04-10-2001, 06:10 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
A problem with defining Roman vs foreigner is indeed a difficult subject. The definition of Roman is one that shifts with time towards a legal or political definition (someone possessing citizenship) rather than ethnic. A Roman would have considered the Italic <i> socii</i> foreign at the start of the first century BCE, whereas an imperial guardsman from the third century could consider the citizen troops of the provincial armies as belonging to a <i> barbarica legio</i>. In this respect it is also notable that the troops of the Rhine armies, according to what available evidence there is still containing recruits from northern Italy (or is it simply so that only those recruits would leave written testimony?), were considered a foreign band by the Italic population in AD 69 (read Tacitus's <i> Historiae</i>). Even their commander was wearing trousers and a multicoloured (probably Celtic style cheques and stripes) cloak.<br>
<br>
Names are often given a prominent role in distinguishing Roman from provincial and foereigners (ie from across the frontiers). It is little help that troops were apparently given a Roman name on entry in service in the first centuries of the principate. A soldier with the <i> tria nomina</i> need not have been Romanised, it might be that army clerks just had too much difficulty writing his original name down. Ethnic names are becoming more common in the third century CE in inscription even for recruits from territories long within the imperial borders (eg Thracians with names like (Aurelius) Mucapor, Diza and Mucatra) which appears to indicate a shift in administrative practice, perhaps just a sign of enough clerks of Thracian extraction that could finally get the names right. There is also the problem that recruits from the provincials could come eiher from indigenous origin or descend from settled veterans from Italy. To some extent this can be traced back by comparison of names (eg Italic <i> nomen gentilicium</i> or specific <i> cognomen</i>, but in early inscriptions often just <i> praenomen</i> and <i> nomen</i> are used and part of northern Italy (<i> Gallia Cisalpina</i>) received citizenship only very late, so there is a problem with eg a simple C. Iulius.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
A problem with defining Roman vs foreigner is indeed a difficult subject. The definition of Roman is one that shifts with time towards a legal or political definition (someone possessing citizenship) rather than ethnic. A Roman would have considered the Italic <i> socii</i> foreign at the start of the first century BCE, whereas an imperial guardsman from the third century could consider the citizen troops of the provincial armies as belonging to a <i> barbarica legio</i>. In this respect it is also notable that the troops of the Rhine armies, according to what available evidence there is still containing recruits from northern Italy (or is it simply so that only those recruits would leave written testimony?), were considered a foreign band by the Italic population in AD 69 (read Tacitus's <i> Historiae</i>). Even their commander was wearing trousers and a multicoloured (probably Celtic style cheques and stripes) cloak.<br>
<br>
Names are often given a prominent role in distinguishing Roman from provincial and foereigners (ie from across the frontiers). It is little help that troops were apparently given a Roman name on entry in service in the first centuries of the principate. A soldier with the <i> tria nomina</i> need not have been Romanised, it might be that army clerks just had too much difficulty writing his original name down. Ethnic names are becoming more common in the third century CE in inscription even for recruits from territories long within the imperial borders (eg Thracians with names like (Aurelius) Mucapor, Diza and Mucatra) which appears to indicate a shift in administrative practice, perhaps just a sign of enough clerks of Thracian extraction that could finally get the names right. There is also the problem that recruits from the provincials could come eiher from indigenous origin or descend from settled veterans from Italy. To some extent this can be traced back by comparison of names (eg Italic <i> nomen gentilicium</i> or specific <i> cognomen</i>, but in early inscriptions often just <i> praenomen</i> and <i> nomen</i> are used and part of northern Italy (<i> Gallia Cisalpina</i>) received citizenship only very late, so there is a problem with eg a simple C. Iulius.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
