Tunic lenght

[Chuck Russell]

hmm mines longer too, when i pull it up and gather it in so its aboev my knees i end up with a roll over my corded belt. it makes it look weird in teh back.

[url:2fsu3kto]http://www.airsoftwv.com/PaxRomana/slides/060520-NateandChuck1.jpg[/url]

see?

should i shorten my tunic length to the knee? (its currentely about 4 inches below the knee when not belted)

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Its because you are wearing that farb undertunic. Seriously try it without the undertunic it should fall correctly then.

[John M McDermott]

This phenomena occurs with me also. Careful blousing can eliminate some of this, but a cummerbund (as can be seen in some steles) really helps.

[Tib. Gabinius]

ok, take a ruler , measure the hand broad of the middle Soldier of your right diagramm (trajan column i guess) and than measure the distance of the over random of the knee to to bottom of the tunic.
I did (and i let another student visit me today do the same itself) and we both came to 4 mm and our screen and solution.
You can do this again on books or the originals, you nearly always will came to a good relation between hand and lentgh (not every time, but often).

And again i take an eye to the other sources i mentioned...

John, i agree, perspective is important, this picture look much better, but still a little bit to short
The "Kummerbund" is called fascia ventralis and part of the "little uniform".
A theory say that, cause of the less possible to use the folds coming from a civilian style of wearing the tunic over the cingulum this fascia is used as bag.

Chuck, you really should shorten this one. Theres no need for 2nd part of first century milites to wear it folded anyway.


@Tarbicus, i wear tunics in nearly knee lenght for two years now, and they stil have same problem, in sitting i love my pteryges.
I worked over full weekends with them already and never had any problems.
Also training and marches ...never any need to shorten them. I really dont know what you did with your s that you got problems, but obviously something wrong :p

[John M McDermott]

Have you done the same calculation using the Rhineland grave steles?

[Tarbicus]

I really dont know what you did with your s that you got problems, but obviously something wrong :p

It's not a problem, I like it, I think it's correct! I'm amazed that you're trying to say the numerous examples pointed out are wrong? hock: Stop looking at Trajan's Column and start looking at the 1stC Rhineland stele.

Theres no need for 2nd part of first century milites to wear it folded anyway.

Chuck, put those scissors away.

This deceased Roman in particular, indefatigably, without a shadow of a doubt, clearly and unequivocally shows a 1stC legionary wearing his tunic short.
[urlt5uqli1]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/thumbs/imagebase_FirstnameNP_lg_PFlavoleiusCordusd3_jpg_large.jpg[/url]

This is one I've been working on:
[urlt5uqli1]http://hometown.aol.com/Tarbicus/IMG01071.jpg[/url]

I think it's not tucked up enough and a bit too long.

[Tib. Gabinius]

I did in the Rheinische Landesmuseum at two tombstones, cause i didnt trust the calculation of others blind and came to same solution, yap.

[Tib. Gabinius]

I really dont know what you did with your s that you got problems, but obviously something wrong :p

It's not a problem, I like it, I think it's correct! I'm amazed that you're trying to say the numerous examples pointed out are wrong? hock: Stop looking at Trajan's Column and start looking at the 1stC Rhineland stele.

I did, but you didnt read it...
I never told you something is wrong in the originals. I said that it show something else than you see in it. And i took your examplesand showed it, at least with just taking a ruler...

But i can do it again:

This deceased Roman in particular, indefatigably, without a shadow of a doubt, clearly and unequivocally shows a 1stC legionary wearing his tunic short.
[url:vfmkv117]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/thumbs/imagebase_FirstnameNP_lg_PFlavoleiusCordusd3_jpg_large.jpg[/url]

Your example. Not mine!
And now try this, in my solution and on my screen this one has a hand of 7 mm broad. The distance between knee to bottom of tunic is 5 mm. Even if i take that for not exactly distance (which we must do, cause its just an image, and digital anyway, not to forget perspective), the distance comes really close to what i told from begin on, one hand broad.

