This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is one of several would-be "definitive" articles on types of Roman footwear. We also have Calceus and Caligae, and a general article on Sandal. As ever, the definitions and categories seldom accommodate the objects themselves: for example, Caligae are indeed "typically military" but were worn also worn by civilians, and many different patterns were in use. There's tremendous variation in Roman contemporary terminology for footwear, whether military, or civilian, or in some cases both. In many cases we've not a clue what was meant by a particular Latin term for an article of footwear. And curators and scholars acknowledge the tremendous, inventive variety in the footwear itself, notwithstanding the tendency to simplify and standardise in statuary and other artistic renditions. Just to take a couple of examples; where might the "Hellenistic-style high-laced, soft-topped but rather military-looking high-boot shown on some statuary and paintings" be dealt with? Not quite a Caligus, not quite a sandal. When does a calceus or a Caligus become an enclosed "shoe-boot"? Modern scholarship addresses these issues with increasing caution, and I suggest we acknowledge this by having a nicely capacious and broad new article, which would absorb all separate articles on Roman footwear. It would probably be titled Footwear in ancient Rome, based on a sub-section I'm currently working on; Clothing in ancient Rome#Footwear. The new article would be split into subsections, providing targets for linkage. Any objections? Haploidavey (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This sounds very reasonable to me, if you are prepared to do the work. Mabalu (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there's so much material that it can't possibly fit into Clothing in ancient Rome#Footwear, sure, by all means split off a Footwear in ancient Rome. No, that doesn't mean merging back perfectly good articles on the major known and established types. Of course this minor talk page isn't the right venue but kindly copy this opposition wherever this ends up down the line. — LlywelynII 04:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, soccus was Latin for a soccus. It might be glossed as slipper but that doesn't mean it intended the English category of slippers. It intended socci and they happen to be very similar to slippers. — LlywelynII 04:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
