Late Roman & Byzantine Uniforms

[Mad Doc Morris]

cataphractarius, all very good points, no doubt about that.
However, let's not get stuck in terminology. The term "war machine" was just an example which implies that we know a whole lot more about how the Roman army functioned (mechanically that is) than we actually do. After all, despite a number of small glimpses into medical standards, level of literacy and other seemingly 'modern' aspects, we still don't know how it all meshed. We may develop opinions, even educated guesses, yet we should bear in mind that our knowledge of how things ought to work might differ a lot from what ancient people assumed.

Funnily enough, Graham Sumner re-coloured one of his illustrations to visualise that all too easy connection between modern rank insignia and supposed evidence for Roman uniforms. It's tempting, yet…

[ErikB]

Funnily enough, Graham Sumner re-coloured one of his illustrations to visualise that all too easy connection between modern rank insignia and supposed evidence for Roman uniforms. It's tempting, yet…

Hey, that's really cool!

I think this is an interesting example because, even if it is historically accurate (who knows?) I would not want to put that chevron on the arm of my little guys because it looks out of place to modern perceptions.  This leads me to reject something that may be true in order to create something that may not be accurate.  Go figure. 

The making of art is strange.

[Mad Doc Morris]

Some people said my 3rd century Romans didn't look 'Roman' enough.



Can't blame them. I'm not convinced by some quirky artworks floating around in Ospreys these days either. However, I do appreciate a bit of creative guesswork and playing with expectations. Controversy keeps you considering and shaping your own position.

[ErikB]

Fantastic models there!

Question: the archers in the lower right corner, the blue painting, was it done with a dark blue and then a lighter blue inside of it, so there is a darker outline for the painted-on shape?

My eyes cannot quite make it out.

I have a test piece with red markings like that and the red-on-stone clothing looks "correct" but not "right."  I'm trying to decide what is missing.

[Mad Doc Morris]

Question: the archers in the lower right corner, the blue painting, was it done with a dark blue and then a lighter blue inside of it, so there is a darker outline for the painted-on shape?

Yes, but rather casually. Always painting shadows first.

[ErikB]

Those are your minis, Mad Doc Morris?!?

You must have a link to more of them, right?  They're fantastic!

[Mad Doc Morris]

They were. Had to sell them.
But they're still archived here on LAF (links to my currently defunct blog with more pics included).

[ErikB]

So you're the Lead Mountain guy!  Wow!  I have been a fan of that blog for a long, long time!

I really like these guys.  I am considering using the same shield decal (as well as a yellow one with very fine imagery for another group): http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y178/Poliorketes/Tabletop/MI%20Romans/IMG_0206.jpg

I like what you wrote about them possibly not being marines, juxtaposing the blue coloring and the metal armor. 

I played water polo and wrestled/Judo for years.  I was a very strong swimmer. 

I have also worn chain mail and "fought" in armor with these guys: https://www.google.com/search?q=battle+of+the+nations&espv=2&biw=1102&bih=650&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DsMmVaSwOoOksAXKloCQDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&dpr=1

I do NOT want to swim in even a light chain mail shirt.  No way.  I have swam in clothing and in a Judo uniform (to try it out).  But those chain shirts are very heavy.  The weight is distributed nicely, like a good rucksack puts most of the weight on the wearer's hips so it doesn't feel as heavy as it is.  But in the water?  No way.

Of course, if they have land duty they could put on the mail.  If they're on a ship then they could take it off.  Or, their commandant could decide the chain is more important than the risk of drowning....

[cataphractarius]

cataphractarius, all very good points, no doubt about that.
However, let's not get stuck in terminology. The term "war machine" was just an example which implies that we know a whole lot more about how the Roman army functioned (mechanically that is) than we actually do. After all, despite a number of small glimpses into medical standards, level of literacy and other seemingly 'modern' aspects, we still don't know how it all meshed. We may develop opinions, even educated guesses, yet we should bear in mind that our knowledge of how things ought to work might differ a lot from what ancient people assumed.

While I'm the first to agree that we know far too little about the ways of the Roman army - particularly on the operational side - I do think that the evidence we have allows at least a few conclusions - and, operationally speaking, probably the most important one is that they were able to pull off seriously complicated operations.

And while I agree that we have great difficulties in seeing how they did it, we can get at least some idea of the challenges they overcame - which required a serious level of organization, particularly with regard to their support services. I know that for two or more decades now 'rediscovering' that the Romans were actually ancient has been all the rage in some circles, and there is a lot of truth in it, but that shouldn't stand in the way of seeing the Roman army for what it must have been - a pretty complex affair comparable more to military establishments of the 19th century than to those of its time.

What I find always quite interesting is this craze for 'visual unity', so to speak - take your absolutely stunning 3rd c. soldiers, for example. Some may actually find themselves afflicted by minor irritation given that there are a few chaps without a helmet (how shocking!), giving them a nice, not-so-unified look, but all I see is a group of soldiers (all trained to fight in the same way, by the way) taking some liberty with their personal equipment in the same way soldiers do nowadays.

