How To: Dress as an Anglo-Saxon or Viking

Overheard in a classroom during a discussion on the preponderance of leopard print costumes being worn for a Stone Age history day a comment was made that the same outfit would do for an Anglo-Saxon day. Clearly the speaker had no idea of the clothing worn in early Mediæval Europe, but then why would they? How many of us really need to know what an Anglo-Saxon man or a Viking woman would have sported a thousand years ago. Perhaps those teaching children ought to know something so Tastes Of History hopes to help.

This “How to:” guide is therefore meant for those wishing to recreate simple yet effective historically-themed costume. It is primarily aimed at teachers wishing to inspire their pupils on “Wow Days” when dressing up is the order of the day. Previously Tastes Of History has tackled “How to: Make Simple Egyptian, Greek or Roman Costume”, so this time we going to address the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings [1] of the 8th- to the 11th-century. Let us start at the feet and finish with what to wear on the head.

Footwear  From practical experience obtaining well-fitting footwear is essential for comfort. Remember you may be on your feet all day so although it is tempting to buy some shiny armour or a new sword, we would strongly advise spending money on good quality boots or shoes first. Early Mediæval footwear seems to some form of ankle boot, known as a “turn shoe”, enclosing the foot and fastened with either leather laces or one or two toggles. Men and women wore ankle boots, Historical examples of which have been recovered from Viking-era Jorvik (York). Those pictured are very similar to those worn by the author and, to name but two online retailers, may be purchased from the likes Get Dressed for Battle or Merchant of Menace [2]. Retailing for ca. £70-75 (at time of writing) a pair these boots may not be a viable purchase for, say, teachers. So, to achieve the “look”, any form of brown leather ankle boot will suffice as they can be disguised by leg wraps.

Leg wraps  Bandage-like leg bindings worn by Anglo-Saxon and Viking men resemble the puttees worn by late 19th- and early 20th-century soldiers. Known in Old English as “winingas” (the plural of “wining”) the word is related to the act of “winding”. The equivalent term in Old Norse is “vindingr”. These woollen leg wraps are typically 2.5 m long (8 ft) and ca. 5 cm (2 in) wide and by far the most illustrated method of wearing them reveals they were wound from the ankle around the leg and fastened just below the knee. The loose end appears to be tucked in, or they were secured either by hooks or by tapes for tying. The exact method is not known. Winingas/vindingr are not only a good way of keeping the lower extremities warm but also protect the trouser legs from wear and from rough undergrowth, preventing tears from brambles, etc. They also provide support to the muscles of the leg, which may have been the primary reason for their use, but it would also make sense to use leg bindings as cold weather clothing. Wrapped over the top of the shoe or boot, winingas/vindingr are effective at keeping mud, stones and snow out and keeping one's feet and legs drier in wintery conditions. As stated above, woollen material wrapped around the lower leg can also be used to disguise modern ankle boots.

Trousers  The Romans noted that ankle-length trousers (Latin: bracae) were worn by tribesmen in NW Europe (Germans, Gauls, Britons, etc.) and by those further East such as the Persians or their successors, the Parthians. No complete pair of Viking trousers, known as “brækr” in Old Norse, has ever been found. The earlier (1st- to 5th-century) leggings found at Thorsbjerg Mose in the 19th-century have been used by museums and re-enactors as a pattern for Viking-age trousers, not least due to the paucity of other evidence. Of very strong construction, these should be generally straight legged and reasonably close fitting, not unlike modern jeans. For those on a budget, woollen leggings would be an acceptable compromise to achieve the “look”.

Shirt  The shirts worn by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were largely identical differing only in the way the name was pronounced. In Old English scyrte was pronounced “shirta” while the Old Norse word skyrta was pronounced “skirta”. Both words originate from Proto-Germanic *skurtjon meaning “a short garment”. Shirts can be of wool or linen, quite voluminous and typically long-sleeved. In terms of length, it seems that shirts typically reached to the mid-thigh or were knee-length. Tablet woven decoration or embroidery often adorned the neckline, sleeve cuffs and hemline but this is not essential in any recreation.

Dresses  Anglo-Saxon and Viking women wore ankle length linen under-dresses known also as skyrta in Old Norse. This could be long-sleeved, short-sleeved or sleeveless; a woman’s arms were considered a point of attraction, and young women probably preferred to show them off when appropriate. In cold or wet weather, a similarly styled woollen dress would have been worn over the skyrta, but in winter, a doubled outer tunic or coat could be worn over her other garments.

To protect her skyrta, an “apron-skirt” or hangerock (proun. “han-ye-rok”) was typically worn over it. A hangerock is another type of dress, wider at the bottom than at the top and held up by straps passing over the shoulders from the back to the front. The straps were fastened by brœkr (“brooches”), with oval-style “tortoise” brooches appearing to have been very popular. Depending on the woman’s status or wealth, these might by silver or gold. Finds have revealed a high degree of craftsmanship in the decorative designs. Such brooches are often connected by chains of glass beads and amber pendants; the latter thought to have magical properties.

Belts  Leather belts are worn by both men and women round the waist to suspend useful items like knives, keys or a pouch to hold small valuables. Women may have also elected to wear decorative tablet woven belts instead of leather ones.

Headwear  Married women tied their hair up in a knot and covered it with a headscarf. Unmarried girls wore their hair loose or simply confined by a piece of braid. Simple skullcaps made of wool or leather were worn by both sexes. Caps could be edged with tablet-woven braid or trimmed with fur. Both men and women also wore caped hoods covering the neck and giving excellent protection from inclement weather. A lining of looser-woven cloth was not uncommon, and some hoods even had a filling of down between the two layers. The basic design survived all over Europe for many centuries. 

Material to use  For accurate ancient or Mediæval costume, cloth should be made only from the natural fibres of linen or wool. It is recognised, however, that sometimes modern cloth contains a mixture of these and cotton. This is acceptable compromise for those seeking to be as accurate as possible since the mix of fibres will not adversely affect the appearance or the draping qualities of the base material. In the early Mediæval period wool was the dominate fabric worn by most people so ideally that should be the first choice for any Anglo-Saxon or Viking costume.

Colours  It may come as a shock, but television dramas and movies are not the best source of inspiration for what colours to wear. Even today, costume and wardrobe departments seemingly cannot divorce themselves from the very outdated idea that ancient and Mediæval clothing was almost exclusively dull browns and subdued colours. This is despite overwhelming evidence from contemporary paintings, embroideries and tapestries all showing a wealth of vibrant colour. Admittedly, modern chemical dyes produce consistent and vivid hues which probably could not have been achieved so perfectly in the past when using plant-based dyes. Yet, from just the small selection of plants as shown right, a variety of colours and shades clearly can be achieved.

And finally  If tempted to add to your ensemble, then be aware that no cow-horns ever graced a Viking helmet before the last quarter of the 19th-century. There is simply no evidence whatsoever, historically or archaeologically - the end. Should you, dear reader, remain unconvinced, then follow the link to Roberta Frank’s article on “The Invention of the Viking Horned Helmet”. Bon appétit!

Endnotes:

1. In the Old Norse tongue, the word viking meant something like raiding or piracy, and vikingr meant a raider. Today, however, this word is used as a general term for the Nordic peoples of the 8th- to the 11th-centuries, it was used more rarely in the mediaeval period. Their fellow Europeans used to speak rather of “Norsemen” - men from the North (a term which lives on in “Norman”, since Normandy was founded by Scandinavian colonists). The peoples of eastern Europe and the Balkans, however, used the terms “Rus” and “Varangians” for the Norse invaders, traders, colonists and mercenaries.

2. Tastes Of History is neither affiliated with either company named nor endorsing their products. We are merely pointing interested parties to two possible sources of clothing and footwear. Other retailers and suppliers are available.

How to: Build a replica Cannon Part Six

The Tackle

In Parts One, Two and Three of this "How to:" series we established the background and how we went about building our scale replica cannon. In Parts Four and Five, respectively, we looked at how we recreated the projectiles and gunners' equipment needed to perform mock "firing" drills. The final stage is to recreate the tackle used to haul the cannon inboard for loading and outboard for firing through the ship's gun ports.

Typically tackle is a mechanism consisting of ropes, pulley blocks, hooks, or other things for lifting heavy objects. The final challenge, therefore, is to recreate the typical arrangement of ropes, which comprise the gun tackle, train tackle and breeching lines.

Gun Tackle  The gun tackle (or "outhaul" tackle) was a system of two or more pulleys with a rope or cable threaded between them. The pulleys were assembled to form blocks and the blocks paired so that one is fixed by a hook to a ring bolt on the bulwark, while one moves with the load and is hooked to a ring bolt on the gun carriage. The rope is threaded through the pulleys to provide mechanical advantage that amplifies the force applied to the rope.

The gun tackle was used to haul the gun out to the battery (firing) position after it was loaded. For larger guns the tackle consisted of a single block hooked to the gun carriage and a double block hooked to the bulwark. Smaller guns might just use two single blocks. The line leading from the block attached to the bulwark had to be long enough for the gun crew to grab.

