Conclusion to the problem of tunic color

[Crispvs]

Obviously, Graham's the expert on clothing and I wouldn't like to be seen to be pretending to be him, but the reason I don't think there was actually a standard colour for tunics is that there are Roman representations of soldiers in red, pink, green, white, pale blue and medium blue tunics. That said it is obvious that certain occasions justified the wearing of 'shining' white tunics (presumably whiter than plain old alba) by officers which possibly recalls the practice of electoral candiates rubbing their togas with pipe clay to give them a more brilliant look when they stood to give speeches in front of crowds. Archaeological analysis of finds of woollen material shows that a lot of cloth (which may or may not have come from tunics) was left undyed (which, given the variable hues of different sheep's wools, allows from shades ranging from white through various shades of grey and brown to very nearly black), while other samples have been found to have been died with madder (which again allows for different shades and even different colours according to the temperature of the dye bath, the time of year the dyestuff was gathered and the type and amount of mordant used). As far as I know, woad has not yet been discovered in Roman textiles, but given that it was obviously readily available in Britain at least and that unlike madder, it is the leaves rather than the roots which are used to make the dye, meaning that woad has a faster turn-around time than madder. I have also been told by people who know a lot more than me on dying that woad can produce various shades of blue but again according the time of year the leaves were harvested and the length of time they were boiled for woad can also produce yellows and pinks.

Obviously Graham will have more to say on this matter and will have a more informed perspective, but I really think that it is cloak colours we should be examining and should be theorising about rather than the tunic which was so often covered and thus obscured by the cloak.

Tarbicus,

I am led to believe that the British army opted for red coats for two reasons. Firstly the coats of one of the first regiments enrolled into the army following the Civil War were already red (they were already a standing formation but had previously been in the parliamentary army which by then had been officially disbanded), providing a precedent for new regiments and secondly, the army realised that madder dye was cheap enough that it could give every man a well dyed coat that would allow him to look at least as smart as some of the enemies he was going to fight. That said, it wasn't long before our cavalry and artillery were wearing blue coats. The French, by comparison, obviously thought blue was economical enough to outfit their infantry and green economical enough to outfit their cavalry. Of course, really bright colours would be more expensive and so the rank and file probably still looked quite dull next to the officers. Anyway, enough about the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We are here to talk about Romans. :wink:

"What has cost got to do with anything? Do we know how much silvering or tinning equipment cost? Do we know how the fiscal policies of the Roman army worked and what their priorities were? Was it more important to look impressive on the battlefield and dismay the enemy (a job half done) than to pinch pennies over something that there may well have been a booming industry for anyway? "

I couldn't agree more!

Crispvs

[Graham Sumner]

I had hoped when I first saw the thread title 'Conclusion to the problem of Tunic Colour' that Woadwarrior had stumbled across some new evidence that everyone else had missed. Never mind.

However you guys especially Paul in the last post continue to raise lots of interesting and relevant points. Many of these questions demand a better answer than a quick fire response unsupported by a lack of sources. That of course takes time. Many of my thoughts and all the evidence I found after six years of research on the subject have already been published and hopefully read by most of you. So I hope you will understand why I am reluctant to repeat here again all the evidence for and against any particular colour.

Crispus is certainly right the cloaks are interesting. Red, blue, white and olive green are all known but the most common is a yellow brown colour. This is probably an undyed natural wool colour. However on the issue of expense. Firstly the soldiers in the Egyptian portraits could obviously afford to have their portrait painted. Secondly Some of the men wear their swords on their right so they are not officers. Cloaks are far bigger than tunics but they clearly could afford to purchase brightly dyed versions. Soldiers could also afford servants. They were not paupers and could supplement their incomes by running businesses or extortion!

Nevertheless I think quality of material is a better bet than colour in the case of cloaks. For example you can see that Maximian or whoever he is, is wearing a yellow brown cloak on the Piazza Armerina mosiac just like many of the other 'soldiers' in the same scenes. However in the Dura Europos Fresco the soldiers in the rear rank have textured yellow brown cloaks while those in the front rank next to the Tribune, possibly centurions have untextured yellow brown cloaks. So the 'centurions' are wearing cloaks of a finer less course material. Moreover you could make a case here for equestrian officers wearing white cloaks. Many higher grade soldiers also seem to have tassels or fringes on their cloaks too. (You should be able to see this in the tombstone database). Other than that it is hard to make out a clear rank pattern.

