pothos.org

Okay dokey...a few years ago I said something about this and then I forgot about it. The Greek and Roman writers go to great pains to stress that the Macedonians/Greeks weren't having any of that trouser nonsense!

What brought me back to it was my recent perusal of pictures of Ghazni, Afhanistan in the winter and the several feet of snow there. I was researching the route that Alexander would have taken from Kandahar to the Kabul valley and I'm telling you, anyone that slogged through there in the winter wearing no trousers would have frozen the family jewels off, to not put too fine a point on it.

So I'm asking my fellow Pothosians what they think the army of Alexander wore in winter. Certainly, even in Macedonia they had to have more than the Chlamys and a chiton and those nifty Macedonian boots. Macedonia was colder, certainly in the interior and further into the Balkans, as well, than the more southerly Greek mainland and coasts. So they had to have some winter gear..or were they just that hardcore (and stubborn)? The interior of Anatolia isn't exactly tropical and the time spent in Iran between Persepolis and Ecbatana was icy and cold.

I am open to all suggestions...was there some items of clothing that the sources just didn't think to write about, or even know about (or I am forgetting they did mention)...or was the objection to the royal donning of trousers something that was more symbolic than realistic? Not to mention sleeves!

Most difficult as we have little or no evidence. That Alexander and his hetairoi wore Persian style long sleeve tops is evidenced by the "Alexander sarcophagus". The Kinch tomb also shows a long sleeved cavalryman.

For the battle of Gabiene Johnny Schumate suggested that the infantry likely wore such clothing (the Iranian high plains being very much a single digit maximum about the winter solstice). I agreed though we left the armour and "legins" as is though.

We have evidence of Eumenes handing out the "royal purple" cloaks and caps to his hetairoi (Eum. 8.6) and Polybios refers to Hannibal fitting out his men in the proper attire to traverse the mountans into Italy (3.49.12) but that's about it.

I agree with your observation about the family jewels. Not to mention frozen legs and the damage done to exposed limbs.

I think Xenophon mentions adopting Thracian trousers and cloaks when the Ten Thousand reached the Hellespont and possibly native costume amongthe Chabyles but the memory is weak.

Thanks. I agree that the Alexander Sarcophagus shows that...as an aside, when people talk about what Alexander and the Macedonians looked like, but especially Alexander, this near contemporary depiction seems to be glided over...and the likely Hephaistion was the blonde!

Anyway, agreed about the danger to extremities...I have to wonder if the whole "trouser scandal" was a political thing that the later writers focused on...and in reality, the army donned clothing that covered every part of their body they could...but for "news" consumption for the folks "back home", it was stressed that he hadn't gone completely Persian and that he wasn't wearing the long pants or sleeves..though again, by the time of the Sarcophagus and the Kinch tomb, that kind of thing simply didn't matter...

Johnny Schumate, he's that very good artist I come across quite often (I lurk at RAT)...I know the picture you are talking about I think....

I've deleted this post.

Alexias wrote:Could I just say that if you look very closely at the Alexander sarcophagus, particularly on Hephaestion, and the bronze of Alexander on horseback (I think from Berlin), you can see that they are wearing mid-thighlength, closefitting shorts underneath the skirt of their chitons.

Well, I've just had a look at my pics from the sarcophagus, and I can't see what you're describing at all, I'm afraid. I can sort of see what you describe as a 'notch' on the 'Hephaistion' figure, but that's on his skirt, not on a pair of cycling shorts!

Maybe others can see it, but I'm afraid I can't.

I am very inclined to agree with athenas owl, that they probably wore whatever was going to keep them warm, and pretended to the folks back home that they weren't being medised in that fashion. It's amazing how one's principles and prejudices can disappear when one's comfort and safety are in jeopardy ...

ATB

marcus wrote:I am very inclined to agree with athenas owl, that they probably wore whatever was going to keep them warm, and pretended to the folks back home that they weren't being medised in that fashion. It's amazing how one's principles and prejudices can disappear when one's comfort and safety are in jeopardy ...