Train Tackle  The train tackle (or "inhaul" tackle) was similar to the gun tackle. It hooked to a ring bolt at the rear of the gun carriage and to another ring bolt mounted in the deck some distance behind the gun. The train tackle was used to haul the gun back inboard to the loading position. When not in use it was stowed with all the other gun handling gear, often on the bulwarks between the guns.

Breeching Lines  The breeching lines were attached to ring bolts on the bulwarks and to the cascabels at the rear of the cannon. For earlier guns the lines were wrapped around the cascabel or, in some cases, they were attached with a cut splice that fit around the cascabel. Later guns had a breeching ring cast into the barrel above the cascabel, and the breeching line passed through it.

The breeching line stopped the recoil of the gun when it was fired, preventing it from crashing about the deck. It was roughly 1/3 the diameter of the shot, and was long enough (3 times the length of the cannon bore) to allow the cannon to move about a foot or two inboard of the bulwark to give the gun crew room to swab and load the cannon.

Neither breeching nor tackle could be blackened or treated in any other way that reduced their flexibility. Ropes had to be of manila or another pliable material. Consequently, jute rope of an appropriate diameter (25 mm) was duly purchased.

Block Pulleys

Wooden block pulleys are available to purchase online but finding ones of the appropriate size and quantity proved difficult given the scaled down nature of the cannon. It was decided, therefore, that the block pulleys could be fabricated in house. Usefully there are several YouTube videos showing how to make a block pulley, for example this one by Mark Thijssen or this one by Mr Chickadee who uses a more traditional rope strop.

Given that the block pulleys are largely for show rather function, it was decided to make them from plywood to the design shown below:

This six-part series has briefly explored the history of naval guns used by the Royal Navy in the 18th- and 19th-centuries. It has looked at the gun firing drills and the equipment needed to serve a long gun during the Age of Sail. In Parts Two and Three we proposed a design for making a lightweight cannon barrel and a gun carriage to support it. Part Four explored the types of projectiles discharged from period naval guns, their intended use, and how we attempted to recreate them. The gunners' equipment was recreated in Part Five, and finally we looked at the gun tackle needed to haul cannon inboard for loading and outboard for firing through a ship's gun ports. So, with the project finished, Tastes Of History was delighted to learn that at least one person was inspired by the series to build their own replica (pictured).

How To: Ancient Underwear

Our evidence for ancient costume comes from the interpretation of statues, stone relief carvings, frescoes, mosaics and many other forms of imagery. From these sources it is nigh impossible to know whether underwear was typically worn by our forebears. We can deduce that, perhaps, in hotter climates, such as Egypt and around the Mediterranean, underwear was forsaken to keep cool. Now we are all for “authenticity”, but in a school or at a public event “going commando” might not be the wisest choice [1]. So, if one wanted to create the most authentic look without breaking the law, what might you wear?

It is uncertain whether ancient underwear was a tailored garment or a more straightforward loincloth, also known as a breechcloth or breechclout. Regardless, throughout human history most societies, to one degree or another, have disapproved of genital nakedness [2]. Loincloths, therefore, have been an essential piece of men’s clothing for a long time. Essentially, a loincloth is a piece of material, bark-bast, leather, or cloth passed between the legs to cover the genitals, but not necessarily the buttocks. Despite its simple functionality, loincloths come in many different forms. Even today they remain one of the simplest forms of dress, and in some cases the only garment worn in societies where no other clothing is either needed or wanted.

The earliest evidence for underwear comes from the clothing Ötzi the Iceman was discovered wearing. His attire revealed that, in Europe around 2000 BC, some men wore leather breechcloths. In Ötzi’s case it was made from narrow strips of sheep hide stitched together to produce a garment, originally a 100 cm x 33 cm, that was worn between the legs and fastened with the belt (see right). A very similar design was worn by ancient Inca men in Pre-Columbian South America. A strip of cloth passing between their legs was suspended by a string or tape belt, secured to the tapes at the back while the front portion hung in front as an apron.

From Ötzi’s simple loincloth developed more encompassing garments such as the one shown below left in a carved relief of ancient Egyptian farmers or labourers. This form of underwear is relatively easy to recreate requiring a T-shaped piece of cloth. The width needs to be enough that it can be tied round the waist to form a “belt”. Likewise, a sufficiently long length of material, forming a “tail”, is drawn between the legs, from back to front, and looped through the “belt” to secure it in place. The result is somewhat like a pair of shorts with an apron of cloth at the front (see below right). 

From the Vindolanda Tablets we know Romans wore a type of loincloth known as a subligaculum. While we cannot be certain of its design, it is highly likely that such garments were very similar to the Egyptian versions. The version pictured (right), however, was a type used by gladiators, but it gives a sense of how a subligaculum was worn. Indeed, around the world today, the styles in which breechcloths and loincloths can be arranged are myriad. Both the Bornean sirat and the Indian dhoti have fabric passing between the legs to support a man's genitals. Loincloths are commonly used as an undergarment or swimsuit by wrestlers and by farmers in paddy fields in both Sri Lanka and India, where it is called Kovanam in Tamil, amudaya in Sinhala and kaupinam or langot. A similar style of loincloth was also characteristic of ancient Mesoamerica. The male inhabitants of the area of modern Mexico wore a wound loincloth of woven fabric. One end of the loincloth was held up, the remainder passed between the thighs, wound about the waist, and secured in back by tucking.

Before World War II, the fundoshi (right) was the main form of underwear for Japanese men and women. It is a 35 cm wide (14”) piece of fabric, typically cotton or silk, passed between the thighs and secured to cover the genitals. The fundoshi quickly fell out of use after the war with the introduction to the Japanese market of new underwear such as briefs, boxer shorts and so on. 

Endnotes:

1. A euphemism for not wearing any underwear. It is also worth being aware that darker or coloured underwear can be visible beneath white or translucent garments.

2. At time of writing, finding a more polite form of words was proving difficult.

How To: Dress as a Roman soldier Part Three

This ‘How To:’ series is aimed at the general reader or an individual wishing to portray a Roman legionary or auxiliary as accurately as our current knowledge allows. It is not intended to be an academic exploration of all the different permutations of Roman helmets, armour, swords and so on that have been identified and catalogued in the archaeological record. There are far more detailed books and online resources available elsewhere.

In Part One we looked at the common clothing and accessories typically worn by Roman soldiers of the 1st to 2nd century AD and in Part Two, the armour they wore. Part Three addresses what weapons were typically carried in the period.

‘Caveat emptor’ (Buyer beware)

There are many online sources for reproduction historical equipment, arms and armour. Some retailers offer far superior products than others, but clearly better quality comes at a higher cost. Bespoke makers ought to be the buyer’s first recourse, if their budget permits, as these skilled artisans take pride in accurately reproducing museum quality artefacts. Body armour is definitely one area where custom-made rather than ‘off-the-shelf’ is preferable. If you are going to be encased in metal for any extended period, it needs to fit and articulate well to mitigate the effects of the armour’s weight and allow a full range of movement. Poorly fitting armour risks uncomfortable chafing at the minimum but could cause actual physical harm. Having your armour made-to-measure or at least adjusted to fit well after purchase by a competent armourer is highly recommended.

Pugio (Dagger)

Many, but not necessarily all, Roman soldiers carried a dagger known as a pugio. Most likely this was used as a utility knife but it could also act as a sidearm. Generally, it had a large, leaf-shaped blade 18 to 28 cm long and 5 cm or more in width with a pronounced waist. A raised midrib ran the length of each side, either simply standing out from the face or defined by grooves on either side. Like other items of legionary equipment, the pugio underwent changes especially during the 1st century AD. The blade was made a little thinner, by about 3 mm, and the handle constructed in metal. Initially the tang was wide and flat, and the grip was riveted through it, as well as through the shoulders of the blade (see below).

Around AD 50, a rod tang was introduced, and the hilt was no longer riveted through the shoulders of the blade. Of itself this did not alter the pugio's appearance, but some of these later blades were narrower (under 3.5 cm wide), had little or no waist, and had reduced or vestigial midribs.

Throughout the period, the outline of the hilt remained roughly the same. It was made with two layers of horn, wood or bone sandwiching the tang, each overlaid with a thin metal plate. Often the hilt was decorated with inlaid silver. The hilt was 10 to 12 cm long overall, and the grip was quite narrow. Combined with an expansion or lump in the middle of the handle produced a very secure grip.