am led to believe that the British army opted for red coats for two reasons. Firstly the coats of one of the first regiments enrolled into the army following the Civil War were already red (they were already a standing formation but had previously been in the parliamentary army which by then had been officially disbanded), providing a precedent for new regiments and secondly, the army realised that madder dye was cheap enough that it could give every man a well dyed coat that would allow him to look at least as smart as some of the enemies he was going to fight. That said, it wasn't long before our cavalry and artillery were wearing blue coats. The French, by comparison, obviously thought blue was economical enough to outfit their infantry and green economical enough to outfit their cavalry. Of course, really bright colours would be more expensive and so the rank and file probably still looked quite dull next to the officers. Anyway, enough about the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We are here to talk about Romans.

Reading Paul's post I wondered whether future historians will one day question why the British soldier was ever called the redcoat! :wink: As far as I know many British cavalry regiments did wear red, some Green as well . In the mid 18th century The Royal Regiment of Artillery founded in 1716 served under the Board of Ordnance, a Government department and was not a combat branch of the army. Not surprising then to find them in another colour. (source: 'Uniforms of the Seven Years War', Mollo and McGregor)

Of course the 'Redcoat' did wear Green, blue, white and Khaki uniforms when the occasion demanded but we still think of the old British soldier traditionally in scarlet red. Hollywood too likes to show this. In the 'Patriot' what are supposed to be Tarleton's Dragoons who wore green are depicted in red and in 'The Four Feathers (2001) the Camel corps of the Gordon relief expedition who actually wore a specially made grey uniform are also shown in red!

The French Revolutionary army naturally wanted to distance itself from the Royalist Hapsburg army which had worn white which was why they chose blue, nothing to do with economics!. However some former Royal officers complained that the old white uniforms were easier to keep clean than the new blue ones. ( source E. Detaille). A few French cavalry units also wore red. God it must have been really confusing in those days! While on the subject of the French, on the eve of WWI a new uniform had been approved using the patriotic 'tricolour' cloth red, white and blue. Turned out unfortunately that all the dye came from Germany! So the French were reduced to seizing the stocks of a French subsidiary of a German company. While indigo blue was available, alizarine red was not. So the new uniform was reduced to two colours blue and white and the famous horizon blue uniform entered into history! ( L. Mirouze, World War I Infantry) As Paul said enough about old armies they confuse things even further!

Madder dye was certainly a cheap dye for the British army and it appears to have been readily available in Roman times as well. The Romans certainly liked the red-purple colour range, you only have to look at the ladies fashions in the Romano-Egyptian portraits to see that. Madder can also be dried and could be transported in that form. There are a number of other natural sources known to modern dyers for both reds and purples that could provide cheaper alternatives to the more expensive dyes. Doubtless ancient dyers knew a few more. (J.P.Wild. various publications)

Linen can appear grey and wool the usual material for military tunics can come in a variety of shades so it is not surprising that on special occasions the tunics would be bleached. I think the evidence I highlighted in the books, showed that the Roman soldier owned more than one tunic something I am sure at least we now all agree on. Soldiers could also receive clothing from home.

We should not forget that the Romans had long developed dye and fulling industries and by the fourth century, state controlled arms factories including those for the production of military clothing. These produced uniform looking equipment which can be found right across the empire like the almost identical integral laced boots which appear in Syria and South Wales.

This is supported by the tombstone evidence which even by the third century is showing soldiers with a very uniform dress and groomed appearance. (S. James, various)

I hope this has answered some questions for now but doubtless there will be many more. I am working on the problem still, finding out new things myself all the time as inevitably new evidence comes to light, further discoveries are made sifting through old reports or listening to comments made by many people including fellow RATers. I personally would like Osprey to one day publish all three volumes of Roman Military Clothing in one edition as they have done with some of their other titles. This would give me the chance to include some new paintings and give me the opportunity to make any relevant changes. I know Robert wanted a lot more fourth century soldiers for instance! That is something perhaps for the not too distant future.

Thanks again folks for distracting me from the painting I should have been working on :oops: but this subject is a lot of fun!

Exactly. I'm rather fond of the theory suggested in Graham Sumner's Roman Military Clothing 2 - i.e. undyed fatigues, red battle dress and white parade dress - but that's probably because I'm influenced by modern uniforming practices.

