinctive which showed shields to be identifiable with particular units. What this one and only reference to the significance of the appearance of Roman shields does not tell us is what it was which was distinctive. Was it the shape of the shield, the colour or the blazon, or all three? 
As far as tunic colour goes, there are surviving images (unfortunately spread over about a four hundred year period) of at least one blue tunic, at least one green tunic, white/undyed tunics and salmon pink tunics (often wishfully described as red) with armour. All of these colours, as well as yellow and checked patterns have been found on fragments of material found on Roman sites, although it is impossible to know what items they were originally part of. A number of figures shown in frescos have also been identified by some as soldiers, based on their being depicted wearing brown cloaks, or off-white or red tunics. However, the absence of anything which can be identified as military equipment in these images means that their identification as soldiers, however persuasive or strong the arguments for the identification, must remain at best tentative. 
While most, if not all, ancient sculpture was painted and we might expect that paint to tell us something, very little, if anything, can be seen of the paint these days. Analysis of the stele of Gnaeus Musius in Mainz suggested that his tunic had been painted white, and the Grosvenor museum in Chester has painted a reconstruction of one of the stelae in its collection with a pale blue tunic, although I do not know whether or not this is based on analysis of the stone. 
We learn very little about tunic colour from the ancient authors who give us detailed descriptions of soldiers' equipment: Polybius, Josephus, Arrian and Vegetius. Polybius tells us that Roman soldiers in the late second century BC wore black and purple feathers on their helmets but says nothing about tunics; Arrian tells us that during the Hippica Gymnastica cavalry wore colourful 'Cimerian' tunic (what colour or colours these tunics were however, we do not know); Vegetius tell us that the sailors of the British fleet in the third or fourth century AD wore blue tunics and painted their ships and sails blue. As he specifically mentions the British fleet however, we may infer that other fleets, such as the larger and more important Ravenna fleet, did not follow this practice. Suetonius, in his life of Augustus, says that one of the punishments for minor offences was to be made to stand outside the principia for long periods bereft of belts and thus the identifying signs of a soldier (ie. the military belt and the tunic hitched up above the belt). He does not mention the tunic colour being of any significance. Many people have tried (having first failed to find them in the sources we would expect to have mentioned them if they had felt them to be important) to find references to tunics in poetry and sub-literary sources. Some have claimed to have found references to tunic colour but the tiny snippets of information are, in the main, highly ambiguous and in some cases decidedly dubious. Some identifications seem also to be based on translations, rather than the language of the original documents. There have also been many spurious theories about the psychological effect of rust or blood on soldiers' tunics 
The Vindolanda tablets have told us a great deal about the clothing worn by soldiers and references are known from them to socks, underwear, tunics, cloaks and footwear. The only references to coloured clothing which I am aware of are to an order of white cloaks and an order of red cloaks and green cloaks (which surely puts the idea of identification as a soldier based on the depiction of a brown cloak firmly in its place). 
Graham Sumner's Osprey book does present a good selection of evidence and assumptions but although it shows cloak colour to have had a good deal of significance (although we do not always understand that significance), its evidence for there having been a 'military' tunic colour is inconclusive. 
It seems, then, that what evidence exists or has been identified, points on one hand to cloak colour being significant, but on the other hand, suggests that tunic colour may have been unimportant. For what it is worth, my own view is that the colour or shade of a soldier's tunic was probably far less important to his Centurio than the quality of his weapons drill and his obsequiousness towards his superiors. I am, in fact, inclined to think that the search for a 'military' tunic colour may be a noble but misguided wild goose chase. 
 
Crispvs 
>Mestrii 
Coh III 
Leg XIIII GMV Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 1/26/05 6:16 am

01-26-2005, 12:07 PM

Some theories say that the colour of the tunic indicated the rank in the legions. For example: the legionairs worn white tunics, the centurios worn red ones (just like the crests on their helmets), the legionairs on the ships worn blue (colour of the sea). Though this is one of the many theories. 
 
The scutums normally had the same colour of the tunics the legionairs worn. Red is the colour which is used the most, I think.

Vadormarius · 01-27-2005, 02:04 AM

In the later period there appears to be little, if any, relation between shield and tunic color. An excellent example of this is the mosaic in the Corridor of the Great Hunt. The two soldiers guarding the man presumed to be the villa owner have off white tunics with decorations and are carrying shields that appear to be blue/green. Several other soldiers have off white tunics and have shields of other colors. I suspect that shield color was decided by what paint was available, what the unit commander and chain of command wanted, how much latitude the commander would allow an individual soldier, and the talent/money/taste of the individual soldier. I also suspect that tunic colors were decided upon in the same way. This would probably lead to a large number of off white tunics as they would be a little cheaper. (Just to raise it again by adding clavi.) It would also lead to reddish shields as quality red mineral pigments (iron based) are among the cheapest and most available for paint. The relation between rank and tunic color also is a little difficult to show as B&C relate the inventory of a tribune as having both red and white tunics in their chapter on the late Roman army. The bottom line, if it were up to me, I wouldn't complain about a fellow reenactor who took the time to get their equipment and uniform right if the only thing I disagreed with was the color of their shield and tunic as there is a good chance they could show evidence to make me look stupid. 
 
