Late Roman & Byzantine Uniforms

[ErikB]

I hope this is the right section to put this question in.

I have seen lots of images of Late Roman and/or Byzantine troops wearing a tunic with one or more stripes around the wrist, a shoulder circle, something that looks a little like rucksack straps, an embroidered circle around the hips, and so on.

Here are great examples:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k1cpAnEFz4o/UyqXmTVd8NI/AAAAAAAAfK0/NGLKg4-0KmY/s1600/Moiterei+-+Final+Submission+1.4.JPG
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pics/5th-century-legionary-01.jpg

My questions are as follows:

- Did these markings mean anything, like rank, limitatea or comitates, or the fashion of the region where the troops were from?

- Did the stripes around the wrist indicate anything, like rank?  I have noticed tunics with one, two, and three stripes (reminds me of the classic Star Trek, somehow).

- Did the colors indicate anything (red tunic with blue markings, white tunic with red or blue markings, etc.)?

- And, most importantly, was there an attempt at standardization within a given unit, like there was with the shields (I think)?  Or would a unit (all with the same shield design) wear a mixture of different tunics?

I have almost 100 new Footsore Late Romans and I want to make sure I paint them up right.  :-)

Thanks for the advice, folks!

[Mad Doc Morris]

ErikB, not to repeat myself, but it's the same answer as to your question on shield design and Roman uniforms in general: There is no rule we know of. Actually, there is also no indication that people back then cared for such things.

Like already said on your other thread too, it's a great opportunity. I'd recommend to choose from the number of sources available, be it ancient or recent artworks or just other people's wargaming armies, something that really inspires you – and follow that pattern. If you like uniformed ranks and files, go for it. If you want a rag-tag force, do it. And if you want something in-between, no issues there.
In Ancients it's very likely that you won't end up with something completely off target, whatever your approach may be.

[ErikB]

Alright, got it, and sorry to repeat.  I had asked about shields, not clothing, and did not know if there were a difference or not. 

Everyone wears clothing, guys carry shields while on fighting and guard duty, presumably, not just "walking out", or doing "fatigue" or "corvee" work, and so on. 

These are sufficiently different to me to be worth asking about.

Anyway, thanks for the answer, that it is simply unknown and making the minis look "good" is about the only standard we can come up with.  :-)

[Lowtardog]

Way back when there was a great site which gave some detail certainly on shield emblams, I think the patterned tunics were more a fashion to unify. Worth looking for info around age of arthur WAB book as that was rather nice painting guides

[Lowtardog]

Very brief explanation here http://historum.com/ancient-history/20423-roman-military-clothing.html


Worth picking up osprey roman military clothing 2 200_400 ad

On shields cant go wrong with googling notia dignatium which gives lots of late designs. I did a coehl hen army and used these for ideas and linked tunic patterns to the shield design

[Lowtardog]

Info on shields
http://lukeuedasarson.com/NotitiaPatterns.html 

[WillieB]

Hi EricB,

You have probably asked the question most of us Late Roman aficionados have been fascinated about for ever.
It is very tempting to try to find a pattern( pun intended) into the stripes and clavii on the tunics but alas nothing can confirmed.

And still....

Soldiers even the lower ranks probably had more than one tunic for different occasions. This is confirmed by the findings of  'shipping lists' where different red and white - embroidered ' tunics are mentioned.

At least one emperor was said to have given out tunics with coloured bands to his soldiers. ( as a reward?) Anyway the text specifies that those who previously didn't have a band (on their arms) now got a tunic with 1, those who already had a band now got tunics with 2 or 3 and so up to five. That, IMHO is a clear description of rank insignia.

As for the different shapes of the clavii and other embroidery. Many of the tunics are woven in one piece decoration(clavii) and all in just one go. Others are plain tunics with appliqué embroidery in silk or brocade. The latter is obviously more suited for removal and adjustments.

Judging from non- contemporary illustrations the shoulder decorations were often circular as you have mentioned yourself. However, I've also seen a few were the roundels are replaced by vertical stripes (single, in pairs and again up to five) which again might suggest a ranking system.
One of the actual Late Roman tunics found nearly intact has embroidered squares on the shoulders as well as on the front instead of circles. It's off- white with brownish embroidery but that can easily have been a faded red or even purple.