Or are modern uniforming practices influenced by Roman ones? Many of todays armies owe their origins to an era when classical studies was far greater amongst the upper classes, military thinkers and politicians than those of today. My theory evolved out of an interpretation of the evidence as I saw it. I hope my conclusions were unbiased and I certainly did not start off with a theory and try to find evidence to fit in with it, ignoring anything which did not.

So is this the conclusion of the problem of tunic colour?????? :lol:

Graham.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Graham,

Thanks for that reply!

I personally would like Osprey to one day publish all three volumes of Roman Military Clothing in one edition as they have done with some of their other titles. This would give me the chance to include some new paintings and give me the opportunity to make any relevant changes. I know Robert wanted a lot more fourth century soldiers for instance!

Isn't that a fact!
Btw, I liked the late 3rd/early 4th c. centurion you did for Ross Cowan.
And, I'll be in touch about your exhibition soon... :?

[Caratacus]

What has cost got to do with anything?

Quite a bit - if you're the one paying!

BTW, one small error on my part. The Masada pay return showed that the linen tunic cost 7 denarii. The price of the wool tunic (the one called tunica alba) isn't stated. However, this doesn't invalidate the argument. A linen tunic (assuming it to be 'natural') would have been a greyish-white colour.

Let's not get too involved with comparisons between the Roman army and the armies of the 17th century onwards. One of the pitfalls of Roman army research is a tendency to 'map' the behavior of modern era armies onto those of the ancient world. Hollywood (and the entertainment industry in general) portrays the Romans as being very 'uniform' - all dressed the same and using exactly the same gear. I doubt that this would be the case.

Even today, soldiers tend to go out and spend money to 'improve' their equipment. When your life may depend on having better gear than the government will supply you with, there really is no contest. Most of the British troops who were involved in the retaking of the Falkland Islands in 1982 had purchased their own (better quality) dpm 'uniforms' as well as rucksacks and webbing gear. Some had even 'acquired' American weapons, because our own were perceived as being sub-standard.

Cost considerations would probably have played very differently to those we are used to today. Some emperors were profligate, others tight-fisted. Augustus (in the Res gestau) takes great trouble to tell us exactly how much he spent on the army. On the other hand, Caligula blew the whole lot on the ames

[Tarbicus]

I personally would like Osprey to one day publish all three volumes of Roman Military Clothing in one edition as they have done with some of their other titles.

I'm thinking of stapling mine together.

[Tarbicus]

What has cost got to do with anything?

Quite a bit - if you're the one paying!

BTW, one small error on my part. The Masada pay return showed that the linen tunic cost 7 denarii. The price of the wool tunic (the one called tunica alba) isn't stated. However, this doesn't invalidate the argument. A linen tunic (assuming it to be 'natural') would have been a greyish-white colour.

Let's not get too involved with comparisons between the Roman army and the armies of the 17th century onwards. One of the pitfalls of Roman army research is a tendency to 'map' the behavior of modern era armies onto those of the ancient world. Hollywood (and the entertainment industry in general) portrays the Romans as being very 'uniform' - all dressed the same and using exactly the same gear. I doubt that this would be the case.

Even today, soldiers tend to go out and spend money to 'improve' their equipment. When your life may depend on having better gear than the government will supply you with, there really is no contest. Most of the British troops who were involved in the retaking of the Falkland Islands in 1982 had purchased their own (better quality) dpm 'uniforms' as well as rucksacks and webbing gear. Some had even 'acquired' American weapons, because our own were perceived as being sub-standard.

Cost considerations would probably have played very differently to those we are used to today. Some emperors were profligate, others tight-fisted. Augustus (in the Res gestau) takes great trouble to tell us exactly how much he spent on the army. On the other hand, Caligula blew the whole lot on the ames

I certainly agree with that. But I think using cost as a means of defining what equipment a legionary had, too much, is also in danger of transplanting modern state fiscal policies concerning the military onto the ancients. :wink:

[Caratacus]

Of course there is a difference between what the individual will spend and what the state will. However, economics will be a generally common thing, then as now. Given a fairly fixed income, what a given person will spend is going to be controlled pretty closely ('x' beans in, 'y' beans out - Mr. McCawber economics is fairly consistent). If an item is priced outside what that soldier can afford, it isn't going to get bought. I agree that it isn't going to be possible to decide what goods someone will buy, purely on the grounds of the costs that we are aware of - and that alone. My original point was that the economics of buying coloured tunics, rather than plain ones as supplied by the state, do not appear to have been considered at all.

