TUNIC COLOR                                7/14/03

       This is not by any means all the evidence for tunic color which has been amassed, merely the bulk of what this writer has been permitted to see.  The first good evidence we found was in the article by Nicolas Fuentes, "The Roman Military Tunic," in Roman Military Equipment: The Accoutrements of War (Proceedings of the Third Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar),edited by M. Dawson.  It turns out to be rather incomplete, but  more information has been added since then from a number of sources, such as Graham Sumner's Roman Army: Wars of the Empire.  (See the Bibliography)

Pictoral evidence

       A fresco from the Tomb of the Statillii (1st cent. BC/AD) shows a battle scene, with the (apparent) Romans in white tunics defeating their enemies in "short white kilts."  Soldiers in white tunics defeating men in white kilts are also seen in a 3rd cent. BC tomb fresco on the Esquiline Hill in Rome.

       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.

       The "Judgement of Solomon" fresco from Pompeii shows three soldiers.  Soldier #1 (and #2?) has a white tunic, and both #1 and #2 have bronze (?) armor and Montefortino helmets; #2 holds a spear with his hand at waist height and carries a round shield with a rim like a Greek hoplon.  Soldier #3 has a red tunic and cloak, and armor and Montefortino helmet that are much lighter in color than those of #1 and #2, as if tinned or silvered.  The inside of his round shield is visible, and he seems to hold it like a hoplon.  He holds a spear with his hand at head height, the usual pose for an officer or god (compare to the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus and numerous figures of Mars, as well as the figure of "Solomon" himself).  All three soldiers have red horsehair helmet crests.  The armor of both #1 and #3 appears to be the muscled cuirass, though it could possibly be mail or scale armor.   Although #3 does not seem to have pteruges or greaves, his pose suggests that he is superior in rank to the other two soldiers.  This whole scene is done in a "burlesque" style, the figures having large heads and short spindly legs.  It has also been said that the fresco is copied from an original in Alexandria, but never have I seen any other mention of that original, much less a picture or description of it.  A Hellenistic origin might help to explain the round shields, but the helmets are definitely Roman.  (Photo from Pompeii and Herculaneum: The Living Cities of the Dead,by Theodor Kraus, photos by Leonard von Matt (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1975) ISBN 0-8109-0418-7, plate 305.)

       A fresco from Pompeii shows a tavern scene with 4 men, interpreted by Daniel Peterson as a civilian and 3 soldiers (because their tunic hems are above the knee).  Figure #4, at right, wears a red tunic with thin dark clavi, and a narrow bluish-gray cloak (probably a paenula).  #3 wears an unbelted off-white or yellowish tunic with narrow clavi.  Figures #1 and #2 wear darker tunics than #4, and clavi can be seen on #2.  A description of the scene in the Kraus book interprets #1 as a waiter.  In any case, none of the figures is armored.  (The color of the tunics on #1 and #2 resembles that of two civilian men and a boy buying bread in a bakery scene.) (Photos from The Great Centuries of Painting: Roman Painting,by Aedeo Maiuri (Curator of the Naples Museum) (Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1953), from the title page and page 144.)

       A 4th cent. AD fresco from a Syracusan catacomb shows a soldier in a red long-sleeved tunic; he wears a crested Intercisa type helmet and holds a white oval shield and a spear, with his hand at head height.  A 4th cent. AD soldier in a fresco from the Via Latina wears a mailshirt over a red-brown tunic.

       The Piazza Armerina mosaic (c. 300 AD) shows at least 13 men in white long-sleeved tunics with applied stripes and oval patches of the period, some of whom are definitely soldiers (shields and weapons), while others are carrying or leading captured animals (a job often done by the army).  Two men in red are hauling on lines on ships, while a third is being struck by a soldier in white carrying a 3-foot T-shaped officer's staff.  Six other men wear light blue or gray tunics and may be sailors, and one man's tunic appears to be yellow.  Some of the men have red belts with yellow studs and "propeller" stiffeners visible.  There are other 3rd to 4th cent. AD illustrations of soldiers in white tunics.

       A shield discovered in Egypt shows an unarmored figure wearing a red tunic and cloak.  The Ermine Street Guard says, "His spear and shield suggest he is not an officer,"  even though there are thousands of images of Mars with spear and shield.  I have seen no other description or illustration of this shield, nor any suggestion of a date.

Material Evidence

       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.)

Literary Evidence

       Tacitus describes Vitellius' triumphal parade into Rome, saying that the tribunes and senior centurions are dressed in white clothing ("candida veste").  There is no way to tell if this was unusual, and it says nothing about what other ranks wore in normal circumstances.

       Fuentes cites a papyrus of 138 AD, "referring to a compulsory purchase of garments from the 83 weavers of the vilage of Philadelphia, specifies that the items, including a tunic for the soldiers in Cappadocia, were to be made of 'fine, soft, pure white wool...'"  This is more likely a set of specifications for all the tunics required, not a single tunic made by a committee of 83 weavers.

       A late 2nd cent. AD passage from the Babylonian Talmud refers to a "Roman red tunic".  This seems to suggest that Roman tunics were thought of as red, though it may simply be referring to a red tunic of Roman style or fabric.

       The 4th cent. AD Historia Augusta lists Claudius II's possessions while he served as a tribune in the army, including several white tunics and two red military tunics.

       Arrian refers to cavalry in yellow tunics, and there are references to sailors wearing blue tunics.

"Practical" Arguments

       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.

       It is often pointed out that Spartan hoplites wore red cloaks, and that the Macedonian army wore red tunics.  However, the Samnites, some Celtiberians, and apparently even Carthaginian troops wore white tunics, and all these people made greater impressions on the Romans than the Macedonians did.

       Further speculation without evidence is pointless.  Even if we find out what was done, we might not know why.  We must not assume that we know how the Romans were thinking, or that we our ideas of "practical" or "logical" are the same as theirs.  Suggestions that colors were left to the commander's whim or were decided according to the worship of Mars have no basis in the established facts.

Conclusions

       It has not been proven that there was ANY uniform tunic color in the Roman army!  If there was, it could have changed several times over the hundreds of years in question.  There may also have been variations according to unit or geographical region.  AT THE MOMENT, however, it is the Twentieth Legion's interpretation that legionaries wore undyed tunics and centurions wore red.  (Tribunes and legates most likely wore white tunics with the appropriate purple clavi.)  But the debate is far from settled, and we eagerly invite more data.

      It should be noted that Dan Peterson of Legio XIIII disagrees strongly with this interpretation, instead believing that red was worn under armor and white/undyed tunics with clavi for dressier occasions without armor.  So far the evidence he has presented includes mummy portraits from Egypt showing unarmored men in red tunics which he interprets as soldiers (Roman, not Hellenistic), and numerous references and depictions of red tunics on Macedonian and other non-Roman troops.  While he expounds theories of the practicality of red tunics at some length, we will apparently have to wait until the publication of his next book to see more of his actual evidence.