Roman views of \'Barbarians\'

[Robert Vermaat]

Sure, but the point is that the magnate (probably the owner of the villa) and his retainers do wear trousrs, a hunderd years before Honorius.

We can't easily gauge popularity of styles of clothing by looking at mosaics.

We can by looking at what is depicted. In this case it's a very upper class man, sometimes the builder of the Piazza Armerina villa is identified as the Emperor Maxentius. That would be a good indication for popularity.

Do you have a counter theory as to why Honorius enacted his ban on trousers ? The ban was limited to the City of Rome.

Sure I have. Did you forget the anti-Germanic backlash after the murder of Stilicho? This ban (which also indicated that there was something to be banned) looks like may be part of such an anti-barbarian movement, a sort of 'back-to-Roman-values' kind of thing.

What I remember of 5th-c. artistic representation is that military and civilians wear trousers. Only typical archaic stuff shows Hellenistic bare legs. :wink:

Here is a contemporary mosaic from Honorius' time which shows Senators bare-legged. So, trousers were not 'all the rage' with the upper classes or Honorius' ban was successful :lol: :wink:

I go for the latter explanation, or maybe a desire for archaic representation, also by no means uncommon.

Tacitus found it remarkable that one of Vitellius' commanders (Caecina) took to wearing 'parti-coloured plaid and trousers'.

Well, that is a sign of how early this became fashionable. Or practical! Like you said before, wearing leg covers may well have become a practical thing when Roman armies conquered northern lands.