Gladius Hispaniensis (‘Spanish sword’)

Gladius (pl. gladii) is the general Latin word for ‘sword’ and as such does not relate to a specific design. In the Roman Republic, the term gladius Hispaniensis (‘Spanish sword’) referred (and still refers) specifically to the short sword, approximately 60 cm (24”) long, used by Roman legionaries as their primary weapon from the 3rd century BC. Several different better-known designs followed, the most widely recognised being the ‘Mainz’ pattern and the ‘Pompeii’ pattern (the names referring to where or how the canonical example was found). The ‘Mainz’ pattern, which had itself developed from the Hispaniensis, generally had wider, diamond-section blades of 50 to 75 cm (c. 20” to 30”) long, slightly waisted in profile, with a long tapering point. The ‘Mainz’ pattern seems to have entered service in the 1st century BC and continued in use until at least AD 40 and possibly beyond. A variation called the Fulham pattern (third from the left below) also had a long point but was only 5 cm (2") wide with straight edges that flared slightly at the hilt. The ‘Pompeii’ pattern gladii were simpler derivatives of the ‘Mainz’ type with a narrower diamond-section blade approximately 5 cm (2”) wide and 45 to 50 cm (18” to 20”) long. Its edges were parallel with a shorter, triangular shaped point. Overall, Pompeian pattern swords varied in length between 60 cm and 65 cm (24” to 26”) and weigh approximately 700 g (1.5 lb). The ‘Pompeii’ pattern was in service by the AD 50s, remaining in general use into the 2nd century AD. To confuse matters slightly, over the years the Pompeii pattern sword got longer, and these later versions were called semispathae or half-swords.

All of these blade types were double-edged with a flat diamond or lens cross-section that did not require fullers. From analysis, some surviving examples have low-carbon steel cores with high-carbon steel edges. Other blades had high-carbon steel layered over low-carbon steel cores, while some were low-carbon steel throughout.

Sword hilts comprised ‘a handguard, an octagonal-sectioned handgrip was usually made from a cow longbone, and then a pommel of slightly flattened ovoid appearance’ (Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 78). Handguards were similarly round or oval in plan when viewed from below. Both pommel and handguard were often made of wood, as the examples from Vindonissa (modern Windisch, Switzerland) show, but could be of bone or ivory. A thin brass plate may have been either set into the bottom of the guard, or flat against it, or simply not used. The blade’s tang typically projected through the hilt where it would be peened flat over a washer or small stud.

Legionaries wore their gladii on their right hips to facilitate drawing while remaining protected by their semi-cylindrical scuta (Latin: sing. scutum ‘shield’). Despite reservations, practical experimentation proves the relatively short length of both gladii and spathae (Latin: sing. spatha, ‘sword’) can be easily and quickly drawn from a scabbard (Latin: vagina). From the early 3rd century, legionaries and cavalrymen began to wear their swords on the left side, perhaps because the curved scutum had been abandoned and the gladius had been replaced by the spatha.

Like the term ‘gladius’, spatha could refer to any sword (in late Latin) but is most often associated with the longer-bladed weapons that were characteristic of the middle and late Empire. Roman cavalry was using these longer-bladed swords in the 1st century AD but by the late 2nd or early 3rd century, Roman infantry had also switched to carrying longer swords. They also changed from carrying javelins to carrying spears, which is the next subject.

Hastae (spears) and Pila (javelins)

Hasta (pl. hastae) is a Latin word generally referring to a thrusting spear. Hastae were carried by early Roman legionaries; in particular, they were carried by and gave their name to those Roman soldiers known as Hastati. However, during the Republican era, Hastati were re-armed with pila and gladii; only the Triarii retained their spears. A hasta was typically 1.8 m (6 ft) in length. The shaft was generally made from ash onto which a socketed iron spearhead was typically attached, although some early Republican hastae had bronze blades.

Although often used the word to describe all thrown javelins, the pilum (pl. pila) was a heavy javelin commonly used by the Roman army. Lighter, shorter javelins existed, such as those used by the Velites [1] and the early manipular legions [2], called verutum. Other types of javelins were adopted by the late Roman army, such as lancea and spiculum, which were heavily influenced by the weapons of Italic warriors.

From the surviving examples, it seems pila were generally somewhat shorter than 2 m (6 ft 7 in) long overall, consisting of a wooden shaft from which projected an iron shank about 7 mm (0.28 in) in diameter and 60 cm (23.6 in) long that ended in a pyramidal head of hardened iron. The iron shank was socketed or, more usually, widened to a flat tang which was rivetted into a wooden block. Pila usually weighed between 1 and 2.5 kg (2.2 and 5 lb), although versions produced during the Imperial period could be somewhat lighter.

Pila were designed as ‘penetrators’ [3] to pierce both shield and armour, wounding the wearer. If a pilum pierced or became embedded in a shield, its design of thin shank combined with a pyramidal iron head meant the pilum could not be easily removed. From experiment, the whole pilum weighs down the enemy's shield reducing its effectiveness and prevents it from being immediately re-used. The shield-bearer would most likely be forced to ditch the encumbered shield thereby losing a significant measure of protection.

Some commentators still state with conviction that the iron shank would ‘bend upon impact’, but if one takes a little time to contemplate the phrase, it is a nonsense. If the iron shank ‘bent on impact’, then it simply would not perform its penetrator job. As Dr Mike Bishop writes, pila are ‘unlikely to bend under their own weight when thrown and striking a target or ground’ (Bishop, 2017, ). Many types of pila did not bend at all, and there are examples where the whole shank was hardened making the weapon highly suited to use in a close-quarter melee (Cowan, 2003, 25-26). Moreover, a sturdy pilum that does not bend matches well with the historical Roman sources stating it was often used as a stabbing spear [4]. One example is in ‘Array against the Alans’ where Arrian writes that the first four ranks of the formation should use their pila like spearmen, while the rest should use them like javelins [5] (van Dorst, 2002).

Scutum (Shield)

The scutum (pl. scuta) was adopted by the Romans when, starting around the fourth century BC, they switched from the Greek inspired hoplite phalanx to a manipular army [2]. In the former, the soldiers carried a round shield, much like the Greek aspis, which the Romans called a clipeus, while in the latter they used the scutum. At the time of the Roman Republic shields were large, oblong and convex. Over time it seems the design was shortened by squaring the top and bottom edges. These semi-cylindrical shields are often referred to as ‘Augustan’, a reference to the reign of Emperor Augustus (27 BC to 14 BC). By the time of the Roman invasion of Britain, both this style of scutum and a newer rectangular version with squared edges all round were in service. The latter is the style most popularly equated with Roman legionaries, but it was not the only kind of shield the Romans used. Depending on the role of the soldier who carried it, examples of oval, circular and rectangular shaped shields can be identified in the archaeological record. The parma, for example, was a circular shield with a diameter of approximately three Roman feet used in the mid-Republic by the lowest class division of the army - the Velites [1]. When later the parma was widely replaced by the scutum, Signiferi (standard bearers) appear to have retained its use since to carry a signum (standard) and a large infantry scutum was impractical.

Roman shields were made by gluing multiple strips of wood together to create a form of ‘plywood’. The scutum was light enough to be held in one hand. A centrally positioned hole was cut in the shield for the hand to grip a horizontal handle. The hole was protected by a metal boss (Latin: umbo). The outside surface was covered in a combination of woollen felt and linen or leather; the latter providing waterproofing. It is apparent that shields were decorated, with the exterior face painted possibly using different colours to aid the recognition of cohorts in the confusion of battle. Specific shield designs are known to have existed as they are depicted in carved reliefs and art, but few of the surviving designs can be attributed to named units. One example can be identified, however. The grave stela of Gnaeus Museus (see below) clearly shows a small oval shield in the bottom left corner with a distinctive design incorporating what has been identified as Jupiter's thunderbolts (Latin: fulmen) - a popular motif - and the wings of Victory [6]. The tombstone’s inscription usefully informs us that Gnaeus was an ‘Eagle bearer’ (Latin: aquilifer) who served in the 14th Legion (Legio XIIII Gemina). So, even though we cannot be 100% certain, it is not unreasonable to connect this specific design with said legion.

References:

Bishop, M.C., (2002), ‘Lorica Segmentata Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour’, JRMES Monograph 1, Great Britain: The Armatvra Press.

Bishop, M.C., (2017), ‘The Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin’, Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Bishop, M.C. & Coulston, J.C.N., (2006), ‘Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome’, second edition, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Cowan, R., (2003), ‘Equipment’, Roman legionary: 58 BC - AD 69, Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Robinson, H.R., (1975), ‘The Armour of Imperial Rome’, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

van Dorst, S., (2002), ’Arrian's Array against the Alans’, Available online (accessed January 8th, 2023).

Endnotes:

1. Though they still owned land, the Velites (light infantry) of the Republican army comprised the unreliable and otherwise poor combatants of the original fifth class of the earlier Greek-style phalanx. In his ‘Rise of the Roman Empire’, the Greek author Polybius, from whom we get our best description of the Roman army of the period, states that the Velites were usually the youngest of the soldiers. They were armed with a short sword (gladius) and several javelins. They wore light armour, which usually consisted of little more than greaves (ocrea) on the legs and a bronze helmet and carried-a basic round shield or clipeus. Velites were used as skirmishers and to screen the three lines of heavy infantry (the Hastatii, the Principes, and the Triarii) in the opening phases of a battle.

