Talk:Clothing in ancient Rome

message: Translated from French. Unsure of how to reference. Proof-read. Enjoy.Spite & Malice 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The Romans knew how to make supple leather and tough leather (through boiling) for use as armor" - The idea of roman leather armor is generally seen in recent (post 1970) scholarship as an invalid interpretation of artistic sources and detracts from the quality of this article in the eyes of knowledgeable readers, have modified with a [citation required] with a view to removing the statement "(through boiling) for use as armor" and rephrasing the resultant fragmentary sentence at a later date if citations cannot be provided.  Thoughts? Nathandbeal (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  leather armor 

message: This section needs improvement.  Several points are made that require documentation, or are plainly erroneous.  Footnote 3, for instance is linked to a commercial website selling poorly researched leather costuming, rather than the author relying upon scholarly documentation for such a claim about leather wristbands.  Additionally, the claim that leather goods were given by family members rather than throught the supply system is unfounded.  The notion of leather being used for heavy coats against harsh weather is purely speculative.  
Otherwise, the article is interesting and helpful as a basic primer in Roman clothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholardiogenes (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on hides, leather and skins 

message: It seems that most older modern sources (and recent sources citing them) assume that fabrics were woven to selvedged shape of the planned garment. No seams. One or two - I don't recall which - claim that sewing and seams were avoided because Roman needles would have been too coarse. Even as speculation, that's nonsense; so are claims that Roman scissors weren't up to the job of cutting fabric to shape. Perhaps something's to be said for the notion that weaving to a predetermined and final shape helped conserve material. But regardless, contra all this, there's recent material (!archaeological) evidence of well-tailored gussets. So I think we need a section on tailoring, using the most up-to-date modern sources. Haploidavey (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woven to shape vs tailored 

message: Several difficulties here. We've some would-be "definitive" articles on types of Roman footwear; Caliga, Calceus and Soccus; and we've a general article on Sandal. As ever, the definitions and categories seldom accommodate the objects themselves. There's tremendous variation in Roman contemporary terminology for footwear - in many cases we've not a clue what was meant. And there's tremendous, inventive variety in the footwear itself. Just to take a couple of examples; where might the "Hellenistic military-style high-laced, soft-topped but rather military-looking high-boot shown on some statuary and paintings" be dealt with? When does a calceus become an enclosed "shoe-boot"? I suggest we sort this out by having a nicely capacious and broad new article, "Footwear in ancient Rome", which would absorb all separate articles on Roman footwear. Any objections? Haploidavey (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I OBJECT!!!! For dramatic and comedic purposes only. And now I immediately rescind my objection, with a full written apology. So by all means, WP:be bold and create the article! Bring these scattered articles together under one great house and beneath one roof! Reforge the blade (of Elendil) that was broken! Pericles of AthensTalk 14:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A Hobbit thanks ye from the soles of his naked hairy feet! Haploidavey (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footwear 

message: The "patrons and clients" section seems only tangential. Expand if possible, or just take out? Trysalandra (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- it's an oddity, and the preamble is distracting. Topically, it relates to social class, so I'll remove the heading, and see how it reads after that. Thanks! Haploidavey (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with a little editing down: it reads more easily. Thanks again. Haploidavey (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand/delete section 

message: The article mentions slaves working in mines being possibly nude but male nudity was apparently more commonplace than that. My High School Latin textbook, for example, had an illustration of Roman life that depicted men of status in togas and naked men working on a ship. The idea was that status could be seen by looking at how the people were dressed. It was also clear that public male nudity was not considered offensive, although it was considered a sign of being low class. The article could do with more information about the role of public nudity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.19 (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public nudity, for instance in and around ships 

message: In the first paragraph, the word "midstep" is used to describe the length of garments. I have searched several online dictionaries for this sense of the word, and come up empty. My guess is that the intent was something equivalent to "midcalf". Perhaps someone with more expertise in ancient Roman clothing could clear this up? Thanks. ZevFarkas (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out; I assumed it would be familiar to most readers, but it's evidently not. Perhaps hyphenated? Anatomical? Or British English? Croom describes the stola as long enough to modestly cover the feet (I've made the changes required). Haploidavey (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was quite a while go, and my memory's not what it was, but I might have intended the anatomical "mid-foot" (and yes, that's not particularly useful either). Haploidavey (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of the word "midstep"