Except ... ... sometimes I think our own concept of comfort and safety, and the way we accept it as the "norm" may color our view regarding other times. I mean, women today wouldn't dream of lacing ourselves into over-tight corsets and heavy gowns in the middle of a summer heatwave - that would be neither comfortable nor safe - yet it was the norm a century or so ago.

Another, probably more relevant example can be found in the DVD I mentioned here not too long ago, Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life. In it the Persian, Bakhtiari tribespeople, more than 50,000 of them, are shown taking their half a million animals across a half mile river and over a mountain range which includes the 15,000 foot Zardeh Kuh mountain. (And they did this twice a year, at least back when this film was made in 1925.) Once they attained the snowy heights of Zardeh Kuh some of the men went ahead and trampled down the several feet of snow to make a path for those who followed. Nothing seemingly too remarkable about that, you'd think, except that none of the tribe wore shoes and all of them either made the trip barefoot or with strips of cloth around their feet! And it wasn't exactly a short passage through the snow either, so if I look at this logically and from the comfort of my own home I'd say it makes no sense at all. They had animals which could provide hides and they surely knew how to sew leather because they lived in tents ... and yet they completely disregarded what would be to us, comfort and safety concerns. This is why I'm disinclined to believe the Macedonian army would have adopted the Persian trousers without something in the way of evidence. Just my personal opinion, as always.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote: This is why I'm disinclined to believe the Macedonian army would have adopted the Persian trousers without something in the way of evidence. Just my personal opinion, as always.

Best regards,

I agree: we have no evidence (that I'm aware of) for the use of trousers by the army - at least not until the "last days" of the Bactrian Kingdom in the 1st c BC. What evidence there is firmly links the cavalry with long sleeve Persian garments. The battle scene on the Alexander Sarcophagus clearly shows this and it seems such were in reasonably widespread use after Alexander (as the Kinch Tomb would show).

In the wars after Alexander campaigning over or into winter is well attested; it contributed to Diodorus' confusion of chronology. It would not suprise if the use of such a top garment spread to the infantry in such circumstances: certainly the One-Eyed's troops were cold enough to disobey the no-fire rule at night. Combat in single-digit or near zero temperatures would not be helped by going into battle with a heavier cloak I'd think (think of the "wrapped" Spartan figure).

Amyntoros, thanks for that...about the Bakhtiari.

They were barefoot, but how else were they clothed? The pictures I've seen of the Bakhtiari seem to show them quite clothed (like the Iranian peoples have always done..Iranian in the larger sense) I do agree that modern people have gotten quite soft relative to those of our ancestors. Though I should note that my "winter shoes" are thongs with a 1" sole (to keep my feet dry and unmuddy)...but my feet are tough, I wouldn't dream of slogging a couple of hundred miles in an Afghan winter in a mini shirt and bare legs.

I agree with Marcus I think..."we'll wear these damn things, but don't tell anyone back home!". Or they opted for plain pants or leggings, not the fancy decorated ones of the Iranians. Or really long socks...( I do know that even in Athens, socks were worn by the elderly and infirm.

I do remember reading somewhere that while wintering in Bactria or Sogdia, somewhere, one of Alexander's companions was saying that it wasn't really any colder than back home, putting a good face on it, but he still covered himself in three rugs....where have I read that?

athenas owl wrote: I agree with Marcus I think..."we'll wear these damn things, but don't tell anyone back home!". Or they opted for plain pants or leggings, not the fancy decorated ones of the Iranians. Or really long socks...( I do know that even in Athens, socks were worn by the elderly and infirm.

Thing is, clothes back then were more a means of identification rather than a fashion as we think of them today. A while ago I was watching a show on one of the history channels about the century-long search for the exact historical shade of purple which was used by Jews for one part of the tassels they wear for religious purposes. The narrator noted that in ancient times one could tell everything about a man by the clothes he wore – his wealth, his position, his country, his ethnicity, his religion, etc. Now, I know the program was not about the Greek world, per se, but it is true that there were identifying factors amongst the Greeks and their clothes were not always as "generic" as people tend to think of them today. The Macedonians had their cloak and their kausia, the Spartans had their red cloaks and long hair, and even women had variables in clothing according to where they came from. I learnt from Aphrodite's Tortoise: The Veiled Women of Ancient Greece that there were many styles of veils, some of them specific to state and even city of origin. In fact, women in Thebes wore an uncommon style where a heavy veil covered the whole face and had a slit in it for the eyes, much like the ones we are familiar with today in the Muslim world. When the veil turned up again in Hellenistic Alexandria (and became quite popular amongst Greek women because of the freedom it allowed – they had both hands free rather than having to use one to hold up a veil to their face), the author, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, posits that the veil first came to Alexandria with Theban slave women brought there by the Macedonian army!

