Roman Colour

[pseudocaesar]

Why do we associate red with Romans? Is there any evidence found that shows all the banners and flags, standards etc were red? Its just something ive been thinking about a bit.

[Zaknafien]

No one's ever proven a favored color for the Romans, but most military clothing seems to have been either white or red. The association with red probably stems from classic sword and sandals movies in the 50s and 60s, but red seems to have been a preferred color for a legionary, anyway.

Frescoes of battle scenes from the National Museum in Rome, apparently dating to the 1st cent. BC, show roughly the same number of red and white tunics, plus other tunics in at least three other colors. (I don't have information on which figures are armored, or which ones might be Romans or otherwise.)

The Barberini Nilotic mosaic from Palestrina shows a number of soldiers with rectangular scuta, body armor, and bronze helmets with white crests--and four whose tunics are visible are wearing white. Their leader's tunic is not visible, but his crest is red. One figure with a helmet but no body armor is wearing a reddish tunic. Scorpion emblems on their scuta may indicate that these troops are Praetorians. The entire scene has been dismissed as showing non-Roman Hellenistic soldiers by some authorities, but this may be debatable.

A number of wool fragments were recovered from the pre-Hadrianic fort at Vindolanda. Fifty of these were analysed for dye traces, and 8 contained some or all of the chemical components of madder, a common red dye. One, a checked piece, had traces of a purple lichen dye; a few had traces of dye but not enough to identify the color; and the rest (apparently nearly 40) had no detectable dye traces at all.

A number of tunics were found in the Cave of Letters at En Gedi, including one red and at least three white or off-white. All had clavi (2 vertical stripes). They apparently date to the Bar Kochba revolt of c. 135 AD, and there seems to be no reason to assume that they are Roman rather than Jewish.

Red fabric was found at Masada, interpreted as being from a military tunic. Exactly why it was believed to be military is unclear (possibly BECAUSE it was red?), but apparently it was found with with other garments that are just as likely to be civilian. (There may be confusion between this find and the En Gedi tunics.)
While some people argue that undyed wool would be more economical, this is irrelevant in an army that could afford to issue armor and weapons to every man. The British army in the 18th and 19th centuries wore red coats simply because madder red was a cheap dye.

Proponents of red tunics often claim that a white tunic simply could not be kept clean, and would be "reduced to a rust- and grease-caked rag." However, the use of a subarmalis or thoracomachus (padding under the armor) would protect the tunic from the armor. (One might also expect a soldier's armor to be kept reasonably free of rust and excessive grease, as well.) A red tunic will hide rust and dirt better than a white one, but by that argument a brown or black tunic would be even better. A white tunic can also be washed more harshly and frequently with Roman bleaching processes (urine baths and sulfur smoke), which would turn it even whiter, whereas a red tunic would have to be cleaned more delicately to avoid fading (and even sunlight will fade it). In the 19th century the French army changed to blue uniform coats, which the officers complained were harder to keep clean than the old white ones. George Washington made similar statements about white linen hunting shirts.

The entire debate on cleanliness could be moot. In Roman Military Clothing vol. 1, Graham Sumner cites payroll documents from the late first century/early second century AD, which show deductions from soldiers' pay equivalent to 8 to 10 tunics per year. So any bad stains would only need to be tolerated a month or so at most before the tunic was replaced. (The old one, theoretically, could be cut up into a new subarmalis, socks, leggings, helmet lining, or just cleaning rags.)

There is also the argument that red tunics would hide blood. If this is a concern that the sight of blood might cause distress among the men, bear in mind that their favorite entertainment was watching gladiators kill each other. Their daily training was also focused on killing and defeating their opponents before they had a chance to spill much Roman blood. (And that harsh training probably got them used to seeing at least a little blood on themselves!) If the major concern is bloodstains on clothing, fresh blood can be rinsed out of wool with cold water, but if allowed to dry it turns dark brown or black and would still be visible on a red tunic. Ancient descriptions also suggest that the vast majority of soldiers in most battles didn't have much opportunity to get their blood or anyone else's on their tunics, but spent most of their combat time in the rear ranks either resting, cheering, or pushing. For those Romans who did get wounded or killed, the condition of their tunics was probably not their greatest concern.

[Bellum]

Romans are awesome, and red looks much cooler than white. Naturally, people equate Rome (awesomeness) with red.

[Boyar Son]

Romans are awesome, and red looks much cooler than white. Naturally, people equate Rome (awesomeness) with red.

I agree.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

The story I heard was Julius Caesar liked red and wore a red cape. He had his legions wear red even though it wasn't the standard color for the time.

[Spvrrina Vestricivs]

The story I heard was Julius Caesar liked red and wore a red cape. He had his legions wear red even though it wasn't the standard color for the time.

