Roman views of \'Barbarians\'

[sonic]

Hi all,

wondering if you could help?

We all know that, in general, 'barbarians' were regarded as inferior by the Roman elites. I also know that there is evidence that the lower classes had a different view: Peter Heather states as much in the preface to 'Goths and Romans 332-489'.

However, he also states that he is not going to cover the topic in the book!

To save me from ploughing through this book (and others!), is there anybody who can give me original sources for the views of the lower classes to the use of 'barbarians' within the army etc? I've just got hold of Augustine's Letters, but are there any others which can help?

Thanks in advance

Sonic

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Sonic / Ian,

Barbarian dress became popular with the civilian lower classes. It was so popular that the Western Emperor Honorius felt the need to issue a ban on anyone from wearing trousers in the city of Rome. (Codex Theodosianus 14.10.2-3, tr. C. Pharr, "The Theodosian Code," p. 415)

If I find more examples I'll post them here.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

Barbarian dress became popular with the civilian lower classes. It was so popular that the Western Emperor Honorius felt the need to issue a ban on anyone from wearing trousers in the city of Rome. (Codex Theodosianus 14.10.2-3, tr. C. Pharr, "The Theodosian Code," p. 415)

There are enough trousers on the Piazza Armerina mosaics to counter that view of the lower classes liking them. :wink:

[Theodosius the Great]

Most of the mosaic figures seem to be wearing leg wrappings if not trousers - both are barbarian in origin, afaik.

And I wonder if trousers may have been seasonal apparel for Roman civilians in the Late Empire.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

Most of the mosaic figures seem to be wearing leg wrappings if not trousers - both are barbarian in origin, afaik.

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.

As to the barbarian origins - why?

And I wonder if trousers may have been seasonal apparel for Roman civilians in the Late Empire.

Explain?

[Theodosius the Great]

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.

I'm sure trousers probably became socially acceptable in civilian circles by the mid-3rd century AD. But were they the dominant fashion ? Honorius's law would seem to suggest that trousers had recently become very popular by his day, at least in the City of Rome. Perhaps the Romans (i.e. the people of the Capital) were more conservative in their dress than the provincials like the Sicilians in your mosaics and had been the last civilians to adopt trousers so readily. Certainly by Honorius' time the civilians had greater exposure to barbarians than ever before.

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

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:

As to the barbarian origins - why?

As a style of dress, yes. The only other culture, afaik, who permitted trousers were the Persians. I know of no depictions of Greco-Roman civilian men covering their legs before the 3rd century AD.

In earlier times, Quintilianus says that leg wrappings were suitable only for invalids. To cover one's legs was considered effeminate in earlier times - only women did that. Hence, the embarrassment inflicted on soldiers being disciplined by their officers confiscating their belts which allowed their tunics to fall to their ankles- like a woman's :lol:

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

Dio Cassius also speaks of Septimius Severus who "filled the city [Rome] with a throng of motley soldiers, most savage in appearance, most terrifying in their talk, and most uncultured to associate with."

And I wonder if trousers may have been seasonal apparel for Roman civilians in the Late Empire.

Explain?

Just that. Civilians may have worn trousers during the winter months. I hear that Rome can get pretty hot in the summer, so ditching one's trousers would be a great relief, I would think. There are mosaics from the same period which show bare legs and while others show trousers.

~Theo

[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.

[Tarbicus]

Is anyone taking into account climate? During the 1st-C AD it was very mild across all of Europe IIRC, but didn't it cool down at some point? It's not likely Honorius would go cold, but peasants certainly would.

[Sean Manning]

I believe that in Imperator Justinian's day the young thugs of Constantinople had a fashion for 'Gothic' dress. Procopius would be the source for details, I think. On the other hand, adopting foreign dress doesn't have to mean that you like those foreigners, just that you think they are cool.

[Theodosius the Great]

Vortigern,

Good points, good theory.