Vadormarius/Jim Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vadormarius>Vadormarius</A> at: 1/27/05 3:17 am

01-27-2005, 04:01 AM

Thanks for the replys so far. I must admit I do rather prefer someone telling me that he does not truely know the answer, but tries to back up his speculation with some research, that he has done or knows of, - instead of just saying: "This is how it was, or what I think it was - period!!" I know that myself, and I'm quite sure most of us who are interested in - "Getting it right." would be more comfortable with knowing that there is NO research pointing to one thing or another, leaving it open to educated speculation (and admitting to it!). The question I have - and please - I'm not trying pick a fight with or disrespect anybody in the living-history and reenactment community, but has this question regarding scuta colour ever been asked? Why do we assume (if that is what it is) that all Roman Imperial scuta were red. Has it ever been proven, discussed, debated and researched? 
Pieter

**Robert Vermaat** · 01-27-2005, 02:40 PM

Vale Vadormarius, 
 
I think I agree with you about tunic colors and latitude/individual taste. At [url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]Fectio[/url] we think there no 'uniform' in the late Roman period (maybe not even in the early period either, but I'd best say no more about that). Only, clavi were fairly common already by the 2nd c. The only becake broader and shorter after that, while roundels and squares were added. But that was a fashion seen in civilian and military clothing alike, there seems to be no difference. 
 
I'm not so sure about the variation of colours of shields though. Vegetius says about late Roman shields that "Lest the soldiers in the confusion of battle should be separated from their comrades, every cohort had its shields painted in a manner peculiar to itself." Together with the material from the Notitia Dignitatum I think we can say that unit colors were pretty much fixed and not depending on available paint. Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]

Caius Fabius · 01-27-2005, 10:20 PM

In the 70's and 80's (1970s and 1980s) some of the wargame books on the Roman army stated that some Republican shields were painted different colors in different maniples. I never bothered to check the references. 
 
The best thing about everyone painting their shields red is that when they all get together they can mix in the same units without looking so unusual. The worst thing is, we don't really know if all legion shields were red. The auxiliaries probably had different colors, but again, until later than 3rd century (AD), there is not much proof. 
 
The Osprey books that had paintings by Ron Embleton showed many possibilities for shield colors, and we know that different legions shields were different enough that the difference could be told in low light conditions, such as AD69 at Cremona. Who can say for sure? 
 
 
"Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU,

Vadormarius · 01-27-2005, 11:30 PM

Good evening, Valerius/Robert! 
 
I think I didn't do a good job of expressing my view. I think that we have the same view about the painting of scuta with a few qualifications: If the chain of command/commander was strict, the shields would be as uniform as possible with the production techniques available. If the chain of command/commander was somewhat lenient, the shields would have a common base design with certain individual embellishments based on taste/money/talent of the individual soldier. If the chain of command/commander was very slack, then anything may be possible in terms of shield color/design. I'm thinking of the shields found at Dura, as well as those that appear in Junkelmann's book "Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz". In modern terms, we have very similar examples of very individual embellishment of equipment with trench art, particularly helmets. Also, local emergencies/circumstances may have resulted in variation. 
 
Of course, we should get back to the all important part of the discussionwhen it comes to shields. ALL SHIELDS SHOULD BE ROUND, NOT OVAL, NO MATTER WHAT!!! (Sorry, Robert, I just couldn't resist!) 
 
Vadormarius/Jim

**Robert Vermaat** · 01-28-2005, 10:53 AM

Hi Vadormarius/Jim, 
 
Yeah, I can go with that. The eventual result would be hugely depending on the individual talent/available material. At the end of a campaign, what shields were left would be in all sort of condition, even unpainted. 
However, "If the chain of command/commander was very slack, then anything may be possible in terms of shield color/design" I think would be overstaing it. i mean, a shield design was very important for the functioning/recognition on a battlefield, and I somehow can't se any soldiers changing the design for their own fun, etc. It would have been dangerous. 
 
Quote:<hr>SHIELDS SHOULD BE ROUND, NOT OVAL, NO MATTER WHAT!!! <hr> 
Hey, I'm cool. For all I care they can be round, oval, whatever you want! Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]

Vadormarius · 01-28-2005, 05:26 PM

Good evening! 
 
Valerius/Robert, 
I think that you are right about the color uniformity when it comes to combat experienced units. What I'm thinking of are those units which had not been in combat in their recent memory, particularly some rather isolated limitani. For instance, in our Civil War (a much later example), units on both sides started with both blue and gray uniforms. A couple of battles with some friendly fire and that little problem was sorted right out with each side picking a different color and sticking to it. 
 
Vadormarius/Jim

01-28-2005, 10:02 PM

I had a related question a while back that I'll post here... With regards to praetorian shields, I've noticed that some reenactors and modern artists show them as being blue. Dr. Rankov's book on the praetorians shows them as red, but with the praetorian motif (either the scorpion, or an overly-fancy floral design). So, red or blue seems to be the consensus among those who profess an opinion. 
 
The only time a color could be definitively attributed to the Praetorians to my knowledge, however, was the green shown on Nero's praetorians (the golden palace relief). Their cloaks were a rich dark green, and the tunics were either green or off-white, I can't exactly remember. The shields themselves were dished, round ones faced in bronze, and so this discussion may not be entirely relevant; the idea that the tunics may have matched the shields, though, and the fact that Praetorian units did accompany the emperor to the field while on campaign (and would presumably have switched to a more useful, legionary-pattern shield), made me wonder. 
 
So, while even the color of legionary shields is by no means for certain, is anyone aware of evidence for the color[s] of the Praetorian shields? Thanks, 
 
Darius

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me