2. After 331 BC the internal organisation of the Roman legion became more sophisticated. The developments from the classic phalanx to using ‘maniples’ (Latin: manipulus, lit. 'a handful [of soldiers]') allowed important tactical innovations. The manipular system was adopted by Roman Republican armies around 315 BC, during the Second Samnite War. Most significantly, for the first time, the classes of soldiers who comprised the legions were based on experience and age rather than wealth, with standard weapons and equipment issued by the state. In the middle years of the Republic, the Roman army was organised into three lines of heavy infantry, the Hastatii, the Principes, and the Triarii. Each of these three lines was subdivided into maniples of 120, 120 and 60 men, respectively. A full Republican legion, therefore, fielded about 3,000 men. The more familiar cohort system replaced maniples as organisational units following the Marian reforms of 107 BC. 

3. In military terms a ‘penetrator’ is hard alloy projectile that harnesses kinetic energy to pierce the armour of tanks and fortifications as opposed to one that carries an explosive charge or another chemical or biological substance.

4. Caesar writes in his ‘Gallic Wars’ that his troops used their pila as spears or pikes during the Siege of Alesia. While in the ‘Life of Pompey’ and ‘Life of Antony’, Plutarch describes Caesar's men at Pharsalus jabbing upwards at the faces of Pompey's cavalry with their javelins and Marc Antony's men stabbing at Parthian cavalry with theirs.

5. Arrian's Array against the Alans: ‘And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies come near them, they can thrust the iron points of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third and fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness. The following ranks should be of the javelineers.’

6. In ancient Roman religion Victoria was the deified personification of victory. She first appears during the first Punic War, seemingly as a Romanised re-naming of Nike, the Greek version. Winged figures, very often in pairs, representing victory and referred to as ‘winged victories’, are common in Roman iconography and represent the ‘spirit of victory’ rather than a full-blown deity.

How To: Dress as a Roman soldier Part Two

This ‘How To:’ series is aimed at the general reader or an individual wishing to portray a Roman legionary or auxiliary as accurately as our current knowledge allows. It is not intended to be an academic exploration of all the different permutations of Roman helmets, armour, swords and so on that have been identified and catalogued in the archaeological record. There are far more detailed books and online resources available elsewhere.

In Part One we looked at the clothing and accessories commonly worn by Roman soldiers of the 1st to 2nd century AD. In Part Two the focus shifts to body armour and helmets.

‘Caveat emptor’ (Buyer beware)

There are many online sources for reproduction historical equipment, arms and armour. Some retailers offer far superior products than others, but clearly better quality comes at a higher cost. Bespoke makers ought to be the buyer’s first recourse, if their budget permits, as these skilled artisans take pride in accurately reproducing museum quality artefacts. Body armour is definitely one area where custom-made rather than ‘off-the-shelf’ is preferable. If you are going to be encased in metal for any extended period, it needs to fit and articulate well to mitigate the effects of the armour’s weight and allow a full range of movement. Poorly fitting armour risks uncomfortable chafing at the minimum but could cause actual physical harm. Having your armour made-to-measure or at least adjusted to fit well after purchase by a competent armourer is highly recommended.

Body Armour

There are four principal types of body armour worn by the Roman military, namely the muscle cuirass (lorica musculata), mail shirts (lorica hamata), scale shirts (lorica squamata), and the iconic articulated plate armour whose Latin name is uncertain but for convenience historians call lorica segmentata (or lorica laminata). A fifth style, lorica plumata, is also included but it could be argued that this is a derivative of lorica squamata rather than a distinct type.

Lorica Musculata (Muscle cuirass)

Lorica musculata is a type of cuirass made to fit the wearer's torso and designed to mimic an idealised male human physique. It first appears in late Archaic Greece and became widespread throughout the 5th and 4th centuries BC. This type of cuirass is commonly depicted in Greek and Roman art, where it is worn by generals, emperors, and deities at times when soldiers used other types of armour. In Roman sculpture, the muscle cuirass is often highly ornamented with mythological scenes, yet archaeological finds of relatively unadorned cuirasses, together with their depiction by artists in military scenes, indicate that simpler versions were probably worn in combat.

Despite the ubiquitous ‘Hollywood’ leather versions, and consequently the popular belief that muscle cuirasses were made of leather, this is no longer thought to be the case. A moulded leather cuirass would have had to be very thick and rigid to provide any defensive qualities (Robinson, 1975, 147). Cuirasses hammered out of two sheets of metal, originally bronze and later iron, to produce separate breast and backplates offers far superior defence. When fastened together the two pieces form a high-waisted or hip length protective shell about the torso. The anatomical effect was most likely achieved by repoussé, that is being shaped or ornamented with patterns in relief by hammering or pressing on the reverse side. The two halves of the cuirass were secured on each side by two hinge-like fasteners, or a pair of rings joined by ties (Robinson, 1975, 149). Shoulder straps hinged to the upper edges of the backplate and tied down to rings on the breast as shown below left.

Robinson suggests that this cuirass type was probably worn almost exclusively by emperors and top-ranking military leaders as a symbol of Roman might and sovereignty (Robinson, 1975, 147). He and others also propose muscle cuirasses were adopted and worn by members of the Praetorian Guard for ceremonial occasions as late as the middle of the 2nd century AD. This proposition is largely based on the famous Praetorian relief in the Musee du Louvre, Paris (see above centre). Furthermore, a centurion is shown wearing muscle cuirass on the base of the column of Antoninus Pius now in the Vatican Museum. From the archaeological record the only examples of metal muscle cuirasses to have survived are Etruscan ones (see above right) dating from 5th to the 3rd century BC (Robinson, 1975, 147). These rare survivors are fundamental in revealing how this form of body armour made and fastened.

Lorica hamata (Mail armour)

Lorica hamata, a type of flexible mail armour, commonly called ‘chainmail’ or sometimes ‘ring mail’, was used by Roman soldiers from at least the 3rd century BC Republic until the Empire’s demise. The name Lorica hamata comes from the Latin hamatus (hooked) itself from hamus meaning ‘hook’ since it is made of iron rings linked, or ‘hooked’, to one another. A shirt of mail is made of thousands of metal rings, typically iron, joined so that each individual ring is linked to at least four others. The rings can be solid ‘washer’ types punched from a sheet of metal or made from wire whose open ends were either welded or rivetted together [1]. In this case, four open-ended rings are linked to a closed ring (either welded or rivetted shut) before they too are closed with rivets. Rows of additional rings are added using the same technique to produce a full shirt of mail.

Mail is an ideal protective layer against slashing cuts from bladed weapons. It is less effective against concussive blows resulting in blunt force trauma or penetrative thrusts that can split the rings open. To protect against injury, some form of under-armour, possibly known as the subarmalis, is presumed to have been worn. Whether this was of leather or layers of bonded cloth similar to a Mediæval gambeson is not known for certain. Likewise, we cannot be sure that the mail shirt was or was not attached to a protective lining. Practical experimentation does suggest that additional padding is highly beneficial for cushioning blows, offering further layers to resist cuts or piercing attacks, and to prevent rings being driven into the wearer’s body. In the archaeological examples of this form of body protection, however, the metalwork often survives but rarely does any organic material such as leather or cloth.

Roman designs clearly copied the earlier Greek style of body armour that historians call a ‘linothorax’, a modern term derived from ‘lino’ for linen and ‘thorax’ meaning chest or torso. The mail corselet protected the upper body and vital organs, while shoulder doubling gave extra protection against downward cuts and provided a means to securely fasten the shirt. If Roman mail shirts did copy earlier Greek designs and had a leather or padded cloth liner, then they may well have been opened and fastened (probably) on the left, or shield protected, side to ease putting on or taking off [2]. Although not shown in the artist rendering of a Republican Hastatus (right), the padded garment beneath mail shirts may have had pteryges (‘wings’) at the shoulders to protect the upper arm and attached below the waist to protect the groin. Whether pteryges were made of leather or stiffened linen is unknown (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 63), although the latter is entirely possible.

Modern historians believe that mail armour was invented or developed by the Iron Age people of northern Europe (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 63). Soldiers of the Roman Republic first encountered mail shirts when fighting Gallic tribes in Cisalpine Gaul, now Northern Italy. The Roman army adopted the technology for their troops naming it lorica hamata. There does not seem to be any difference between mail worn by legionary or auxiliary troops. In either case, the length of mail shirts is depicted as varying from hip-length to just above the knee.

Lorica squamata (Scale armour)

Lorica squamata was made from small sections of metal sheet resembling fish scales that were wired side-by-side to their neighbours and sewn to a fabric backing (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 64). Surviving examples of scales show variation in size and shape, and that they were made of either iron or brass. The rows of scales were overlapped and offset by half a length of one scale to maximise protection. That said, no examples of an entire set of lorica squamata has been discovered, but there have been several archaeological finds of shirt fragments and individual scales are quite commonly found even in non-military contexts. ‘No examples of scale have yet been recognised in the archaeological record from the Republican period, nor are there any representations of Roman soldiers wearing it’ (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 64). While it is not known precisely when the Romans adopted this type of armour, it seems to have remained in use for about eight centuries being most prominent in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Moreover, finds of scales in the archaeological record seem to reveal this type of armour was more widely used than the evidence from tombstones suggests.