The other point I was making is that the way we see the Roman army displayed today, both through groups of re-enactors and the 'entertainment' industry, is probably far too uniform. Everyone is dressed the same and uses the same equipment. Was an entire legion/cohort/century using lorica segmentata armour? Or were there variations with some of the soldiers using mail, others scale and still others the plate armour and maybe still others (the poorest ones) with no armour at all? The same applies to helmets. We do know that these last items were often in use for decades. Some soldiers would be dressed in 'government issue' tunics, others, more wealthy, wearing tunics that were of finer material - possibly of a local cloth that would be a variation of a tartan (maybe), rather than one plain colour. Is it more likely that the 'unformity' we assume was confined to the weaponry? So long as the tactical situation was common to all soldiers, I somehow doubt that the army was bothered with what the troops actually looked like.

In a link with more 'modern' times, the great Duke of Wellington was known to state pretty forcefully that he wasn't at all bothered with what his army looked like - just so long as its weapons were effective and it won battles for him!

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Carus Andiae]

By the way, any idea why it always used to be thought that the Roman Army always wore red? Artwork? Idea of red being a suitably martial colour? I remember studying the Roman Army at school. We were looking at an Asterix cartoon and were told it was wrong because the legionaries were wearing green when "we know they wore red". hock:

(The reason why I ask is because some naive fool asked The Dread Tunic Colour Question on the BBC History Messageboards. I gave him a summary of the main theories and points of the debate as best I could, but then he asked why red in movies etc).

[Caratacus]

Although one hesitates to blame it all on Hollywood, a recent book on how Tinseltown represented Imperial Rome suggested that it may have something to do with the post-war situation and Hollywood attitudes. The colour red was equated with facists or communists (same difference) (remember all those Nazi banners in red with the black and white swasticas on?) The 'good guys' were people like Spartacus, Demetrius, etc. The 'bad guys' were, of course, represnted by Rome and the evil emperors (e.g. Caligula).

I've heard another idea advanced, namely that when these films were originally made in B&W (in silent film days), the monochromatic films in use then were only sensitive to blue light. In order to make the Roman troops 'stand out', they were dressed in red. Using monchromatic films, this would make them appear as thought they were dressed in black tunics. By then the tradition had been established so when they moved over to polychromatic B&W, the same costumes were employed as well as when they moved into colour.

Of course, it may be all a foul calumny and have nowt to do with the movies at al ....

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Caius Fabius]

Graham Sumner wrote: "I personally would like Osprey to one day publish all three volumes of Roman Military Clothing in one edition as they have done with some of their other titles. This would give me the chance to include some new paintings and give me the opportunity to make any relevant changes"

Of course, Michael Simkins said that Osprey didn't even tell him when they republished his books, and combined them with others. His lament was that there were so many changes he wanted to make to bring his works up to date, but Osprey obviously didn't want to pay for any additions or corrections.

I suspect that once the company has the work, you won't see many changes in future releases, unless they get a new author/title.... (Like the MAA book on the Napoleonic Brunswick Army).

:? (

[Graham Sumner]

Conclusion to the problem of tunic colour! Obviously not.


Mike, for details of purchase of military clothing you need to read Jennifer A. Sheridan ed Colombia Papyrus IX: The Vestis Militaris Codex. Atlanta 1998.

As far back as the days of the Republic money was deducted from soldiers pay for clothing. Polybius says ‘the Quaestor deducts from their pay a set price for food and clothing and any arms they need’. (6.39.15.) According to Plutarch (Gaius Gracchus V) the reforms of Gracchus provided free clothing for soldiers. While Caesar may have doubled the pay of the average soldier he also seems to have reintroduced the clothing deduction. During the reign of Tiberius, Tacitus says amongst the burdens of military service was the fact that soldiers had to buy their clothing (Annals i.17). Around 30% of a soldiers pay could be spent on clothes.

The best evidence we have for the purchase and supply of clothing comes from the many papyrus documents found in Egypt which was also a major supplier of clothing and blankets to the army. A soldier from Coh I Hispanorum Veterana based in Gaul was actually sent to Egypt to procure clothing, around 100AD. (Rom Mil Rec 63) While another well known document BGU VII 1564 records the supply of tunics, cloaks and blankets to the army in Cappadocia. Soldiers could receive gifts of clothing from home such as Claudianus Terentianus who asked his father to send him a new tunic and a pick axe (P. Mich VIII 467-468.)

