Tunic color

[Vlad the Impala]

[url:36ok91fc]http://www.intratext.com/X/LAT0229.htm[/url]

is this a useful source?

I note that if you click on the hyperlinked words it tells you how many times that word occurs and where so for instnce tunics are mentioned 10 times

not that I understand any of it!!!!

:lol:

[Praefectusclassis]

Yes! Very useful source!
Then you find that in Div.Aurelianus 13.3 there is a list of gifts/awards Aurelian received. Among them: "four red general's tunics, two pallia of the proconsul, a toga praetexta and a tunic decorated with palm leaves".
In Probus 4.5, Probus becomes a tribune of the Praetorian guard and is given some pieces of clothing commensurate with his rank. The Emperor(!) Valerian indicates that he should get, among other things, two dark red tunics.
The fact that the color is mentioned again, would indicate to me that is unexpected for the intended audiences of these authors.

[drsrob]

Yes! Very useful source!
Then you find that in Div.Aurelianus 13.3 there is a list of gifts/awards Aurelian received. Among them: "four red general's tunics, two pallia of the proconsul, a toga praetexta and a tunic decorated with palm leaves".
In Probus 4.5, Probus becomes a tribune of the Praetorian guard and is given some pieces of clothing commensurate with his rank. The Emperor(!) Valerian indicates that he should get, among other things, two dark red tunics.
The fact that the color is mentioned again, would indicate to me that is unexpected for the intended audiences of these authors.

To me it wouldn't. In a story, yes. In a list redundant information is not uncommon. The author of the original list might have wanted to make sure that no mistakes were made.
We have now two mentions of red tunics being issued to tribunes and one of a red tunic intended for generals. Fuentes' theory that red tunics were specific to centurions must surely be rejected. Staunch supporters might modify it to include all officers, but there is sufficient evidence that senior officers wore white on occasion too.
Dan's theory that red tunics were worn in war (i.e. under armour) and white in peace still seams preferable to all others.

[Praefectusclassis]

Well, in this case the list is in a story... :wink:

[drsrob]

Well, in this case the list is in a story... :wink:

:lol:

you know what I mean...

[Tarbicus]

How about the theory that a white tunic was used by legionaries to fulfill their right to wear a white toga as citizens, and auxiliaries, etc, wore other colours?

Cheers.

[drsrob]

That theory is new to me.

the toga was itself a garment unique to Roman citizens. The color was, as far as I know, not necessarily white.

A white toga was the distinctive dress of a candidate for office, a white one with a purple border for a magistrate and a purple one for an imperator.
It seams to me that an ordinary toga therefore cannot have been white at all.

[Tarbicus]

the toga was itself a garment unique to Roman citizens. The colour was, as far as I know, not necessarely white.

A white toga was the distintive dress of a candidate for office, a white one with a purple border for a magistrate and a purple one for an imperator.
It seams to me that an ordinary toga therefore cannot have been white at all.

Interesting, but that's news to me:

Toga virilis also called toga pura: unadorned toga in the off-white color of the undyed wool that was worn by adult male citizens.

[url:3ifvq029]http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/clothing.html[/url]
[url:3ifvq029]http://library.thinkquest.org/26907/society.htm[/url]
[url:3ifvq029]http://legvi.tripod.com/castroromani/id24.html[/url]

Cheers.

[drsrob]

That is the consensus nowadays. But pura means plain or unadorned, not necessarily undied.

Anyway, there is to my knowledge no evidence that the color of the tunic had anything to do with the age of the wearer or the color of the toga.

[Crispvs]

Here we go again it seems.

I go away for a week and the hoary old argument about red or white comes up again. :evil:

Why do people have to assume that the Roman army had our modern concept of uniformity? They do not seem to have bothered much about uniformity of equipment past the point of every soldier having equipment. Why should they have seen uniformity of tunic colour as being in any way relevant?

The specification of particular coloured military tunics, to my mind, does indeed indicate that the colour was the feature which could not be predicted by the minds of the audience. When we talk about an army uniform today we do not normally talk about a GREEN army uniform. We expect it to be green and so the colour is not worth mentioning. It is only worth mentioning if it is some other colour (and even then only sometimes). While it may be relevant that the colour red is mentioned in relation to these tunics for extremely high ranking officers, it seems more likely that the fact that they are described as "military" tunics is the really relevant part, rather than the colour they are, unusual as it may be.

"Fuentes' theory that red tunics were specific to centurions must surely be rejected."

I thought that Fuentes theories had been discredited years ago.

"Dan's theory that red tunics were worn in war (i.e. under armour) and white in peace still seams preferable to all others."

