Shields?

[/Bean\]

Wheres the evidence that they were dyed red, or had those patterns on them?

I'd genuinly like to know where the seemingly global acceptance that the Romans were red comes from.

[Rilder]

LEGIO LXXVII HOLLYWOOD

[/Bean\]

Was it really Hollywood? Someone would have pointed that out by now, surely. As in life, not in this topic. I mean, was it really a case of Santa turning red because he was sponsered by Coca-Cola? Or were the Romans actually armed with red shields?

I do believe they had the customary red (cheapest dye[?])tunics to designate them as soldiers, but I think that was later, when equipment was provided by the state. Was the same rule followed with shields?

[Rilder]

I actually don't know for sure, just wanted to say that :P, maybe the red was something like battlefield heraldry to help distinquish friend from foe.

[/Bean\]

Then that would be uniformalism, surely.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I actually don't know for sure, just wanted to say that :P, maybe the red was something like battlefield heraldry to help distinquish friend from foe.

that makes sense, as that is the primary function of a uniform....

anyway, you have to admit that the shields were at least the same basic shape/materials

[SwissBarbar]

at least we can be quite sure, that their shields were not read, decorated with white painting called "COCA COLVM"

[Prussian to the Iron]

lol. I think instead they read "Manishewitz Red Wine"

















:snicker:

[bobbin]

I imagine the sheild type will be the same for marians onward but the decoration will vary form soldier to soldier.

[antisocialmunky]

You also must consider cost of shield decoration. The poorer classes would have fairly basic shields with cheaper colors/paints/simpler designs while the more affluent would have more decorated arms and armor. Since everything they had was pretty pimped out. There really isn't any argument against showing off who they were on the biggest and most visible surface.

[SonOfTangra]

Was it really Hollywood? Someone would have pointed that out by now, surely. As in life, not in this topic. I mean, was it really a case of Santa turning red because he was sponsered by Coca-Cola? Or were the Romans actually armed with red shields?

I do believe they had the customary red (cheapest dye[?])tunics to designate them as soldiers, but I think that was later, when equipment was provided by the state. Was the same rule followed with shields?

The color "RED" is a simbol of many things as for the romans so as for the ather nations in the ancient times. As I remember well the "RED" was the color of war for the romans.

"A “red-letter day” is one of special importance and good fortune."
"Red is supposedly the first color percieved by Man. Brain-injured persons suffering from temporary color-blindness start to perceive red before they are able to discern any other colors. Neolithic hunter peoples considered red to be the most important color endowed with life-giving powers and thus placed red ochre into graves of their deceased. This explains funds of skeletons embedded in up to 10 kg of red powdered ochre. Neolithic cave painters ascribed magic powers to the color red. The word "magic" ("Zauber" in German) translates to "taufr" in Old Norse and is related to the Anglo-Saxon "teafor" meaning "red ochre". It can be stipulated that they painted animals in red ochre or iron oxide to conjure their fertility.

Protective powers of the color red against evil influence were common belief. Objects, animals and trees were covered in red paint, warriors painted their axes and spear-catapults red to endow the weapons with magic powers. Some of the Australian aborigines abide by this custom up to the present times. Neolithic hunters and germanic warriors used to paint their weapons and even themselves in blood of slain animals. Roman gladiators drank blood of their dying adversaries to take over their strength. In other cultures, the newly born were bathed in blood of particularly strong and good looking animals.Red painted amulettes or red gems, such as ruby or garnet, were used as charms against the "evil eye". Wearing a red ruby was supposed to bring about invincibility. Red bed-clothes were customary in Germany up to the Middle Ages as protection against the "red illnesses", such as fever, rashes or even miscarriages (famous example is the painting Arnolfini Wedding by Jan Van Eyck, dated 1434)."

As for that "were the romans painted their shields in red" is true I don't know but it shure have a racional logic in it cose of their strong faith in the gods and the ancient times where A "superstitious"
times when everything was a omen or sign so give it a one more thought,

[geala]

I think the early Romans differed a lot from the Celts. Because they didn't wear trousers. All other is speculation.

There are findings of tunics with rests of colours f.e. from Roman Egypt. White (undyed wool) and yellow were frequent colours. Still you don't know wether it were some forms of "leisure" tunics or wether your findings were just exceptions (but unlikely). The discussion of Roman tunic colours is a long and never-ending adventure.

I think a good idea would be to give units in the later times similar tunic colours with different shades. And shields with similar emblems on it, perhaps with a similar shield colour. Red, green, yellow-brown and white are good candidates.

[satalexton]

a lot of keltoi didn't wear trousers too, especially the hellenic influenced ones.

[geala]

a lot of keltoi didn't wear trousers too, especially the hellenic influenced ones.

That's a point for Celtic cleverness because if you can wear a tunic and insist on wearing uncomfortable trousers you are a *insert inoffensive insult of your choice*.

But I think most of the Celts outside Spain against whom the Romans fought wore trousers or breeches or shorts. Could you give examples for the others? Ok, it's terribly ot, so perhaps we should start a "clothes for the lower limbs or not"-thread.