The army purchased clothing locally and there is no evidence to suggest the army itself produced clothing. Government agents would compulsory purchase, both completed garments and coloured cloths from local weavers. In theory this should have been profitable for the local community but there is a distinct possibility that the army was buying goods at reduced rates.(Alston 1995.) A number of edicts were also issued which tried apparently unsuccessfully to stop individual soldiers and other officials from requisitioning clothing themselves. According to one the army is accused of ‘greed and injustice’. (PSI V 446)

In the third century villages and towns acted as the go between the agents and the weavers. This was to help spread the burden of production as increasingly provincials were forced to supply the army with food and clothing.

The price edict of Diocletian mentions at least two types of soldiers tunic The best quality cost 1,500 denarii the second 1,200 denarii. These prices are vastly inflated compared to the tunics mentioned in the first century AD. C. Messius from Masada spent 7 denarii on his linen tunic!

By comparison a fuller would charge 50 denarii for a tunic (strictoria). Wool cost around 30 denarii a pound. If it was dyed once in Tyrian purple it cost 16,000 denarii a pound! However you could get scarlet dyed wool for 1,500 denarii a pound or good quality archil purple at 500 denarii a pound.

Wool was dyed before it was made up into clothing. The price edict also reminds us that wool could be dyed more than once, the more you dyed the wool the stronger the colour and the many images of soldiers in pink tunics is probably evidence of this.

The other point I was making is that the way we see the Roman army displayed today, both through groups of re-enactors and the 'entertainment' industry, is probably far too uniform.

This was not the case in The Ermine Street Guard. While every soldier apart from the Centurion, Optio and Auxiliaries had a red tunic of varying shades there was also a great variety of belt plates, daggers, swords helmets and three types of body armour.

Although one hesitates to blame it all on Hollywood, a recent book on how Tinseltown represented Imperial Rome suggested that it may have something to do with the post-war situation and Hollywood attitudes. The colour red was equated with Fascist's or communists (same difference) (remember all those Nazi banners in red with the black and white swastikas on?) The 'good guys' were people like Spartacus, Demetrius, etc. The 'bad guys' were, of course, represented by Rome and the evil emperors (e.g. Caligula).

In the recent series 'Rome' all the infantry were equipped far too uniformly. In 'Ben-Hur', Quo Vadis, 'The Robe', 'Demetrius and the Gladiators' the soldiers all had white tunics while the soldiers in Judaea in 'The Robe' actually wore blue. In Spartacus light brown, it is only in Cleopatra that you see Roman soldiers in red and marines in blue. The armour etc... was pretty good for it's day too. In 'The Fall of The Roman Empire' they are a mixture of browns with the soldiers in the East wearing a distinctive uniform to those in the West. While eagles and out stretched arm salutes had obvious connotation's to post war audiences I know of no attempt to make the uniforms look really fascist until 'Gladiator'.

Even today, soldiers tend to go out and spend money to 'improve' their equipment. When your life may depend on having better gear than the government will supply you with, there really is no contest. Most of the British troops who were involved in the retaking of the Falkland Islands in 1982 had purchased their own (better quality) dpm 'uniforms' as well as rucksacks and webbing gear. Some had even 'acquired' American weapons, because our own were perceived as being sub-standard.

That is certainly the case and probably was true in Roman times as well but I suppose modern British soldiers buy their clothing from British suppliers who are basically selling better made versions of the standard issue items not things which are completely different and unlike anything else used by the British army. They weren't wearing American uniforms for example.

I have never argued that all Roman soldiers at anyone time were dressed identically. If the British army in the nineteenth century wore red, blue, white, green and khaki clothing do we say they did not have uniforms then?

Caius wrote:

Graham Sumner wrote: "I personally would like Osprey to one day publish all three volumes of Roman Military Clothing in one edition as they have done with some of their other titles. This would give me the chance to include some new paintings and give me the opportunity to make any relevant changes"

Of course, Michael Simkins said that Osprey didn't even tell him when they republished his books, and combined them with others. His lament was that there were so many changes he wanted to make to bring his works up to date, but Osprey obviously didn't want to pay for any additions or corrections.

I suspect that once the company has the work, you won't see many changes in future releases, unless they get a new author/title.... (Like the MAA book on the Napoleonic Brunswick Army).

Do you want to rewrite the new edition of Roman Military Clothing then?

Graham.

P.S After reading some of the above posts it is obvious that my next book should be Ospreys 'Roman Movie Uniforms'. :wink:

[Caius Fabius]

"Do you want to rewrite the new edition of Roman Military Clothing then?