Back to your original point : so you're saying that the lower class civilians did not wear trousers or, at least, trousers were not popular with the lower classes, right ? And you base this on the Piazza Armerina mosaics ?

I believe that in Imperator Justinian's day the young thugs of Constantinople had a fashion for 'Gothic' dress. Procopius would be the source for details, I think.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Actually, Procopius says that some of the Greens or Blues adopted Hunnic dress and fashion.

Procopius says they were "not cutting their hair like other Romans, and allowed the beard and moustache to grow as the Persians do. They had the hair at the front of the head cut back to the temples ; at the back it grew long and disorderly like the Huns'. They dressed in a refined way, with the sleeves of their tunics tight at the wrists but very wide from the wrists to the shoulders, favoring mantles, trousers, and, for the most part, footwear following the shape and style of the Huns..."

On the other hand, adopting foreign dress doesn't have to mean that you like those foreigners, just that you think they are cool.

True, it may indicate that the lower classes were more receptive to barbarian influence than the rich and powerful.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

Vortigern,
Good points, good theory.
Back to your original point : so you're saying that the lower class civilians did not wear trousers or, at least, trousers were not popular with the lower classes, right ? And you base this on the Piazza Armerina mosaics ?

Nonono, you mistook me there.
I merely made a point with the Piazza Armerina mosaics to show that a) trousers were worn in high society and b) they were worn a century before Honorius.

I'm not saying trousers were unpopular with the lower classes. But now that you mention it.. The Piazza Armerina mosaics by themselves seem to show a division between masters/soldiers on the one hand, and servants/slaves on the other, if I've interpreted the roles right. Trousers for the former, wraps for the latter.

So maybe it was something for the rich and their military retainers? Maybe pants cost a bob or two, and the lower classes made do with wraps, at least in te warmer climates?

[sonic]

Vortigern,

Good points, good theory.

Back to your original point : so you're saying that the lower class civilians did not wear trousers or, at least, trousers were not popular with the lower classes, right ? And you base this on the Piazza Armerina mosaics ?

I believe that in Imperator Justinian's day the young thugs of Constantinople had a fashion for 'Gothic' dress. Procopius would be the source for details, I think.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Actually, Procopius says that some of the Greens or Blues adopted Hunnic dress and fashion.

Procopius says they were "not cutting their hair like other Romans, and allowed the beard and moustache to grow as the Persians do. They had the hair at the front of the head cut back to the temples ; at the back it grew long and disorderly like the Huns'. They dressed in a refined way, with the sleeves of their tunics tight at the wrists but very wide from the wrists to the shoulders, favoring mantles, trousers, and, for the most part, footwear following the shape and style of the Huns..."

On the other hand, adopting foreign dress doesn't have to mean that you like those foreigners, just that you think they are cool.

True, it may indicate that the lower classes were more receptive to barbarian influence than the rich and powerful.

~Theo

Does their being 'more receptive to barbarian influence than the rich and powerful' mean that they had a different attitude to 'barbarians'?

If so, this brings us back to my original question in the first post:
We all know that, in general, 'barbarians' were regarded as inferior by the Roman elites. I also know that there is evidence that the lower classes had a different view ... is there anybody who can give me original sources for the views of the lower classes to the use of 'barbarians' within the army etc? I've just got hold of Augustine's Letters, but are there any others which can help?

It would appear that the law regarding dress and the change in dress implied by mosaics suggests that the 'elites' view of the 'barbarians' being 'sub-human' was not shared by all. Does anyone know of any other examples?

Like I said earlier, Heather states that there are examples to be found in literature coming from the Balkans, so unless somebody can help, I've got a @@*&&%% (insert own swear word!) lot of reading to do - most of it unconnected with the subject!!

[Robert Vermaat]

Does their being 'more receptive to barbarian influence than the rich and powerful' mean that they had a different attitude to 'barbarians'?