This is one I've been working on:
[url:vfmkv117]http://hometown.aol.com/Tarbicus/IMG01071.jpg[/url]

As far as i can see it fall right close to your knees, right? Not the half of your tights is to see, right?
So this is what i ment all the time... not to long, and it works

Theres no need for 2nd part of first century milites to wear it folded anyway.

Chuck, put those scissors away.

Whats the context between my words and your warning?

Finally, what i didnt tried, other serious students and Dr. did already, is to show the moral, the mores, in clothing themselves.
Wearing it that short is like to wear a mini skirt in 1890.
You can do, but you shouldnt.

[Tarbicus]

As far as i can see it fall right close to your knees, right? Not the half of your tights is to see, right?

And as I said, I think it's too short.

However, the rest of what you say is interesting.

Take this example:
[url:3dlxq8yz]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/thumbs/imagebase_FirstnameEI_lg_Hyperanord1_jpg_large.jpg[/url]

I prefer not to use the hands as a guide, but rather the proportions of the upper leg to the groin against the lower leg to the ankle. The hands are far too much an artistic variable, but the legs are more an obvious place for an artist to get his proportions correct.

On my screen the tunic front finishes 10mm above the knee, and 20mm at the sides. His ankle is 40mm below the knee, which puts his groin, if we take proportions into account of the average male, at roughly 35mm above the knee. Therefore, his tunic at the front is almost a third up the thigh to his groin, and at the sides is almost two thirds to the level of the groin. That makes it short in my reckoning. Definitely shorter than what you propose to be correct.

I also feel you are taking the lowest point of the tunic to be the mean, where in fact it should be an average of the front and sides. Therefore, if you agree with that, the above example finishes halfway to the groin, i.e., mid-thigh (between one third above the knee and two thirds)

[Caius Fabius]

it looks like most of the fellows are wearing the military belt, how long would the tunic be if it was hanging free without a belt? hmmm? :?

[Tarbicus]

I think halfway down the shin at least. If you use thin lightweight wool that is the best way to get the crescent pleats, and reflects more closely the 'hang' and drape of the sculptures. John also has some reference to quality of wool of the time being very fine. When gathered up it can still be very short, and the more gathering there is, the more pleats you can get. I personally don't see any reason to go against the tunic finds, which can easily be made short by gathering and show the characteristic folds.

The yellow tunic I posted falls almost to my ankles when let loose.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Take this example:
[url:m8rjokvm]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/thumbs/imagebase_FirstnameEI_lg_Hyperanord1_jpg_large.jpg[/url]

We had it before and i anwsered before.

I prefer not to use the hands as a guide, but rather the proportions of the upper leg to the groin against the lower leg to the ankle. The hands are far too much an artistic variable, but the legs are more an obvious place for an artist to get his proportions correct.

Erm, that gives me two other arguments. First, for me the tights end in the hips, the hips lay right under the cingulum.
I cant agree to the dimensions you order now under this view.
Second, i study also classical archaelogy, and there you see the first scultupres. The proportions which arent easy to do are the lenght of the arms and the legs, not the hands, which mostly nearly fit to relaity. An example is the brass warrior out of olympia dating to 750 bc("früharchachische Zeit")
After that, the Kouroi bring that examples to us. The Kouros of Attika, dating 600 b.c. still show us same problem, not the hands dont fit in proportion, but the legs and esp. the hipps.
So if you would like to watch for non fitting proportions, it would be more wise to look for the length of the legs itself than the hands, but i guess, in the first century it is possible not 100% exact, but all in all usable. And than i showed in now a number of postings and tries that this rule work.

On my screen the tunic front finishes 10mm above the knee

,
So, how big is the boradest part of the hand on your screen?

and 20mm at the sides. His ankle is 40mm below the knee, which puts his groin, if we take proportions into account of the average male, at roughly 35mm above the knee. Therefore, his tunic at the front is almost a third up the thigh to his groin, and at the sides is almost two thirds to the level of the groin. That makes it short in my reckoning. Definitely shorter than what you propose to be correct.

Ok, next time i am workin in the museum i ll take an exact messurment on the originals again to get this subjective problem out of the world.
And as i wrote again and again before, its not only my point and not my discovery...