Graham."

no boss, just warning you that Mr. Simkins was not even informed when Osprey republished his work on the Roman Army, and was surprised to see the copy that I had picked up. We were looking at something in the back of my car, when he noticed his name on the cover of a book, and that added color to our dinner conversation, as you might imagine!

You might be better off selling them a new title...

[Primitivus]

Of course, Michael Simkins said that Osprey didn't even tell him when they republished his books, and combined them with others. His lament was that there were so many changes he wanted to make to bring his works up to date, but Osprey obviously didn't want to pay for any additions or corrections.

I suspect that once the company has the work, you won't see many changes in future releases, unless they get a new author/title....

Very disappointing. I love Osprey's publications... and would hope that they would be eager to update them with the latest scholarship whenever they republish them.

[Caratacus]

Graham - I don't know if you have a copy 'on your shelf', but the book I was referring to is by Monica Silveira Cyrino and is entitled "Big Screen Rome", published by Blackwell in 2005, ISBN 1-4051-1684-6 (pbk). It is obviously a collection of lecture notes together with student exercises. It does, however, make for an interesting read. One can disagree with some of her viewpoints. I'm not at all sure that some of these films were made with the deliberate slant she infers - they are, after all, entertainments are were designed to make money! Despite this, there is a thread that runs through what she says that makes some sense.

Yes, I've read the papyrus documents you mentioned and they do give a good insight into such things as the procurement of clothing. They and other documents make plain the understandable preoccupation that soldiers have with suitable gear and clothing. The Vindolanda writing tablets have lots of examples, for example, there is the 'letter' (Tablet 38, Vindol.II 346) where the chap has been sent some decent socks along with sandals and underwear (probably because it's ****** cold where he is stationed!) Other tablets also mention clothing (e.g. Vindol.II 181 - a tunic, though, sadly, no mention of its colour), Vindol.II 184 mentions a cloak (priced at 5 denarii, as opposed to 3 for the tunic) while Vindol.II 192 talks about a sagum as well as the purchase of 38 lbs of wool! Another (B&T, No.1) records cloaks as costing 11½ each. At the other end of the social scale, (Vindol.II 255), Clodius Super complains that he can't get decent tunics where he is and records his appreciative receipt of six of the garments for his slaves.

Some ex-marines that I know who were in the Falklands told me that some of the British soldiers were wearing American dpm, because it was more effective than the British pattern. They were certainly wearing US pattern boots, because ours were completely useless. Either that, or they had bought their own from camping stores and these were definitely not of 'approved pattern'!

The last time I saw the ESG (July, Caerleon), all the legionaries appeared to be wearing lor seg armour, except for the 'officers'! Mind you, I only got a quick look as I spent most of the weekend inside the museum, showing the public around. However, I do have some shots of the ESG, taken in 1997, where almost the whole of the group is dressed in plate armour, apart from the officers and standard bearers, that is. Maybe things have changed since then?

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Graham Sumner]

Mike wrote

Some ex-marines that I know who were in the Falklands told me that
some of the British soldiers were wearing American dpm, because it was more effective than the British pattern. They were certainly wearing US pattern boots, because ours were completely useless. Either that, or they had bought their own from camping stores and these were definitely not of 'approved pattern'!

That's fascinating, I even heard some guys were taking the boots off dead Argentinians or were even using polythene bags! Is that right? Now we hear of the shortage of body armour for British troops. As G.B. Shaw said the British soldier fears no one but the British War Office!

The last time I saw the ESG (July, Caerleon), all the legionaries appeared to be wearing lor seg armour, except for the 'officers'! Mind you, I only got a quick look as I spent most of the weekend inside the museum, showing the public around. However, I do have some shots of the ESG, taken in 1997, where almost the whole of the group is dressed in plate armour, apart from the officers and standard bearers, that is. Maybe things have changed since then?

As far as the Guard goes I was in until 2004 and certainly even in 1992, as you can see in the Guard Booklet produced by the National Museum of Wales, there were some scale and mail shirts amongst the Legionaries. Perhaps it depended on attendance that particular day. However you would need to get really close to see all the different helmets, belts etc...

The Vindolanda tablets also provide us with a mention of the waistband and how one needed repair! There was also some analysis carried out on surviving textiles for traces of dye and the purple red was found but not a high percentage of the total. However Vindolanda tablets also mention coloured curtains probably for the commanders house a reminder that not all textiles found at military sites will have anything to do with military tunics!

Graham.