About History: Was underwear worn by ancient Romans?

In a previous Tastes Of History post on How To: Dress as an ancient Roman brief mention was made of underwear. A letter discovered at Vindolanda Roman Fort, tablet 346, sent to a soldier probably from his home in Batavia [1] refers to socks (udones), underpants (subligaria) and sandals (soleae) being dispatched to him. Other tablets preserved from the excavations at the fort also reference underwear so we can be fairly confident that, just like us, Romans wore such clothing. What form this took is a little harder to discern, however. Roman writers left descriptions of clothing, hairstyles, jewellery and the fashion of the wealthy elites but almost nothing about underwear. So, it is uncertain whether Roman underwear was a tailored garment or a more straightforward loin- or breechcloth. Predictably most organic textiles have vanished from the archaeological record, and the few garments and images that do survive present inconclusive evidence. This lack of proof has led to competing interpretations of Roman underwear.

We can be relatively certain that Roman women had something akin to a bra known as a strophium. This was a simple band of cloth wrapped about the bust to provide support. Interestingly Ursula Rothe, professor of Roman archaeology and history at the Open University, suggests that garment speaks volumes about Roman beauty ideals. According to Rothe: “A big bust was considered a bit coarse and barbaric.” It appears that the fuller chest was associated with lower status since elite Roman women typically did not breast feed their own children relying instead on wet nurses. In Roman society it was assumed that a woman with a large bust was breastfeeding her own children. Thus, a tightly wrapped strophium formed part of a wider system of visual cues signalling one’s refinement and social status.

A 4th-century mosaic in the Villa Romana del Casale, Sicily (pictured right) depicts young women exercising wearing subligacula (loincloths) and strophia (breastbands). Yet it is difficult to draw any conclusions about underwear from this one image. It is a late-antique mosaic belonging to a specific decorative tradition which may not represent the underwear worn through the Roman empire’s many centuries of existence or across its geographical expanse. Moreover, from the available evidence it seems these garments may only have been worn in contexts where clothing was shed to undertake strenuous physical activity or, as shown, exercise.

As stated, no identifiable fabric subligacula have survived, but archaeologists have found versions made of more durable leather. One such, identified as belonging to a woman, was excavated from a Roman well discovered in Queen Victoria Street, London. Now in the Museum of London, it consists of thin leather briefs tied at the sides with laces as shown right. This subligaculum remained a unique archaeological discovery for many years until others were found, some of which are richly decorated. Most of these later discoveries have been made in Roman London, with one found in Mainz, Germany. Such garments were likely worn by young female dancers or gymnasts, such as those shown in the Villa Romana del Casale mosaic, and not as daily underwear.

As for Roman men, we have evidence for loincloths from literary sources as described above, but also from images of labourers, athletes and enslaved workers depicted without their outer layers. Gladiators, such as those in the Borghese Villa mosaic pictured above, are shown wearing a subligaculum. This style of garment was a functional and essential part of their attire, offering modesty and freedom of movement in combat. Even so, we cannot be certain that similar underwear was routinely worn beneath tunics. Some Roman literature describes men falling over and accidentally exposing themselves. Such tales imply the absence of underwear, but it is hardly conclusive.

Our lack of knowledge about Roman underwear seems counterintuitive given what we do understand about Roman society with its communal bathing, open latrines, shared sleeping arrangements and household hierarchies where the enslaved routinely witnessed their masters undressed. With such a lack of apparent privacy, perhaps underwear was just not as important to Romans as a marker of modesty or personal privacy as it is for many cultures today. So, did the average Roman wear underwear? It is not entirely clear. Some may have worn undergarments beneath their tunics, but equally many probably did not. Bon appétit!

---

Reference:

Osborne, J., (March 2026), “We still can’t be sure if the Romans wore underwear”, What we’ve learned this month, History Extra Magazine, London: Immediate Media, p. 18.

Endnote:

1. Batavia is a historical and geographical region in the Netherlands, forming large fertile islands in the river delta formed by the waters of the Rhine (Dutch: Rijn) and Meuse (Dutch: Maas) rivers. ▲