I also feel you are taking the lowest point of the tunic to be the mean,

No. In the last time, which was your last example, i took the mid of the knee and the point right above.

And to bring another argument: i brought now several examples where it works on tombs, and i brought sources of literatur and art where it works.
And i mentioned the fact of the social rules, the mores.
So what would be some excluded out of the first part of first century show (which i guess isnt the time John e.g. wanna show) in relation to others of same time be an evidence for?
Sorry that i now react ennerved, but i brought literatur and sources and all i read is "your opinion" and "whats with this example"?

Please read what i gave you and answer to the facts told there instead spamming examples you guess are "short and still to long".



So, next i do is to take measurement of the originals in the Museum in Bonn and Cologne and bring it to you. More i wont do anymore.
If you want to stay in "thats just your opinion" i cant do anything against it.
But i found it very sad that i sacrificed time and work just to get an impression that "new is bad". I ve worn a real short tunic long time, and act with it in front of audience, but i had to learn it was wrong, I was wrong. And not some one who watched some examples of tombs teached my, it were some academics who sighted some hundreds of tombstone and reliefs and sources.
I know it sounds a bit caught, but i ve a hard time to discuss in a foreign language and hate it to be half ignored.
Vale

[Tib. Gabinius]

it looks like most of the fellows are wearing the military belt, how long would the tunic be if it was hanging free without a belt? hmmm? :?

It would fall some centimeters more down, perhaps the sides will fall also down.
But thats all.

In civilian you bring the wool of the tunic over the belt, the cingulum or cinctus you cant see cause of that.
In case of military theres first the cingulum militaris to avoid that. This belt shall be seen, so no wool is hanging above it.
Second theres the fascia ventralis under the belt, which avoind this kind of use the tunic.
And last, it is unpracticable to wear that kind of a mass of wool under a lorica or while working.

The exomis, the tunic of workers e.g. seemed also not be be handled in the normal civilian way and this is also a "shorter" tunic, which allow to see the knees, but it had a fold like the civilians often.

You can see something of this of hadrian time in the chatsworth house. There tunic isnt close to the body, but not a fold hanging over the belts like its usual in civil.

But this dont mean soldiers couldnt have "normal tunics" as well.
Take a look at the originals in "roman military clothing" part one (also for the lenght).

[Tarbicus]

I'm not a student of yours, but I am a working artist, and I question the whole idea of measuring the tunic against the hand. If the legs are proportionally wrong against the rest of the body it doesn't matter, because as long as the proportions of lower leg against upper leg are roughly correct then the space between knee and tunic bottom should be estimated with that in mind.

Which part of the tunic you measure to is a choice, but I prefer to take the whole thing and average it out, not just one part of it.

Measuring using the hand is not the best way, simply because if there are proportional mistakes in the work they will be in the arms and the legs, which is a common mistake for artists to make. Should the head be measured against the hands? Of course not, because the proportions will most likely be wrong anyway, but the eyes will be in the right place, as will the nose and mouth in relation to the ears. However, the tunic is sculpted against the legs and has a direct relevance to the legs, not the hands, and if the legs are locally proportional then there is no reason to assume the positioning of the hem of the tunic would be wrong.

Going back to this relief of soldiers in a marsh, even using your rule that the thigh ends at the hip, these tunics are clearly halfway up the thigh.


And, if you're citing Quintilian as a source, I think it is he who specifically points out that a centurion's tunic is shorter than a civilian's, the latter reaching below the knee. Unfortunately he doesn't specify how much, but it was certainly enough to separate it from the way a civilian wore it. That reference casts serious doubt on depicting tunic length equivalent to a civilian's. I'll try to find the exact reference.

I'm not saying all tunics were like this. But I do disagree with your method of measurement.

[John M McDermott]

Very interesting, Tarbicus. This last relief shows something I could only guess at earlier. The upper right figure shows the tunic "hiked" up on the side. I had wondered at that, having some of the same concerns of Tobias; that it would be too scandleous.