Dressed For Battle

[caldrail]

One thing I've noticed on reading about roman legions is the assumption that they dressed in red tunics. However, every source I've seen says that roman tunics were ordered as white material. Were they dyed locally? Or did romans line up in white dress?

 

Red was certainly a common colour for the legions and we know that higher ranks used it as a mark of distinction. Modern dyes are vivid and garish compared with the natural colours used in ancient times, so an off-white and dull red would be more accurate I think.

 

The quality of cloth was important. Like most periods of history, the rank and file made do with cheap coarse material, whilst officers used finer stuff.

 

Does anyone else have any good information on this?

[Lost_Warrior]

Oh, no! The dreaded tunic color debate!

 

I think that rank might have had alot to do with it, however I thought that alot of common legionaries also wore red. Perhaps the legionaries wore red and the auxilla wore off white? It could also have to do with what is available locally. (I'm really just speculating here)

[caldrail]

Local availability is always important in considering things ancient. True, trade was widespread and imports were common - if there was a profit from it.

[phil25]

White or buff shows dirt easily and bloosdstains show up clearly - which can have an impact on morale.

 

Napoleon and the British navy both discovered this.

 

One reason for the use of a reddish dye - giving probably a rusty colour, might have been to minimise the visual impact of minor wounds on comrades in battle.

 

Just a thought,

 

Phil

[Rameses the Great]

Or maybe they wore red so they can be seen by their enemies. The British for example wore bright red letting the opposing army see them clearly. It is a gesture of, 'we are the most powerful nation in the world and look at us all you want.' Red was a color of power and authority so why Rome chose it, is no mystery.

 

I think they did it so that everyone can see them and say, 'those are the Romans.' It would be intimidating to see a sea of red heading towards you unheralded.

 

Again, just pointing out a few points.

[Furius Venator]

'It is often assumed that all soldiers wore tunics of a standard colour. In fact, there is no positive evidence for this... There is some direct evidence for soldiers wearing white or off-white tunics, and a little, though far less, for red. A papyrus from Egypt records a unit ordering pure white...and white is the most common colour for soldiers appearing in pictures or mosaics...Tacitus [describes]...camp prefects, tribunes and senior centurions in dazzling white uniforms, which suggests the higher ranks had brighter, better quality tunics than ordinary soldiers.'

 

Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army p.121

[Primus Pilus]

An interesting link provided in a similar thread some time ago...

Romanarmy.net

[Spurius]

My random thoughts:

 

1) If you want to be able to judge how well a legionaire or cohort kept their kit (as a sign of how good of soldiers they are), the best color for tunics is a white or off-white. Plus there would be very little extra processing done in manufacture outside of obtaining extra urine. Also a centurian could dress up his men by having them use some of their rations to white starch their parade tunics.

 

2) To have a truely spectactular display for impressing a dignitary or local peoples, having a legion going through evolutions while each cohort wore a different color tunic and/or cloak would be a sight.

 

3) To set the regulars apart from the auxilary, let the add ons wear bright colors. The professionals wear white.

 

So, I can see issuing a white tunic and then local coloring another one or two other tunics that the cohort had to buy out of their own funds. White would definitely set the legionaire apart from the auxilary and lend itself for inspection/parades. I would guess white to be a standard of sorts with everyday and most other wear being varied by location. Imagine how the tunics from a formerly levant based cohort would look when they marched into, say, England. Very much setting them apart as the professionals to the local garrisons.

[Pertinax]

I had to post this shot!

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=839

[PerfectimusPrime]

Red was quite effective colour of the uniforms. Not only did it hide blood stains, it gave an psychological advantage. Red colour indimidates the opponent sub-conciously. Studies, If I recall, have shown that wrestlers wearing red win more often than those wearing alternative colours. Red is the colour of aggression and the colour of a winner. IIRC

 

However, red dye was expensive and white uniforms were probably most often used.

Edited June 19, 2006 by PerfectimusPrime

[phil25]

Just a thought - was uniformity a major consideration for the Romns?

 

We are used, through films and re-enactments etc, and also from our own conventions, to assume that troops in single units all dressed pretty identically - with perhaps distinctions for rank and role (ie musicians).

 

But Napoleonic troops, paintings notwithstanding, were seldom dressed other than in a piecemeal uniform way - especially in the field.

 

Is it possible that the Romans looked for something else and that a lack of exact similarity of headgear, or armour or shield shape - or, dare I say it, tunic colour - would not have worried them as it might us?

 

I'm just aware that we can, sometimes, throw back our own assumptions on the past and mislead ourselves.

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

If one looks at the large arrary of uniforms and other gear used in WW1 it's obvious that armies in all times were not uniform equiped like they are today.

Red was always expesive and I doubt they used it much.

[Pertinax]

If one looks at the large arrary of uniforms and other gear used in WW1 it's obvious that armies in all times were not uniform equiped like they are today.

Red was always expesive and I doubt they used it much.

 

red ochre is the dye source I believe .does anyone have information on the economics of supply? I suggest that as an earth based pigment it might not be too pricey, but I do seem to recall that "congo red" was the main natural in victorian days before synthetics arrived .The other source of red dye available for use in paints was of course cattle blood-a lot of alleged "rose madder" is blood and lime admixed.