As for colours and their function, you're of course right - unless hard evidence comes up from somewhere, we'll simply never know. That everything even remotely connected with Roman classes gets painted blue is based on just one quotation from Vegetius which is idiotic more than anything else - so sailors could have been clad in blue, yellow, green, pink or Tuscan Sunset, for all we know.

Even so - and that's what I like about Graham's picture - the assumption that there was some sort of visual identification even below the centuriones and optiones is, I think, a valid one. Imagine a campaign and some sort of centurion wants his toilet cleaned - proving your status as immunis might come in handy... 

[Mad Doc Morris]

cataphractarius, I see where you're coming from, and we don't actually disagree.

Stating that the Romans were 'ancient' just in order to declare that certain aspects will remain incomprehensible – that's scam, and I definitely wouldn't support that.
Shortcuts, however, are equally wrong. To stay with our example: because we would sew rank insignia on uniforms doesn't mean the same logic holds true for the Romans. In turn, maybe they would have found our 'obsession' with such things highly irrational. Of course, we may very well understand how and why they did things, we may just find that they did it in different ways and for different reasons. – But better let's not go into hermeneutics, 'tis a silly place.

Finally, though, I may assure you that my love for all things Roman is pure and true.

[ErikB]

Don't we refer to these eras as follows?

- Biblical (Old Testament times)
- Ancient (1,500 BC, Old, Old Greek times, Alexander, Persian Empire, up through Rome, ends with Rome's fall in the 400s)
- Dark Ages (ends around Charlamagne's death, late 900s)
- Crusade Times (1,000 AD to about when the Turks took Constantinople)
- Middle Ages (1,200ish until Renaissance, overlaps with Crusade times)
- Renaissance
- Colonial
- Industrial (overlaps with Colonial)
- Post-colonial/Modern

Just asking.  This is how I thought of things.

Supposing this is true, then the Byzantine Roman (toy soldier and recreational history) period would be Dark Ages through Crusades.

Western Roman would be Ancient, from mid-Greek times to falling apart, thereby ushering in the Dark Ages.

Sorry if this is a bit naive, I'm just a computer guy out in California.  There's NO history out here, especially no Ancient History.  The future is invented here in Silicon Valley, though... but that's something different.

[cataphractarius]

Mad Doc Morris, indeed we're actually in agreement.

And -

Finally, though, I may assure you that my love for all things Roman is pure and true.

isn't that the most important thing of all? 

[Mad Doc Morris]

isn't that the most important thing of all? 

Indeed.

ErikB, yes, traditionally it's Antiquity for Romans and Dark/Middle Ages for Byzantines. That's the cut on LAF as well, just for clarity's sake. It doesn't preclude crossovers like this thread.
Please don't ask for Byzantine uniforms, though, that's the road to perdition.

[cataphractarius]

Supposing this is true, then the Byzantine Roman (toy soldier and recreational history) period would be Dark Ages through Crusades.

Western Roman would be Ancient, from mid-Greek times to falling apart, thereby ushering in the Dark Ages.

Sorry if this is a bit naive, I'm just a computer guy out in California.  There's NO history out here, especially no Ancient History.  The future is invented here in Silicon Valley, though... but that's something different.

Nothing naive here - ask two historians about the end of eras and you'll likely get a dozen or more opinions.

The division into the ancient, medieval and modern periods can perhaps serve as a starting point.

When talking about "antiquity", the conservative approach, to put it that way, is to focus on Greek and Roman antiquity, ie the period from 1500 BC to roundabout AD 600 (depending on your preferences really). This is what "Ancient Historians" usually cover, while the Egyptians, for example, while undoubtedly ancient, are usually considered to be distinctly different from antiquity, at least classical antiquity - until the Ptolemies of course.

Once we're in the 5th century AD and beyond, people start talking quite obstinately about the "Fall of Rome"; of course, one could argue that Rome fell indeed - in 1453!   Anyway, given the significant changes we have in the east in the early 7th century that would be a good candidate for the end of Late Antiquity (a period we usually like to kick off in AD 285). For the 400ish to 600 period in the West one might, at least for such godforsaken places like Britain, Raetia or former Pannonia, talk about "Dark Ages"; one could just as well call it "sub-Roman"; usually, it's called "early medieval period", going right up to around AD 1000.

The medieval period one could divide into early, high and late medieval period, with significant overlap with Late Antiquity; early, just mentioned, goes to AD 1000, the high medieval period to around 1300 (coinciding rather nicely with the fall of the last crusader states), followed by the late medieval period going to around 1500 and known for such great and fluffy things as the Little Ice Age, the Great Famine, the Black Death and this little conflict that went on for about a century in France, somewhat wrecking the demographics even further.

I guess it was particularly this latter bit of the medieval period that eventually during the Renaissance made people think of the "dark" middle ages.

[ErikB]

As silly as it sounds, I think of Dark Ages as Kite Shields and Middle Ages as Heater Shields.