Now before the Hellenistic period the only time we see both long sleeves and trousers in any Greek artistic portrayal is on Amazonian women and on "barbarians" such as Persians, and these items of clothing are a definite identifying factor. I personally suspect that the epithet "effeminate" which the Greeks often directed at the Persians was as much to do with their mode of dress as anything else. I.e., wearing trousers meant "dressing like a girl"! It's notable, I think, that Plutarch stresses that Alexander did not wear trousers:

Plutarch, Alexander 45.2-4 However, he did not adopt the famous Median fashion of dress, which was along barbaric and strange, nor did he assume trousers, or sleeved vest, or tiara, but carefully devised a fashion which was midway between the Persian and the Median, more modest than the one and more stately than the other. At first he wore this only in intercourse with the Barbarians and with his companions at home, then people generally saw him riding forth or giving audience in this attire. The sight was offensive to the Macedonians, but they admired his other high qualities and thought they ought to yield to him in some things which made for his pleasure or his fame.

I also find the use of the word "modest" quite interesting as we tend to think of modest clothing as being the kind which covers up a person. To the ancient Greeks and Macedonians it seems to mean the opposite, and once again I suspect it refers to not dressing in what was considered womanly clothing. Less was more as far as ancient Greek men's dress was concerned, certainly within the warrior society. So again I find myself saying that I find it hard to believe the average Macedonian soldier, initially offended by Alexander wearing long sleeves, a diadem, and a certain color of tunic (which I wonder if he may have worn long on occasions, although no visual evidence of such has been found), adopting trousers themselves – something even Alexander didn't do!

Yes, I know, I confess to being rather stubborn where this subject is concerned, but it's one that has fascinated me for a long time. (I'll go along with the possibility of them wearing really long socks though. )

athenas owl wrote: I do remember reading somewhere that while wintering in Bactria or Sogdia, somewhere, one of Alexander's companions was saying that it wasn't really any colder than back home, putting a good face on it, but he still covered himself in three rugs....where have I read that?

That's familiar to me also, so I used the words blanket and robe in a quick computer search of the main sources, along with the Moralia and Athenaeus, and I couldn't find any reference. It may be that it's mentioned somewhere else, but I had what seems to be a visual memory of that particular scene when I read your post. Could it be that it was in Stone's movie?

Best regards,

You know...I think it might have been RLF's book...I distinctly remember the use of the term "rug"...but I just dug the book out and I can't find it. I seem to remember that the one who said it was one of the "flatterers", Anarxarchos maybe? It was written, not in Stone's film.

I understand what you are saying, but I always go back to that several feet of snow and men in minimal clothing..and the family jewels.

Very good points about the perceptions of the "effeminate" nature of the Persian dress. But I also remember that the Macedonians weren't as "GreeK" as their southern neighbours, and as has been the case all to often with the ancient writers...they gloss over those differences...and I can't imagine the rank and file Macedonian soldiers really gave a hoot what the "civilised" Greeks thought. There is just something off about it. You could be very right...but one would think that after a couple of those long high passes, snowy treks and Central Asian winters, they'd might be over the cultural chauvinism, at least till they got out of the snow banks. Of course many of them did freeze to death..so maybe not.

amyntoros wrote:

athenas owl wrote: I do remember reading somewhere that while wintering in Bactria or Sogdia, somewhere, one of Alexander's companions was saying that it wasn't really any colder than back home, putting a good face on it, but he still covered himself in three rugs....where have I read that?

That's familiar to me also, so I used the words blanket and robe in a quick computer search of the main sources, along with the Moralia and Athenaeus, and I couldn't find any reference. It may be that it's mentioned somewhere else, but I had what seems to be a visual memory of that particular scene when I read your post. Could it be that it was in Stone's movie?