It is also based on an assumpion of uniformity for which there is very little evidence, coupled with a reference written in the seventh century AD to a red cloth (whose identity as either a standard or tunic is debated) held up in front of troops before war. Isadore's statement, as I understand it, contains no reference to these very late period soldiers actually wearing the colour red. The other supporting pillars of the red for war theory, namely red hiding blood and rust and imiating the Spartans are equally weak. Dan, as a member of the armed forces, should be familiar with the attitude that most soldiers and ex-soldiers I know have: that as long as it is not their own blood or the blood of one of their fellow squaddies, then blood on a uniform under active conditions is not something to be bothered about. Anyone familiar with the effects of pointed objects being thrust into living bodies should also be aware that blood spurts back at the person doing the stabbing. Therefore it should be expected that anyone fighting on the front line in an ancient battle, whether wounded or not, would get a good deal of blood on their kit and clothing. Their officers might have looked at them with some suspicion of cowardice if they had come away from the front line without at least a few spots of blood. Rust marks would be of little relevance. Incidentally, over the last seven years I have seen numerous rust marks on my tunic. I have never had to wash them off. Instead they have simply worn away again.
As far as imitation of the Spartans is concerned, surely we have no idea of what colour tunics the Spartans wore. Their distinctive item of clothing was a red cloak, rather than a tunic. If the Romans wanted to imitate the Spartans they would have been best to have chosen red as a cloak colour rather than a tunic colour. Indeed, most of the references to attestable military clothing for the rank and file which mention colour refer to cloaks rather than tunics. Reading through Graham Sumner's collected evidence for the colour of military clothing, virtually every colour reference which can be conclusively linked to military garments refers to ( or may refer to) the colour of cloaks. We can be sure that there was a language of cloak colours which we do not fully understand. But we cannot be sure that there was any language of tunic colours to match it.
I think the best evidence for the relevance of tunic colours comes from Suetonius' life of Augustus, when he says that soldiers guilty of minor offences should be made to stand outside the headquarters building bereft of their belts and thus deprived of their two signs of being a soldier: ie the military belt and the tunic held up above the knee. If tunic colour had been relevant their tunic would still have given away their military status. The fact that the mere removal of belts removed the visual signs of being a soldier indicates that the colour of the tunic was of no relevance whatsoever. Perhaps if the guilty man had been wearing a cloak it would have made a difference.
:!:

Crispvs

[drsrob]

Here we go again it seems.

Why do people have to assume that the Roman army had our modern concept of uniformity? They do not seem to have bothered much about uniformity of equipment past the point of every soldier having equipment.

That can hardly be argued from the surviving equipment. Differences in detail are bound to occur in hand made armour. Such differences were still common in the 19th century. Uniformity started in modern times with the desire to ensure that each soldier was sufficiently equiped. Identical clothing grew from cloth being bought in bulk.

The specification of particular coloured military tunics, to my mind, does indeed indicate that the colour was the feature which could not be predicted by the minds of the audience. When we talk about an army uniform today we do not normally talk about a GREEN army uniform. We expect it to be green and so the colour is not worth mentioning.

Just replace 'green' with 'red' and 'uniform' with 'tunic' and I agree fully :wink: But seriously: the fact that up to the later empire red is practically the only colour ever mentioned in relation to the military, other than white should mean something, should it not?

It is only worth mentioning if it is some other colour (and even then only sometimes). While it may be relevant that the colour red is mentioned in relation to these tunics for extremely high ranking officers, it seems more likely that the fact that they are described as "military" tunics is the really relevant part, rather than the colour they are, unusual as it may be.

Not extremely high: in two cases they were given these tunics while they were tribunes. And the colour red is mentioned, I think, because of the many white pieces of clothing they were given at the same time. So which colour was extraordinary, red or white? The white were in several qualities, the reds in only one: "military"

The blood and rust theory has never been mine.

As far as imitation of the Spartans is concerned, surely we have no idea of what colour tunics the Spartans wore. Their distinctive item of clothing was a red cloak, rather than a tunic.

As far as I know all Spartan male clothing was red or crimson and by the 4th century most Greeks armies had adopted the same practice.

The fact that the mere removal of belts removed the visual signs of being a soldier indicates that the colour of the tunic was of no relevance whatsoever.

As I said, I think a soldier wore his red tunic only when under arms. His normal dress would have been belts over white tunic. So removal of the belts would have indeed been enough to make him look like a civilian.

[Tarbicus]

I'll try to keep this short (hopefully) - DON'T READ IF YOU'RE BORED WITH TUNIC COLOURS!!:

in two cases they were given these tunics while they were tribunes.

No mention of milites, and the association to officers is quite specific. Coupled with the status given to red shoes it suggests red was a colour of higher authority.

The white were in several qualities, the reds in only one: "military"

Still not evidence for use 'under arms'. Red tunics could just as much be for special ceremonies, or necessarily close to hand in case of promotion, or for special duties, or carrying out physical punishments, etc, which all justify the white/red ratio.