That said, the best evidence for what lorica squamata looked like is provided by carved reliefs of contemporary soldiers. These depictions, typically on funerary stelae, include signiferes (standard bearers), aeneatores (horn players) [3], centurions, cavalry troops, and auxiliary infantry, but also regular legionaries. The reconstruction shown right follows the Greek ‘linothorax’ design complete with shoulder doubling and pteryges attached. As with lorica hamata, the shoulder doubling is secured by hinged fasteners attached at the centre of the chest. Scales were frequently tinned. In the reconstruction, tinned scales alternate with the intervening brass ones to create a checkerboard pattern; a homage to a cuirass found at Ham Hill.

Lorica plumata (‘Feathered’ armour)

Lorica plumata, also known lorica hamata squamatque, was a hybrid Roman cuirass combining mail and scales. The very small feather-like scales, called plumes, attached to oval shaped rings gave it a ‘feathered’ appearance. Presumably very time consuming to manufacture, and by extension expensive, lorica plumata is not a common find.

‘Lorica segmentata’ (Plate armour)

‘Lorica segmentata’, also called ‘lorica laminata’ (where lamina describes a sheet of metal), is the best-known type of body armour used by Roman soldiers. The terms ‘segmentata‘ or ‘laminata’ were coined by historians as the Roman name is unknown [4], but are evocative of a cuirass constructed of iron strips fashioned into circular bands articulated on internal leather straps, with copper allot fittings  (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 95).  ‘Lorica segmentata’ was modular and consisted of four principal elements or units: one for each shoulder, and one for each side of the torso. Each of these four sections was made of overlapping curved strips of ferrous plate riveted to leather straps permitting a considerable amount of movement between neighbouring plates (Bishop, 2002, 1-2).

In films, documentaries, video games and more widely in popular culture, ‘lorica segmentata‘ has become the iconic armour of the Roman legions. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to portray all legionaries clad in this type of armour even when the period being depicted pre-dates the armour’s introduction or is after its disappearance from the archaeological record. Moreover, there is evidence that banded armour was used by other civilizations before the Romans, in particular the Parthians and possibly the Dacians, Scythians, or Sarmatians. Some sets of armour similar to the ‘lorica segmentata‘ have been found in archaeological sites located in the steppe dating to the 4th century BC (Bishop, 2002, 18).

Precisely when the Romans adopted their first ‘lorica segmentata‘ is not yet known. Over time, however, there is archaeological evidence for the design developing. From the late 1st century BC to circa the mid-40s AD the Dangstetten-Kalkriese-Vindonissa type was in use. Seemingly this was replaced from circa the mid-40s AD to the first quarter of the 2nd century AD by the Corbridge-Carnuntum derivatives. From then until at least the first quarter of the 3rd century AD, the Newstead type was adopted. It highly likely that these different armour designs overlapped each other and were in concurrent use by Roman soldiers across the Empire.

In 1994, excavation at the site of the Augustan era Varusschlacht (‘Varus battle’) of AD 9 at Kalkriese, near Osnabrück (Germany), produced a dramatic piece of evidence which conclusively proved that ‘lorica segmentata‘ had been in use in the first decade of the 1st century AD - at least 40 years earlier than had previously been thought (Bishop, 2002, 23). The Kalkriese evidence consisted of a breastplate and a number of loose fittings. The breastplate shared many characteristics with the Corbridge type cuirass introduced later by having vertical and horizontal fastening straps and a hinge to join it to its mid-collar plate, although the fittings were of a completely different form. Its leather fastening straps were riveted directly to the body of the breastplate with large, disc-headed copper-alloy rivets, whilst the hinge fitting was sub-lobate (one end having three points) and attached with four rivets. The horizontal fastening strap still retained its buckle, which was attached directly to it with a pair of rivets. Finally, the whole circumference of the plate was edged with copper-alloy piping, similar to that used on iron helmets. In common with many ‘lorica segmentata’ breastplates, it was slightly convex (Bishop, 2002, 23).

The Corbridge type of ‘lorica segmentata‘ is the most completely understood of all the variants, thanks mainly to the remains of parts of as many as twelve cuirasses preserved in the Corbridge Hoard, discovered in 1964. The designs’ defining features are ‘lobate’ hinges, decorative washers, hinged straps and buckles, and brass tie loops for leather thongs to fasten the armour plates at front and back.

The finds of Newstead-type armour so far known are almost exclusively 2nd or 3rd century in date, with the Eining find appearing to date after AD 229 and the Zugmantel pieces before AD 259/60. Assemblages from Carlisle and Carnuntum contain both forms thereby indicating an indeterminate period of overlap in use of the Corbridge and Newstead types during the first half of the 2nd century AD (Bishop, 2002, 49). This armour’s defining features are larger breast and back plates, very large lobate hinges, and turning pins and slots to fasten the front and back.

Around the middle of the 3rd century AD ‘lorica segmentata‘ seems to have fallen out of favour with the Roman army, although it did remain in use during the Late Roman Empire. Soldiers wearing ‘lorica segmentata‘ are depicted on the Arch of Constantine, a monument erected in AD 315, but it is argued that these figures were repurposed from an earlier monument commissioned by Marcus Aurelius and incorporated into Constantine’s Arch.

The Roman army is famously divided into legionaries who held full citizenship and non-citizen auxiliary soldiers who were recruited from the Provinces. On monuments such as Trajan’s Column in Rome, auxilia are generally shown wearing mail shirts and carrying oval shields in contrast to legionarii who wear ‘lorica segmentata‘ and carry the curved rectangular shield. Consequently for a long time it has been supposed that ‘lorica segmentata‘ was exclusively worn by legionaries and men of the Praetorian Guard. Most historians today consider Trajan's Column to be a highly stylized and somewhat inaccurate portrayal of Roman soldiers. The archaeological record has provided evidence for different armour types, but our knowledge still retains gaps. The discovery of ‘lorica segmentata‘ pieces where auxiliary soldiers were stationed may be evidence that they also wore plate armour, but it is entirely possible that these finds were a consequence of small detachments of legionaries being present. Interestingly, on the Adamclisi Tropaeum [5], ‘lorica segmentata‘ makes no appearance with both legionaries and auxiliaries depicted wearing lorica hamata and lorica squamata.

Imperial Period Helmets

‘Munitions grade’, in the context of historical arms and armour, refers to mass-produced equipment suitable for storing in an armoury as opposed to items privately purchased by an individual. In a Roman context, such equipment might include helmets, body armour and weapons.

Munitions grade arms and armour are typically thought of as lower quality, but this was not always the case. From examples in the archaeological record, the actual quality of munitions grade equipment could vary widely but most probably in accordance with the budget available and a willingness to spend money. In a wealthy state such as the Roman Empire there was nothing to prevent the Roman army stocking its stores with extremely high-quality kit. There are two caveats, however. The first is that a piece of armour can be well made without being custom made. In other words, just because something is ‘off the rack’ does not mean shortcuts were taken in other areas of its construction. The second is that the ‘munitions grade’ armour of a wealthy state that spent lavishly on its munitions could easily be superior to those pieces of armour privately commissioned by someone with far fewer resources.

Roman helmets, known as galea or cassis, varied greatly in form as no two were exactly identical. There are, however, broad categories assigned by historians to the surviving examples. Categorisation in the UK has tended to follow the seminal 1975 work by H Russel Robinson, a curator in the Royal Armouries, who produced a typology sub-divided into models. In Robinson’s typology you may discover references to a ‘Coolus type C’ or an ‘Imperial Gallic type H’ helmet. In Europe, the trend has been to name objects after their find site. An example of the former was recovered from Coolus in France, hence the name, and an example of the latter was found in Augsburg, Germany. Regardless of the designation adopted, any of the helmet types described below would be appropriate for someone wishing to recreate the look of a Roman soldier of the 1st century AD.

The ‘Coolus’ style helmets  The ‘Montefortino’ helmet depicted worn by the Hastatus in the artwork above was one of the earliest types used in the armies of the Roman Republic up to the 1st century BC. Made of bronze or copper-alloy (brass) this cone-shaped helmet had a small neck guard and a finial at its apex drilled to accept a crest secured by a pin. By the mid-1st century AD, the neck guard on these helmets had become enlarged. From the late 1st century BC to the late 2nd century AD ‘Montefortino’ style helmets (galea) were replaced by designs influenced by the northern Gallic tribes and identified today as ‘Coolus’. They adopted a ‘standard’ design featuring a more rounded dome protecting the cranium, a neck guard, a sturdy frontal peak for additional impact protection and decoration, and hinged cheek guards. The earliest examples had a small neck guard, no frontal peaks or brow guards, and no provision for a crest. Over time neck guards grew progressively larger, frontal peaks or brow guards were fitted, and pointed finials added for the attachment of a crest (see above right). The finials typically had a longitudinal slot, with a lateral hole passing through it, into which a flat tang attached to a crest can be inserted and secured with a pin through the finial and tang. Some examples have a copper-alloy tube attached to each side presumably for the insertion of decorative feathers or something similar.