To be honest, I'd follow LowTarDog's suggestion. Pick whatever takes you fancy an go from there. Sort of 'invent' your own ranking system if it makes you feel good. It's what I did....

After all for all we know, all those decorations may or may not have been anything more elaborate than an ancient equivalent of gang tattoos.

[Mad Doc Morris]

At least one emperor was said to have given out tunics with coloured bands to his soldiers. ( as a reward?) Anyway the text specifies that those who previously didn't have a band (on their arms) now got a tunic with 1, those who already had a band now got tunics with 2 or 3 and so up to five. That, IMHO is a clear description of rank insignia.

Now that's interesting. Please, if you find the source, share it here.

ErikB, sorry if my reply sounded a bit snarky. Questions on "uniforms", "logistics" and such in pre-modern periods pop up quite regularly in 'history buff' circles, wargaming ones in particular. The thing is that our modern mindset and rationality might just not apply to people in the past.
The idea of the 'Roman war machine' for example is clearly an invention ex post, based on taking Vegetius or the scenes of Trajan's Column at face value. It was used by early modern military theorists as a pattern to model and rationalise their own views. Their 'facts' and clear cuts have made a deep impression on the understanding of the Roman army. More recently, though, historians, classicists and archaeologists have come up with different, differentiated insights. I found once you've got accustomed to the resulting, somewhat fragmented picture, it actually makes for a lot more fun – not the least for a painter, modeller and wargamer. After all, there's nobody to tell you that your 'rank insignia' orbiculi and clavii and whatnot are completely wrong.

[georgec]

I do wonder how much of the 'classical' Imperial Roman Army was viewed by many of the 'founding fathers' of its study through a prism of a more recent imperial army of long-service regular citizens, dressed in red, with border forts, colourful ethnic auxiliaries, mounted infantry detachments etc bringing civilisation to ungrateful barbarians no mater how many punitive expeditions it took...   

[WillieB]

Now that's interesting. Please, if you find the source, share it here.

Hi Doc,
It's in Scriptores Historiae Augustae XXVI.
It mentions Aurelian giving those tunics to soldiers who previously only had vertically woven ones (ie made in one piece on a loom) when he became Emperor.
Whether he gave tunics or decorated bands isn't exactly clear, but it's titillating isn't it?

Willie

[Mad Doc Morris]

georgec, hit the nail on its head, I'd say.

Willie, it is indeed, thanks for bringing this up!
Had to look it up, and if I got that right, the quote is:

paragaudas vestes ipse primus militibus dedit, cum ante non nisi rectas purpureas accepissent, et quidem aliis monolores, aliis dilores, trilores aliis et usque ad pentelores, quales hodie lineae sunt.

He, too, was the first to give tunics having bands of embroidery to his troops, whereas previously they had received only straight-woven tunics of purple, and to some he presented tunics with one band, to others those having two bands or three bands and even up to five bands, like the tunics to‑day made of linen.
(Text and translation taken from Lacus Curtius)

According to Smith's dictionary pagauda is some kind of honorary garment of the later Empire – perhaps from the same time which saw the HA compiled. So the author might have translated distinctions and even 'rank insignia' of court dress to a slightly earlier period.
If those "bands" were attached to the sleeves (which the text doesn't state), they could well have been 'stand-ins' for the armillae-armbands of old. Fascinating!
Anyway, these tunics don't seem to have been regular battle or undress uniforms but rather some kind of parade dress. And then it's impossible to determine if Aurelian provided such clothes to all regular soldiers (wearing purple tunics before?) or just his bodyguard or the praetorians. A great mess, I love it.

[ErikB]

No worries, Mad Doc Morris.  I was a little embarrassed as you were right, but I still wanted to learn what I could about the uniforms, clothing, and all that, which, to me, is a bit different from the shields (I remember having ONE rifle but Class A, B, and C uniforms....)

And there's so much information out there.  I don't know what's true, what's possible, what's just stereotype, and so on.

I paint minis and do big research projects about the time period, just for my own interest.  I don't play wargames, I don't know any system's rules that well, mostly because I don't have the time.  My painting gets done after the kids go to sleep and work is, well, a full-time job, so to speak.