As far as I know all Spartan male clothing was red or crimson

Crimson as a red colour is modern - it originally meant brightly coloured, any colour (and that could go for Caesar's cloak).

I think a soldier wore his red tunic only when under arms

Citizen soldiers from the Early Republic and before surely didn't rush out to buy red tunics when called to arms. Legionaries were a professional version of these, and I believe it is as likely the military kept their citizen status obvious through plain uncloured tunics in the absence of the toga virilis/pura.

The case of the centurions requesting they be allowed to wear white suggests to me they were incredibly proud of 'their boys', and wished to show their camaraderie and appreciation by the simple gesture of dressing the same as them. The men always need to know who their superiors are at all times, and a differently coloured tunic is an obvious means of ensuring that. Recognition of other rankers was easy through the belt.

Cheers.

[Daniel S Peterson]

In my many years of traveling throughout Europe, visiting virtually every "Classical" museum I could from Britain to Romania, and Holland south to Tunisia and Egypt, I found that in virtually EVERY case, anytime a Greek, Roman or Italic soldier wearing ARMOR was depicted in color on ancient monuments, frescoes or mosaics, his tunic was red. As far as "uniformity", I once visited a museum of predominately Etruscan artifacts, which probably had something like 100 terra cotta figural urns, and the warriors on EVERY one had red tunics. This seems very "uniform" for a time when supposedly there were no uniforms. Graham Sumner made some good points in his Osprey Roman Clothing books quoting contemporary Roman sources that indicated red tunics were worn in combat to honor Mars, the God (not the planet, which happens to be RED too). About the only exception to this is the green Praetorian? in Nero's Palace.

Yes, Fuentes' theories must be completely discredited because the artwork which was the keystone to it, is not Roman at all, but Ptolemaic Greek. This is beyond dispute when the rest of the artifact is examined. The text survives, it is all in Greek, and it commemorates the Nile exploration of King Ptolemy, and features in the main parts Fuentes never bothered to mention, fantastic beasts like dragons and griffins that were reportedly seen on the trip, and I suspect, probably have nothing to do with the Roman heroes of the Battle of Actium! In fact, these monsters, and the uncharted African hinterland where they live comprise the main subject, the ship and soldiers are insignicant on the border. The scene reputed to be "Agrippa and Augustus", actually denotes the start of the expedition in Alexandria, and the explorers are praying for a safe journey. (understandable, considering all of the monsters, and no doubt why they are wearing their clearly Hellenistic, and not Roman armor). Yes there is a scutum, but then, a probably ptolemaic scutum was actually found in Egypt and we know Ptolemy imitated the Roman military system.

Fuentes must have knew this, and I strongly suspect this "pseudo-scientific paper" swallowed hook line and sinker by numerous academics who never bother to check the sources, and ancious to jump aboard the "revisionist bandwagon", was in fact, nothing more than a practical joke of Fuentes to "rib" the Ermine Street Guard, after he left the group, because they wore red tunics. He did this again with his "Scutum size article", arguing that the Dura scutum (the size picked by the Guard), was far too large for the 1st century.

So now we have people too proud to admit the fallacy of this "theory", clearly based on completely erroneous evidence, and continue wearing (and ruining) their white tunics under iron armor (at least the ones who actually do anything strenuous in their armor!) This was discovered very quickly on the North Sea to Danube Limes ride, which I can attest to as a participant. A trip this arduous is a very good way to test how the Romans "probably did things" .

Dan

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Dan,

I can't argue with the reasons for Fuentes' publication, although I like the idea of an 'academic payback' a lot!
But that does not mean that Fuentes willingly falsified his article - I mean, it 'just' takes a checking of his sources to see if his publication was based on anything real or not.

mainly though, I would argue for a limitation of the period which we're discussing.'It's not a case of 'the Roman army' wearing white or red. At best it's 'the Roman army of the period between such and such date. I mean, this discussion of red/white/blue/whatever is no longer valid for the 4th c. and after, and maybe not even for the 3rd.

Your visits to European musea may have been a while back, because I know of certain displays where they changed the tunic color. In Nijmegen for instance, the Batavian auxiliary is wearing blue, although the legionary is still wearng (very dark) red.

But then.. this is supposedly a thread about shields - why am I talking about tunics??? hock:

[Tarbicus]

In my many years of traveling throughout Europe, visiting virtually every "Classical" museum I could from Britain to Romania, and Holland south to Tunisia and Egypt, I found that in virtually EVERY case, anytime a Greek, Roman or Italic soldier wearing ARMOR was depicted in color on ancient monuments, frescoes or mosaics, his tunic was red.

Thankyou Dan. At last a clear and simple statement on the subject, and I am now willing to accept red was worn under armour.

But then.. this is supposedly a thread about shields - why am I talking about tunics???

It's fun, Vorti - you know it - you love it really.... :wink:

Now - [size=150:1whfu63h]what shade of red was worn under armour?........[/size]