Imperial Gallic style helmets  As the term ‘Gallic’ suggests these Roman helmets shared features with those identifiable with tribal examples from Gaul. The oval bowl was decorated with embossed, corrugated ‘eyebrows’ that also functioned to reinforce the helmet’s frontal aspect. Often these iron helmets (brass versions are also known) were decorated with circular copper-alloy ‘roundels’ similar to those find on Corbridge type lorica segmentata. As shown below neck guards vary from the horizontal to those steeply angled downward on the Imperial Gallic H type shown below right.

A small square plate, raised in the middle to form a square-section tube, were rivetted to the tops of helmets. Into this tube the horizontal foot of a U-shaped bracket can be slotted. The soldier’s helmet crest (Latin: crista), when worn, was supported centrally by this bracket while being secured at each end of its crest box with laces tied to rings or hooks fitted at the front and back of the helmet bowl. Along with a crest, some Imperial Gallic helmets had brass ‘feather’ tubes fitted at each side.

Imperial Italic style helmets  Very similar in design to the Gallic types, Imperial Italic helmets lack the embossed ‘eyebrows’ and decorated rivet roundels. As shown right, some were highly decorated with images of, for example, eagles and stylised temples. Brass edging was fitted to some but not all Imperial Italic helmets and the reinforcing brow guards were generally an L-section rather than solid pieces of metal. Crest fittings on top of the bowl were round with a slot into which a ‘turn and twist’ crest bracket could be fitted. The U-shaped bracket was similar to the Gallic types and crests were secured in the manner previously described.

References: 

Bishop, M.C., (2002), ‘Lorica Segmentata Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour’, JRMES Monograph 1, Great Britain: The Armatvra Press.

Bishop, M.C. & Coulston, J.C.N., (2006), ‘Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome’, second edition, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Robinson, H.R., (1975), ‘The Armour of Imperial Rome’, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Endnotes:

1. Cheaper mail shirts available to buy often use rings whose ends are simply closed together. This is a much weaker construction where the rings can be pulled open by use, or more easily split apart by thrusting weapons.

2. Most re-enactment mail shirts are simply pulled over the head as one might wear a sweater or similar garment.

3. A variety of instruments were used by aeneatores. Aeneatores who blew a buccina (a C-shaped horn made of bronze or silver or animal horn) were known as bucinatores; those who blew a cornu (a G-shaped horn made of brass) were known as cornicines; those who blew a tuba (a straight bronze horn with a slight flare at the end) were known as tubicens. Unlike bucinatores, cornicens and tubicens mostly performed uncomplicated tactical signalling on the battlefield, and therefore were not accorded special status in the military unit.

4. Since lorica hamata and lorica squamata are genuine Latin terms that were in ancient use, the use of the early modern formulation of ‘lorica segmentata’ in quotation marks is intended to mark the term’s lack of ancient authenticity. An alternative approach might be to write of lorica segmentata and marking its difference by not italicising it.

5. The Tropaeum Traiani is a monument in Roman Civitas Tropaensium (site of modern Adamklisi, Romania) in what was then the province of Moesia Inferior. It was built in AD 109 to commemorate the Emperor Trajan's victory over the Dacians, in the winter of AD 101-102, in the Battle of Adamklisi. Some experts are of the opinion that the Adamklisi monument is a more accurate portrayal Roman soldiers in the field and in combat.

How To: Dress as a Roman soldier Part One

Where to start? If we accept that Rome was founded in 753 BC and that the eastern half of the Empire did not collapse until Constantinople was captured by the Ottomans in AD 1453, then we have just over 2,200 years from which to choose how to dress. Unsurprisingly, in that length of time military fashions changed quite noticeably from the early sleeveless tunics to the later long-sleeved versions worn in combination with trousers. One suspects, however, that most people will be familiar with the Roman soldier of the 1st to 2nd century AD, so this popular image will be our focus.

This ‘How To:’ series is aimed at the general reader or an individual wishing to portray a Roman legionary or auxiliary as accurately as our current knowledge allows. It is not intended to be an academic exploration of all the different permutations of Roman helmets, armour, swords and so on that have been identified and catalogued in the archaeological record. There are far more comprehensive studies, detailed books and online resources available elsewhere.

With that in mind, Part One of this ‘How To:’ guide looks at the clothing and accessories commonly worn by Roman soldiers. It will not be the definitive account as fashions tend to vary considerably over time, across the provinces of the Empire, the soldier’s needs and individual whim. There are, however, some elements that could be considered the key to creating a reasonably accurate impression of a soldier. What follows, then, is based on the available evidence wherever possible, but it also includes findings from practical experimentation in designing, making and most importantly the wearing, often for lengthy periods, of reproduction clothing.

‘Caveat emptor’ (Buyer beware)  There are many online sources for reproduction historical equipment, arms and armour. Some retailers offer far superior products than others, but clearly better quality comes at a higher cost. Bespoke makers ought to be the buyer’s first recourse, if their budget permits, as these skilled artisans take pride in accurately reproducing museum quality artefacts. Body armour is definitely one area where custom-made rather than ‘off-the-shelf’ is preferable. If you are going to be encased in metal for any extended period, it needs to fit and articulate well to mitigate the effects of the armour’s weight and permit a full range of movement. Poorly fitting armour risks uncomfortable chafing at the minimum, but it could cause actual physical harm. Having your armour made-to-measure or at least adjusted to fit well after purchase by a competent armourer is highly recommended. Even more importantly, from practical experience obtaining well-fitting footwear is essential for comfort. Remember you may be on your feet all day so although it is tempting to buy some shiny armour or a new sword, we would strongly advise spending money on good quality boots or shoes first.

Underwear

A letter discovered at Vindolanda Roman Fort, tablet 346, sent to a soldier probably from his home in Batavia [1] refers to socks (udones), underpants (subligaria) and sandals (soleae) being dispatched to him. Other tablets preserved from the excavations at the fort also reference underwear so we can be fairly confident that, just like us, Romans wore such items. What form this took is a little harder to discern, however. It is uncertain whether Roman underwear was a tailored garment or a more straightforward loincloth, or breechcloth (breechclout). Even today the latter remains one of the simplest forms of dress, and in some cases the only garment worn by some. Evidence from the clothing Ötzi the Iceman was discovered wearing revealed that, in Europe around 2000 BC, some men wore leather breechcloths. In Ötzi’s case it was made from narrow strips of sheep hide stitched together to produce a garment, originally a 100 cm x 33 cm, that was worn between the legs and fastened with the belt (see right).

From Ötzi’s simple loincloth developed more encompassing garments such as the one shown below left in a carved relief of ancient Egyptian farmers or labourers. This form of underwear is relatively easy to recreate requiring a T-shaped piece of cloth. The width needs to be enough that it can be tied round the waistline to form a ‘belt’. Likewise, a sufficiently long length of material, forming a ‘tail’, is drawn between the legs, from back to front, and looped through the ‘belt’ to secure it in place. The result is somewhat like a pair of shorts with an apron of cloth at the front (see below right).

From the Vindolanda Tablets we know Romans wore a type of loincloth known as a subligaculum. While we cannot be certain of its design, it is highly likely that such garments were very similar to the Egyptian versions.

Tunics

The tunica (pl: tunicae) is the base garment worn by both men and women and is synonymous with the Greek khiton described in an earlier post [1]. As such the Roman soldier’s tunic is also a rectangular piece of cloth folded laterally to form a tube. It seems, however, that the Romans preferred the garment sewn at the shoulders and sewn from the underarm to the hem. 

It is worth noting at this point that there is no reason why seams that are not immediately visible cannot be machine stitched. There are some people for whom this is an anathema as it is ‘not historically accurate’. We would argue that careful use of machine stitching is merely a practical measure (we live in the 21st century after all and are not actually ancient Romans) providing any visible seams, such as those in collars, sleeves and hems, are hand sewn.

The Roman soldier’s tunic can be sleeveless but was more likely to have short-sleeves. Longer, wrist-length sleeves appeared from about the mid-2nd century AD onward (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 184). Significantly, the tunics worn by Roman soldiers were ‘distinctive, for it instantly marked out the wearer as soldier simply by the way it was worn: shorter than the everyday tunics of ordinary citizens’ (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 110). The hemline should hang just above the knee (we suggest two or three finger widths above) which allowed greater freedom of movement in exercise, manual labour and in warfare.

Warming wool  Most Roman tunicae and outer garments were made from wool, whether lightweight fine weaves or heavier, coarser ones. Against the skin, however, might be worn a linen undergarment (‘subuclas’), which would be considerably more comfortable and easier to clean and dry than wool. But for warmth, harder wearing wool was, and remains, a sensible choice. Indeed, to stay warm, Romans might wear layers of clothing. The Emperor Augustus, for example, is said to have routinely worn no less than four tunics at a time on cold days, so it is not unreasonable to assume others did something similar. Likewise, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that soldiers may have purchased a locally made long sleeved tunic to be worn under their Roman style ones.

