dyeing linen

[John M McDermott]

Members of the Senatorial class were supposed to have wide stripes roughly a fingers length in width and those of the Equestrian class stripes roughly a fingers width in width. However it is clear these rules were not followed and if you look at the tunic Martin has just reconstructed based on an original, shown in another thread, clearly that individual was wearing a tunic with clavi far bigger than what they were entitled too. It is just human nature.

Roman sources say the Sagum was Gallic in origin so presumably the Romans would have called something like the Thorsberg cloak a Sagum. They adopted the design and It did become a popular military cloak and "putting on the Sagum' was seen as a term for going to war. It is nevertheless one of many rectangular cloaks. It was probably the weight, quality and colour or all three which distinguished it to the Romans from other cloaks at a particular time. The clothing changes all the time and sometimes new terminology comes in for old fashions. The Carracalla for instance is really a slightly longer Paenula.

Well, neither comment directly addresses the question.

Did the clavii have any significance? If everyone, including slaves wore it at will, then it would seem logical to conclude that it was merely fashion, like the polka dot, and had no meaning whatsoever. This would seem to require more explanation, eg. perhaps it started that way, but changed in later periods. Otherwise, you're stuck with the conclusion that it was simply something stuck on a tunic with no thought of formality at all.

The same with the sagum. Was it really just a square piece of cloth? A square piece of cloth is a square piece of cloth at the end of the day. It follows then that trying to attach military significance to it is a waste of time? Why worry about sagums? They are, after all, just another square piece of cloth.