I'm a computer engineer but studied history and politics in school (as well as engineering).  This is my hobbyist's way of keeping my passion for history alive.  It's more about recreational academic study than about making a cool looking tabletop army.

Consequently, I'm more interested in learning everything I can about a period, including what the economy was like and how that was reflected in soldiers' equipment.  What does the F-35 say about America's economy at this time, for example.  What did the rifled hunting rifles in the American Revolution say about life in the Colonies?  What did it tell us about the Industrial North vs. the Farming Midwest vs. the more wild and open South?

Obviously there are many places, many times, many circumstances, many individual groups who may be recently supplied or not, and so on.  But asking these questions is my way of starting on a theme and then drilling down on it to learn what I can about... pretty much everything.  The theory about rank stripes above is a great example of what I find interesting and what kinds of answers I'm looking for.  "Possibly true" is a perfectly acceptable standard of certainty, especially when backed by some sources.

This is where my passions lie and the meaning behind my questions.  Sorry if that was unclear in my two posts.  It's hard to communicate that in an internet post.  In person, the excited child-like happy wide eyes would make that more clear.   

So, let's keep the conversation going!  :-)

[cataphractarius]

The idea of the 'Roman war machine' for example is clearly an invention ex post, based on taking Vegetius or the scenes of Trajan's Column at face value. It was used by early modern military theorists as a pattern to model and rationalise their own views. Their 'facts' and clear cuts have made a deep impression on the understanding of the Roman army. More recently, though, historians, classicists and archaeologists have come up with different, differentiated insights. I found once you've got accustomed to the resulting, somewhat fragmented picture, it actually makes for a lot more fun – not the least for a painter, modeller and wargamer. After all, there's nobody to tell you that your 'rank insignia' orbiculi and clavii and whatnot are completely wrong.

While I wholeheartedly agree with any admonition of care when using Vegetius or Trajan's column as evidence for either Vegetius' oftentimes quite befuddled brain or the picture which whoever came up with the imagery of Trajan's column actually wanted to convey, and while I also buy into the idea of the Roman army being not quite so uniform as sometimes depicted (something quite true for early and mid-Victorian armies as well, by the way), I'd nevertheless be equally careful in ditching the concept of a 'war machine'.

Yes, it is not an ancient terminology, and certainly early modern and modern interpretation has been significantly influenced by the military affairs contemporary to early modern and modern interpreters.

But then there was, for all of its antiquity, an awful lot of - to put it particularly intelec-, intillec-, intelic-, ehm, brainy...  - 'stuff' around the Roman army that feels awfully early modern/modern in nature.

Early modern armies did not require commanders on the lowest level (ie the equivalent to centuries or turmae) to keep a constant paper tally on their soldier's kit. The Roman army did.

Early modern armies did not give you leave permission papers, to produce at checkpoints in the frontier zone. The Roman army did.

Early modern armies did not require literary from anybody but the basest pointy-stick-wielder. The Roman army did - in fact, you can (well, in my opinion you should) argue that the evidence coming out from Egypt shows that even the base pointy-stick-wielder on guard duty in the cold actually could read.

Early modern armies had no real understanding of hygiene. The Roman army - well, they had toilets. They did not understand the medical implications, and it's not quite clear whether it was really an issue of hygiene or rather one of creature comfort, but at least they had it.

The Roman army may have looked a good lot more shabbier than we usually think - but it was nevertheless running on a huge amount of formalism and paper (well, wood, papyrus and shards, if you're nitpicking).

On reflection, if asked my professional opinion on whether there was a 'Roman war machine' would probably be: 'Dunno, but the army was pretty waaay cool!'

[ErikB]

I think the term 'war machine' is meaningless nonsense people say to create a sense of drama.

[cataphractarius]

I think the term 'war machine' is meaningless nonsense people say to create a sense of drama.

Certainly it can't be denied that there is some sort of dramatic air to it - yet I would hesitate to call it 'meaningless', as it is usually used with the notion of the Roman army as a force the organizational quality of which surpassed anything else that we know from antiquity. You'd probably be hard pressed to find references to, say, a 'Rhoxolanian war machine', I would presume.