Unless the natural sheep’s fleece is preferred, perhaps for reasons of cost which would limit the available colours to creamy white, brown, or black/grey, then the woven wool cloth was dyed. The evidence suggests that the ancients liked colourful clothing much as we do today, but dyes were also a status marker. The dying of wool requires that it be degreased before entering the dye bath. This process, usually performed before spinning, removed the wool’s natural lanolin by immersing it in stale urine which, although a waste product, has the required ammonia content to break down the fats, was relatively cheap, and was easy to collect. Once degreased, the wool becomes much easier to dye, but the natural waterproofing provided by the lanolin is lost.

The actual dyed colour of the Roman soldier’s tunic is uncertain. Some argue that red was the colour associated with God of war, Mars, and thus would have been the most appropriate colour for soldiers. On the face of it this does make sense for a people who were highly superstitious, and especially so for soldiers for whom any divine advantage to keep themselves alive and healthy was worth taking. Yet our sources, frescoes, mosaics, statues, etc. reveal several other colours may have been worn, including white, blue, green, yellow, and so on. Graham Sumner has written a very useful summary of the evidence for dyes in the Roman period (Sumner, 2009, 112-118) and an entire chapter listing the ‘Evidence for the colour of military clothing’ (Sumner, 2009, Chapter 5). What we can say is that a standardised or uniform colour was probably not adopted by the Roman military. Moreover, vast quantities of woollen cloth would have been needed, and given that dyeing would have added an extra cost to procurement then, on the balance of probabilities, Roman soldiers most likely wore a tunic that was the colour of the undyed natural wool or off-white. 

To recreate a tunica is relatively simple for any aspiring tailor. For our purposes, the basic garment is a rectangular piece of cloth whose width is roughly the distance from elbow to elbow, with a length that places the bottom hemline at mid-calf level. When gathered about the waist with a simple cord or tie (not with a military belt known as a balteus or cingulum militare), the excess material can be pulled up and bloused over the belt to achieve the desired length above the knees. As previously mentioned, the shortened length is symbolic of being a soldier who would never wear their tunics with the hemline at or below knee height. One of ‘Augustus’ punishments for wayward soldiers recorded by the Roman biographer Suetonius was that they should be made to stand outside the headquarters building of a legionary base without a belt, ‘simultaneously depriving them of their two key indicators of status (weapons belt and short tunic)’ (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 110).

In the diagram below, the head hole is formed between D-E which, from experience, needs to be at least 25 cm to 30 cm wide. When folded in half, and if you decide to sew the shoulders together between A-D and E-F, then the cloth must be cut at F-G to allow the right arm to pass through. If you prefer to simply pin the garment at the shoulders with brooches at D-D and E-E, then the cloth would fall on each side and cutting the F-G armhole would not be necessary [2]. In this instance the rectangle of cloth needs to be approximately 2 m long and at least 3 m wide (once folded it will be 1.5 m wide).

An alternative design, shown below left, is made from two pieces of cloth sewn at the shoulders and sides (the sewn seams are marked in red). Width wise it should extend from elbow to elbow and as such produces a voluminous garment. Like the Romans we should not be overly concerned with the loose fit or bulky nature of tunics. In warmer climes, such as around the Mediterranean Sea, loose fitting garments help air circulate round the body as an aid to cooling. Moreover, a large tunic, when unbelted, may have doubled as a form of ‘sleeping bag’ for men living in the field on campaign.

Although sleeveless, the excess width of the first two voluminous designs do form rudimentary sleeves when worn under armour. If actual sleeves are preferred, then a less bulky tunic may be made from the same size piece of material. In this third version above middle, the cloth is cut to remove some of the excess material and shaped to form a baggy t-shirt with integral sleeves.

A fourth option is to add separate sleeves as this adaptation allows for variation in sleeve length and fullness. As before the aim is to end up with a baggy t-shirt loose enough to allow freedom of movement. For this ‘sleeved tunic’, cut two identically sized pieces of cloth to form the front and back panels. Cut two further pieces of cloth, shown below left, approximately 250 mm long and 150 mm wide [3] to make the short sleeves. It is easiest to join the tunic at the shoulders first, as shown below right, leaving sufficient room for your head to pass through. As mentioned above, the head hole needs to be at least 25 cm to 30 cm wide.

The next step is to attach the sleeves (below left) before sewing the sleeve and side seams (below right).

These tunic styles are ideal for portraying legionary soldiers, but if creating an auxiliary soldier figure (such as serving in the Batavian or Tungrian auxilia), then a more Germanic style tunic may be in order. Such tunics are narrower in body width and fitted with long, wrist-length sleeves. They are also shorter such that when unbelted the bottom hem only reaches knee height.

Tunics should be belted at the waist. A simple thong or cloth tape will suffice. Excess material can be pulled up and bloused over the belt to achieve the desired length. 

Scarves

Roman soldiers, both legionary and auxiliary, are shown wearing focalia (‘scarves’, sing. focali) about their necks on the Trajan’s Column reliefs. In the example shown right, the legionary soldiers seem to be wearing scarves tucked into their banded armour, while the auxiliaries are shown with theirs clearly visible. In the absence of any definitively identifiable, surviving examples, we can only speculate that scarves were of either wool or linen. Moreover, as their portrayal on sculptural reliefs like Trajan’s Column in Rome (see below) and the Adamklissi Metopes in Romania are almost invariably depicted beneath armour, what shape scarves took is equally unknown. Some re-enactors favour a triangular shape to better fit under armour, but this is probably incorrect; a more traditional long strip of cloth will work instead. Despite some arguments to the contrary, Nic Field posits that scarves were worn by soldiers to protect the neck from chafing by the armour (Fields, 2009, 25; cf. Sumner, 2002, 37). From personal experience a focali does indeed perform this function perfectly, but they also act as sweat cloth (Lat. sudarium), an item of clothing that modern soldiers value today.

Cummerbunds

Waist sashes or cummerbunds (fascia ventralis) seem to have been worn by many soldiers. Representational evidence from the tombstones of P. Flavoleus Cordus of Legio XIIII Gemina and Daverzus from Cohors IIII Delmatarum, for example, appear to indicate that a waist sash was worn beneath the military belt (Sumner, 2009,166-167). This may have been to protect the tunic from any sharp edges on the back of the belt, or possibly to support the lumber region of the back when wearing armour. Pliny the Elder records waist sashes (ventralia) were made of rough wool (Historia Naturalis, VIII, lxxiii, 193).

To recreate ventralia involves a good deal of guess work. The author’s version, shown right, is 30 cm wide, 2 m long piece of woollen cloth that is wrapped about the waist and secured by tucking the free end into the sash. The whole thing is further held in place once the military belt is buckled on. The folds formed above the belt can be used to store a money pouch or similar.

Trousers

Contrary to the popular image Romans wore trousers. They first appear as part of the Roman army’s ‘uniform’ on the tombstones of auxiliary soldiers, especially cavalrymen, campaigning in northern Europe. Indeed, as highlighted above, auxiliaries are distinguished on Trajan’s Column from their legionary counterparts by the wearing of close-fitting ¾ length trousers (feminalia). While it could be argued that this is simply an artistic convention enabling the viewer to distinguish non-citizen auxiliaries from citizen legionaries, the fashion for wearing trousers seems to have been adopted by legionary infantry who are shown wearing similar garments on the Adamklissi metopes (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 111). It seems Roman soldiers expediently adopted the local fashion to supplement their trusted cloaks, hats and scarves in cooler northern climes.

Ankle-length trousers (bracae) were worn by tribesmen in NW Europe (Germans, Gauls, Britons, etc.) and by those further East such as the Persians or their successors, the Parthians. It seems reasonable to presume that those auxiliaries recruited into the Roman army from the northern Iron Age tribes and from the eastern provinces might continue to wear such garments, although definitive evidence is currently lacking. 

There are two schools of thought regarding the clothing of auxiliary troops wore. The first argues for auxilia wearing clothing with which they were most familiar, namely long-sleeve tunicae and bracae. This argument is one based as much on ‘tradition’ as it is on the men being suitably attired for the weather conditions encountered in more northern parts of Europe. The second argument holds that, keen to prove their loyalty and be fully integrated (becoming ‘Romanised’) into Roman ideals, auxilia would have dressed as other Mediterranean Romans. Either argument has some validity, but neither can be proven with any certainty. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Following the soldier’s maxim of ‘any fool can be cold and wet’, Romans most likely wore whatever clothing suited their needs at a given time and place.

Socks

Despite their apparent rarity in the sculptural record, we know that socks (udones) were common. They are in fact mentioned in Vindolanda tablet 346 (see above) and are probably shown on the Cancalleria reliefs in Rome. Civilian socks may have been brightly coloured to emphasize the intricate openwork on pierced leather shoes. Soldier’s socks were probably more practical.

