10-11-2017, 12:50 PM
Hi Jason - I'm not sure how I missed this one when you posted it!
There's been a lot of debate about this, and there's no clear answer! While we have some evidence for Roman commanders (Caecina in AD69, Caesar, Emperor Caracalla) adopting items of 'native' costume - coloured cloaks, trousers, capes - it's unknown to what extent Roman soldiers might have done the same. There are records, I think, of military clothing being sent over long distances, so the troops may always have been supplied from central depots.
Then again, auxiliary units would perhaps have preserved items of their local dress more readily, and some of the units depicted on Trajan's Column appear in distinctive costume. There is also, as you say, the near-universal adoption of long-sleeved tunics and trousers in the early 3rd century, which appears to reflect a Germanic or Persian influence, perhaps.
But it does seem that Roman people - civilians, and perhaps soldiers too - were keen on 'barbarian' fashions. The only evidence we have from this comes from the very late empire though. The Theodosian Code (14.10) preserves various rulings that forbid the citizens of the 'venerable city' (Rome, presumably) from wearing various items of costume - 'boots and trousers' (tzangae, bracchae) in a ruling of AD399, 'very long hair' and 'garments of skins' in a law of December 416.
Unfortunately it's not clear whether this was an ongoing prohibition, or just some particular anti-barbarian-fashion drive by Honorius. It does suggest that Roman citizens were wandering about in trousers and boots, wearing leather or fur and growing their hair long prior to this.
There's also a note in Procopius (Secret History, 7) that members of rival circus factions in 6th century Constantinople took to wearing 'barbarian' fashions too:
"They never touched the moustache and beard, but let them grow like the Persians: but they shaved the hair off the front part of their heads as far as the temples, and let it hang down long and in disorder behind, like the Massagetae. For this reason, they used to call this the Hunnic fashion of wearing the hair."
While we probably shouldn't extrapolate too much from this, we might imagine that Romans of previous eras also might have adopted aspects of foreign costume in the same way.
In the earlier era it seems that Roman citizens were permitted to carry arms for self defence, but not if they intended to commit a crime (an odd legal distinction!) - this was true even in the city of Rome. As time went on, carrying weapons seems to have become less accepted - there are references in Roman literature to various people carrying swords about, but in one case (Apuleius, I think, or Petronius?) the sword-carrier is mistaken for a deserter by a party of soldiers.
By the later empire carrying weapons seems to have been forbidden to civilians, although the law is unclear. One ruling, of AD364 (15.15) forbids anyone to carry weapons - "Absolutely no one is granted the ability to wield arms of any description whatsoever without our knowledge and consent" - while another of AD391 (9.14.2) grants citizens the right to resist violence by arms.
These rather vague rulings were apparently relaxed in a law of AD440 (N.Val 9), which allowed the citizens of Italy to carry arms to resist invaders.
(08-13-2017, 07:28 AM)Liburnius Wrote: Was it particularly common to see people in border territories, or soldiers of foreign backgrounds wearing Roman or native-design tunics with Roman or foreign shoes, boots, belts, headwear, etc?
There's been a lot of debate about this, and there's no clear answer! While we have some evidence for Roman commanders (Caecina in AD69, Caesar, Emperor Caracalla) adopting items of 'native' costume - coloured cloaks, trousers, capes - it's unknown to what extent Roman soldiers might have done the same. There are records, I think, of military clothing being sent over long distances, so the troops may always have been supplied from central depots.
Then again, auxiliary units would perhaps have preserved items of their local dress more readily, and some of the units depicted on Trajan's Column appear in distinctive costume. There is also, as you say, the near-universal adoption of long-sleeved tunics and trousers in the early 3rd century, which appears to reflect a Germanic or Persian influence, perhaps.
But it does seem that Roman people - civilians, and perhaps soldiers too - were keen on 'barbarian' fashions. The only evidence we have from this comes from the very late empire though. The Theodosian Code (14.10) preserves various rulings that forbid the citizens of the 'venerable city' (Rome, presumably) from wearing various items of costume - 'boots and trousers' (tzangae, bracchae) in a ruling of AD399, 'very long hair' and 'garments of skins' in a law of December 416.
Unfortunately it's not clear whether this was an ongoing prohibition, or just some particular anti-barbarian-fashion drive by Honorius. It does suggest that Roman citizens were wandering about in trousers and boots, wearing leather or fur and growing their hair long prior to this.
There's also a note in Procopius (Secret History, 7) that members of rival circus factions in 6th century Constantinople took to wearing 'barbarian' fashions too:
"They never touched the moustache and beard, but let them grow like the Persians: but they shaved the hair off the front part of their heads as far as the temples, and let it hang down long and in disorder behind, like the Massagetae. For this reason, they used to call this the Hunnic fashion of wearing the hair."
While we probably shouldn't extrapolate too much from this, we might imagine that Romans of previous eras also might have adopted aspects of foreign costume in the same way.
(08-13-2017, 07:28 AM)Liburnius Wrote: what was the policy of bearing arms in the provinces?
In the earlier era it seems that Roman citizens were permitted to carry arms for self defence, but not if they intended to commit a crime (an odd legal distinction!) - this was true even in the city of Rome. As time went on, carrying weapons seems to have become less accepted - there are references in Roman literature to various people carrying swords about, but in one case (Apuleius, I think, or Petronius?) the sword-carrier is mistaken for a deserter by a party of soldiers.
By the later empire carrying weapons seems to have been forbidden to civilians, although the law is unclear. One ruling, of AD364 (15.15) forbids anyone to carry weapons - "Absolutely no one is granted the ability to wield arms of any description whatsoever without our knowledge and consent" - while another of AD391 (9.14.2) grants citizens the right to resist violence by arms.
These rather vague rulings were apparently relaxed in a law of AD440 (N.Val 9), which allowed the citizens of Italy to carry arms to resist invaders.
Nathan Ross