The story definitely exists, although I cannot remember exactly where.

I agree with everything you say, about identity, etc. Doesn't necessarily mean they didn't wear the darn things if they felt they had to! Those mountains of the Parapomisadae get terribly cold in winter ...

I have no firm idea about it. But I have to say, and this might just be an indication of the softness of 21st century man, that I find it difficult to believe that they crossed those mountains in the conditions that are described, without covering themselves up more warmly!

ATB

Hello, Marcus and everybody! It is in Plutarch, chapter 52, and is reported as a remark of Callisthenes to Anaxarchus, a more “integrated” philosopher who was working his way into the king’s favour and mantained that in Asia it was not colder than in Greece; obviously the Asian climate is not the real object of Callisthenes’ sarcasm.
Alpay Pasinli, in his book about The Alexander Sarcophagus, while describing the figure in the Lion Hunt scene thougt to be Alexander, writes: “The faint brown marking fringe on his thigh, along the border of the long-sleeved tunic, was probably an inner tunic.” It is a very faint trace indeed and perhaps it was this that Athenas Owl interpreted as a pair of short trousers. Anyway, it shows that the Macedonians didn’t snub the Asian cold and protected themselves with a second (and why not a third?) tunic. Although they abhorred trousers, I think nothing prevented them from winding woollen bands around their legs and feet, which would make them much less phenomenal than we may think.
Anyway, I remember that some Roman writers mentioned trousers as a foreign garment, worn in Gaul, but I remember none speaking of trousers as a regular item of the Roman soldier’s dress, which they were (at least in the second century), as shown in the Trajan Column.
Another problem is that of the underwear, which officially in classical antiquity did not exist, even though the Similaun mummy in 3300 B. C. wore a sort of nappy made of mellow suède…
Another interesting subject would be the so-called heroic nudity that is a feature of Greek art; everybody knows it is an artistic convention, but its origins and motives I have never found treated in any book.

Came across this website today, courtesy of the forum at RomanArmyTalk. I'd previously been wondering about whether or not the Romans wore trousers or not.

Finally, we come to trousers. Trousers seem an obvious solution to us, and obviously they must have seemed obvious to soldiers of Celtic or Germanic origin, but that thinking may not have applied to the Roman mindset, which tended to think of trousers as the mark of the barbarian (a term which included Persians, along with the other barbarians we would normally think of). This is not to say that the common soldier necessarily shared all of the views of his social superiors and there must have been occasions when soldiers on campaign supplemented their existing clothing with locally obtained trousers, but many, if not most of them, may have felt little need to do this. They already had tried and trusted cold weather clothing in the form of hooded cloaks and lower leg coverings, and (probably) felt and/or leather hats.

It is also worth remembering that not all cultures immediately take on the idea of trousers, the Scots being an obvious example. Whatever the actual origins of the kilt, it is worth noting that thousands of Scottish soldiers went through the First World War and a slightly lesser number during the Second World War wearing kilts and heavy knee length socks. Obviously this was an issued uniform, but there are enough surviving photographs of Scottish soldiers in muddy, waterlogged trenches to show that they really did wear the kilt under campaign conditions (albeit often supplemented with Wellington boots). Trousers are not necessarily essential to keeping warm in the cold! We know of course, that Roman legionaries did eventually wear trousers, but the earliest evidence for this dates to the period of the Dacian wars, several decades after the period which our equipment would be typical for and we thus represent.

I see the writer suggests that there must have been ocasions when campaign soldiers wore locally obtained trousers, but again we also see the reference to trousers being the mark of the barbarian. And whereas the common Roman soldier didn't necessarily share the view of his social superiors (who wouldn't wear "barbarian" clothing) in the case of Alexander it was the reverse - Macedonian superiors adopted some of the clothing but the common soldier expressed disdain.

Athenas Owl, there's some also some interesting info on socks and leggings.
Best regards,

Thank you amyntoros...I've read the article briefly and will return to it later...guests have been absorbing my time.

I am still stuck with the several feet of snow thingy...at altitudes not known in Europe...