Socks could be made one of three ways: a 'quasi triangular' piece of cloth sewn up either side, a weaving method somewhat similar to crochet known as 'sprang' [4], or as a foot wrap. Examples of the first two styles have survived, with the cloth type surviving not only from Vindolanda but also from a series of waterlogged graves in Gaul. Likewise, the sprang type is known from examples recovered from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt dated to the 2nd century AD (right). The Egyptian examples were brightly striped and incorporated a separate toe to accommodate thong type sandals.

The socks shown on the Cancalleria reliefs, if indeed that is what they are, appear to be a tube of material or possibly sprang work, presumably woollen, covering the foot while leaving the toes and ankle exposed. The distinctive cut-out at the heel works to stop the sock ruckling uncomfortably beneath the sole or at the ankle.

Leg wraps and bindings

Hosea, a general term for any form of leg covering, are known to have been worn by Romans in the absence of trousers. One form, leg wraps, are rectangular pieces of cloth which, as their name suggests, are wrapped around the lower leg. They can be tied in place using warp threads (from the weaving process) that have been deliberately left long and then plaited to form an integral tie rather than one sewn on. While the technique copies that used by ancient weavers for decorative purposes, weft threads extending through the selvedge, or heading band, to make a fastening will inevitably part company with the main body of the cloth. Using a separate binding strip is one solution for longer term (yearly) use. Leg wraps probably had a Germanic origin but would almost certainly have been used by Roman soldiers in Britain, particularly by those men serving in legions previously stationed in Germany.

In contrast, bandage-like leg bindings worn by Romans resemble the puttees worn by late 19th and early 20th century soldiers. Such bindings seem to be native to the Italians and are commonly seen in contemporary depictions. They are not only a good way of keeping the lower extremities warm, but also offer protection from rough undergrowth and provide support to the muscles of the leg. Indeed, the latter may have been the primary reason for their use, but it would also make sense to use leg bindings as cold weather clothing.

Both of these items, leg wraps and leg bindings, were probably known as fascia (Latin for ‘a band, bandage, swathe’) and when combined with socks provide excellent cold-weather protection. Fascia and udones (socks) may have been standard army issue as one papyrus recovered from Masada lists these items, with other clothing, among the deductions from a soldier’s pay.

Footwear

From the extensive collection of recovered and preserved Roman period shoes housed in the Vindolanda Museum collection, Roman footwear ranged from wooden ‘clogs’ to beautifully decorated and pierced leather shoes. Unsurprisingly there is also a large variety of footwear depicted in ancient Roman art and sculpture ranging in styles from soleae, sandals held in place by a leather thong or tongue between the toes, to calcea that enclosed more of the foot. Ankle and calf-height boots are also shown, as are caligae famously worn by soldiers. The subject of footwear probably deserves a separate article but if you are looking for a simple, cheap style of shoe then choose carbatina. These featured soles and uppers cut from one-piece of leather. Loops cut around the leather’s edges allowed laces to pass through and draw the uppers together about the foot.

Roman military footwear of the Republic to the mid-2nd century was distinctive and well-known from our sources (literary, representational, and archaeological evidence). Known as caligae, each boot of vegetable-tanned ox or cow hide was made in three main pieces, namely the upper, the sole and an insole which were clenched with hobnails arranged in patterns (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 111-113). The uppers were pierced with openwork designs to produce extremely functional footwear. The openwork allows good ventilation, and the cut outs usefully remove leather on those parts of the boot that might rub (toe joints, ankle, etc.). The sandal-like design also allows water to escape the boot when fording streams, rivers and so on, and the foot to air dry as the soldier continues walking. Caligae were laced through the end of the openwork straps. This configuration permits the boot to be adjusted to fit the wearer comfortably and allows the wearing of socks or foot wraps for warmth (or added protection).

Caligae found on Roman sites, such as Vindolanda, seldom show signs of repair. From archaeological evidence, it seems boots were thrown away once the hobnails had worn down or had started to wear through the insole thereby becoming uncomfortable.

Cloaks

While no longer popular, one outer garment has a proven track record in keeping people warm and dry throughout the ages - the cloak. The term ‘cloak’, however, covers a wide variety of items from the Roman period. Exploiting their natural waterproofing properties, the warmest of these would have been the:

• Gausapa, a very warm, waterproof, felt cloak made from goats’ wool that was introduced in the mid-first century AD. As it was felted, it would have been practically windproof and by nearly reaching the floor, would have been just the job for those ‘fortunate’ to have been sent to Britain or the German frontier.

• Cilicium, another very warm goat’s hair cloak beloved of the Emperor Augustus who, as previously mentioned, ‘felt the cold’.

• Cucullus and Bardocucullus, both of which are loan words for a hood or possibly a hooded cape or cloak. The Bardocucullus was a very thick, heavy version of the Cucullus that retained much of its natural oils thus making it practically waterproof. There is evidence that these garments could be of leather instead of heavy wool or felt. Whether the Cucullus or Bardocucullus varied in style or cut from those garments described as the ‘short cape’ and the ‘Gallic cape’ is unclear; possibly they did not. The early 3rd century AD stone carving pictured of three Genii Cucullati [5] was found in a shrine in the extra-mural settlement (vicus) at Housesteads Roman Fort (Vercovicium). Each figure wears, as the name suggests, a cucullus but they could also be sporting the Birrus Britannicus.

• Birrus Britainicus was also a long, deeply hooded, cape or cloak but distinctive from similar garments by being sewn together at the front from the breastbone to the navel. The gap at the neck above the breastbone was filled with a triangular fillet of material that may have been buttoned or pinned in place. This was an expensive garment in some places (according to the Edict of Diocletian examples might cost 5.000 denarii), but slave wear in other locations. The Edict of Diocletian in AD 301 specifically notes the British origin of this style of cloak; it may have originated around Venta (Winchester).

In a military context, two sorts of cloaks seem to have been common amongst the general soldiery, namely the paenula (pl. paenulae) and the sagum (pl. saga). These cloaks, especially saga, could be noticeably big and heavy, and consequently warm. In the case of the paenula, it could also feature a hood. Literary references reveal there were also under-cloaks (subpaenulae), and at least one of the Rhineland stelae seems to show something which looks like shoulder doubling on the inside of the cloak. Military cloaks, however, were not practical to wear all the time, so they represent only one type of cold weather protection used by soldiers.

Hats

From frescoes and mosaics, we know the Romans wore wide-brimmed hats to shade the face in sunny weather so it stands to reason that they probably would have worn hats in cold weather. The former, like those worn by agricultural workers in some mosaics and statuettes, are often coloured yellow almost certainly to represent straw. Such brimmed hats could just as easily have been made from warmer and more waterproof materials such as felt and leather, however.

It is therefore possible that hats worn in winter resembled the brimmed hats worn in sunnier weather, or they were one and the same. Depictions on Greek vases often show travellers wearing high boots (or shoes and lower leg coverings) and nearly always these characters are wearing a hat and cloak. Given that this clothing seems designed for inclement weather, it is most likely that any brimmed hat shown was not made of straw but of felt or leather to better resist the cold and rain. The wearing of such hats might also explain statement by Vegetius that soldiers in earlier times had worn heavy leather hats. It is unlikely, however, that hats were issued to soldiers, or indeed permitted by military regulations, but as a private purchase they may have been tolerated. For the most part, soldiers probably relied on their hooded cloaks to keep heads warm and dry. But where a cloak is impractical, it has been suggested that soldiers may have worn their helmet linings as hats. As some of these linings appear to have been glued into their helmets, this cannot have been the case all the time (if it at all).

Next…

Part One of this ‘How To:’ guide has examined the archetypal clothing and accessories commonly worn by Roman soldiers in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. In Part Two we will investigate the more expensive options for recreating the Legionary or Auxiliary look - body armour and helmets.

References:

Bishop, M.C. & Coulston, J.C.N., (2006), ‘Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome’, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Nic Fields, N., (2009), ‘The Roman Army of the Principate 27 BC-AD 117’, Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Sebesta, J.L. & Bonfante, L. (eds), (2001), ‘The World of Roman Costume’, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Sumner, G., (2002), ‘Roman Military Clothing 100 BC - AD 200’, Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Sumner, G., (2009), ‘Roman Military Dress’, Stroud: The History Press.

Endnotes:

1. The Greek khiton and Roman tunica are interchangeable terms to describe essentially the same garment.

2. In other words the arms pass through the gaps A-D and E-F.

3. Allow extra length and width for hemming while adjusting the overall sizing to meet individual requirements.

4. Sprang is an ancient method of constructing fabric that preserves its natural elasticity. While similar in appearance to netting, sprang differs in that it is constructed entirely from warp threads. Archaeological evidence indicates that sprang predates knitting. The two needlework forms bear a visible resemblance, and serve similar functions, yet require different production techniques.

5. The Genii Cucullati are mysterious figures who appear in religious sculpture across the Romano-Celtic region from Britain to Pannonia. In Britain they tend to be found in a triple deity form. Genius means ‘a spirit’, while the ‘cucullus’ is a type of hood; the Genii Cucullati are literally ‘hooded spirits’.