:idea2: Could we possibly have a bit of psychological warfare going on with that choice?

What I mean is, Julius Caesar was a bit egotistical, so maybe he thought: "I'm the best general in the world, my men are the best soldiers in the world...who were the best soldiers of the Greek Armies? Ah, yes, the Spartans. What colour did they wear again? Ah yes...RED! That'll make an impression." Shortly thereafter an order is issued for all soldiers in his legions to dye their white tunics red.

[L.C.Cinna]

Not much to add to Zaknafien's great post just one or two things:

Red is the colour of Mars which is another reason why people think red might have been used. The Dura scutum is red and the Cavalry Signum from Egypt as well but like Zaknafien said there are depictions in differend colours, colours on most tombstones are lost or not yet reconstructed. Tacitus mentiones that the Officers wore white at the triumph, the Historia Augusta mentiones that all soldiers wore white at the triumph. There is army supply, like Zaknafien said but individuals probably used their own tunics or patterns sometimes.

[MiniMe]

There is also the argument that red tunics would hide blood.
I've always found this argument highly debatable. Actually, they don't =)
1. Anything under rain or sweat or other liquid changes its color and darkens;
2. They were tunics.Tunics, just as T-shirts, hide almost nothing =)

[blank]

I've always found this argument highly debatable. Actually, they don't =)
1. Anything under rain or sweat or other liquid changes its color and darkens;
2. They were tunics.Tunics, just as T-shirts, hide almost nothing =)

actually they hide it quite a bit better than, say, white, or yellow, or grey.
The only color possibly better at hiding blood would be black.

Of course, there is the question as to why one would want to cover blood in battle - some "barbarians" even thought blood on their person would make them more feared, and rightly so. Blood on ones clothes and equipment would IMO show: a) you have killed at least one enemy, b) you keep fighting even when injured, or c) both. So not much to be ashamed of...

[MiniMe]

actually they hide it quite a bit better than, say, white, or yellow, or grey.
The only color possibly better at hiding blood would be black...
...or navy blue or dark green. Let us agree that dark coloured tunics'd hide stain a bit better than light coloured.
But still

...why one would want to cover blood in battle - some "barbarians" even thought blood on their person would make them more feared, and rightly so. Blood on ones clothes and equipment would IMO show: a) you have killed at least one enemy, b) you keep fighting even when injured, or c) both. So not much to be ashamed of...
+1

[EdwardL]

actually they hide it quite a bit better than, say, white, or yellow, or grey.
The only color possibly better at hiding blood would be black.

Of course, there is the question as to why one would want to cover blood in battle - some "barbarians" even thought blood on their person would make them more feared, and rightly so. Blood on ones clothes and equipment would IMO show: a) you have killed at least one enemy, b) you keep fighting even when injured, or c) both. So not much to be ashamed of...

You would want to hide blood as it's source may be from a wound or injury. If you know anything about combat you would know that the best way to overcome your enemy is to exploit weakness. Far easier to locate such weaknesses on lighter colored or covered clothing.

Example;

A heavily armored opponent takes a severe blow to his right torso, perhaps by an instrument that cut open a hole in the armor and left a bleeding wound. His next opponent in line see's (as there is no tunic or other overcloth to conceal) this weakness and starts for that open wound rather than taking valueless jabbs at other vital parts of the body that are covered with seamless metal.

or

Perhaps a soldier has taken a blade would to the wrist of his sword arm which is opponent easily notices as there is nothing to conceal it. That opponent would wisely know then that all he would need to do is keep swinging on that side. The wounded soldier can only parry for so long before that wounded wrist submits and the aggressor can have his way with him.



There is also the psychological aspect of it in that clothing or other overgarments concealing wounds or weaknesses help to preserve the persona of invincibility or freshness in a "We keep sending men against them, but our attacks seem to be doing nothing" sort of effect. The idea of projecting a mass of killing machines, rather than mortal, woundable humans.


"If your weaknesses are successfully concealed, then it is likely that the enemy will continue to attack you where you are at your strongest" - um, me it guess. :beam:

[Long lost Caesar]

i agree with arbiter: i thought that it was mainly Julius Ceasar's 'fault' that the Romans are associated with red, since he wore crimson, although I seem to remember him forbidding his troops wearing red! I thought that it would give the impression of red being the colour of the Caesar's, and so would be associated with the legacy of Rome. Am i wrong?

[Bootsiuv]

Red is the color of Mars, god of war.

Perhaps that would have something to do with it?

Red is also the classical color of power and authority, just as purple is the classical color of royalty.

I really have no idea if these things mattered to an ancient roman, but they both seem like reasonable ideas.