If so, this brings us back to my original question in the first post:
We all know that, in general, 'barbarians' were regarded as inferior by the Roman elites. I also know that there is evidence that the lower classes had a different view ... is there anybody who can give me original sources for the views of the lower classes to the use of 'barbarians' within the army etc? I've just got hold of Augustine's Letters, but are there any others which can help?

I posted 3 mins before you..

As I said above, I'm not convinced this is the case - it seems like military and higher classes connected to them may have been the ones donning 'barbarian clothing' before the lower classes did. Procopius' description of the circus rabble (hooligans would be a better word) dressing as 'Huns' (hair, boots, trousers I assume) took place centuries after generals and emperors and their troops donned barbarian garb.

I'm aslo not convinced of the supposed 'sub-human' view of barbarians by Romans. A few reading suggestions (I'm there's better stuff around, but this is from my bibliography):

Burns, Thomas S. (1994): Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: a Study of Roman Military Policy and the Barbarians, ca. 375-425 A.D., (Indiana University Press).

Cunliffe, Barry W. (1975): Rome and the Barbarians, (London).

Harries, Jill D. (1992): Sidonius Appolinaris, Rome and the barbarians: a climate of treason?, in: Drinkwater, J.F. and Hugh Elton eds.: Fifth-century Gaul: a Crisis of Identity?, (Cambridge), pp. 298-308.

Liebeschütz, J.H.W.G. (1990): Barbarians and Bishops, Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Roberts, M. (1992): Barbarians in Gaul: the response of the poets, in: Drinkwater, J.F. and Hugh Elton eds.: Fifth-century Gaul: a Crisis of Identity?, (Cambridge), pp. 97-106.

Sivan, Hagith S. (1996): Why Not Marry a Barbarian? Marital Frontiers in Late Antiquity (The Example of Cth 3.14.1), in: Sivan and Mathisen, Shifting Frontiers, pp. 136-145.

[sonic]

Does their being 'more receptive to barbarian influence than the rich and powerful' mean that they had a different attitude to 'barbarians'?

If so, this brings us back to my original question in the first post:
We all know that, in general, 'barbarians' were regarded as inferior by the Roman elites. I also know that there is evidence that the lower classes had a different view ... is there anybody who can give me original sources for the views of the lower classes to the use of 'barbarians' within the army etc? I've just got hold of Augustine's Letters, but are there any others which can help?

I posted 3 mins before you..

As I said above, I'm not convinced this is the case - it seems like military and higher classes connected to them may have been the ones donning 'barbarian clothing' before the lower classes did.

....

I'm aslo not convinced of the supposed 'sub-human' view of barbarians by Romans.

Thanks for the bibliography. I think I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and do a heck of a lot of reading.

When discussing the military and higher classes connected to barbarians, are we necessarily talking about the 'elites' as defined by traditional classicists? I would suggest that military men such as Ammianus, trained in the classics and writing history, would tend to follow traditional topoi - although Ammianus himself may be exceptional in that he attempts to be honest.

Yet from what I can gather doesn't the vast majority of literature that survives come from the educated elite who pursued civilian posts? These men weren't connected to the barbarians and so dismissed them and all who were influenced by them.

When you say that you're not convinced by the 'supposed 'sub-human' view of barbarians by Romans', you are going against the view held by many classicists and historians, who base their views almost entirely on a biased reading of Sidonius and others like him who were not involved in military affairs.

I also am not convinced that all Romans shared this view - hence the thread!! Yet I am struggling to find primary sources to support this.

[Robert Vermaat]

When discussing the military and higher classes connected to barbarians, are we necessarily talking about the 'elites' as defined by traditional classicists? I would suggest that military men such as Ammianus, trained in the classics and writing history, would tend to follow traditional topoi - although Ammianus himself may be exceptional in that he attempts to be honest.

I'm not familiar enough with classicism to answer that. Ammianus, although surely a pragmatic writer, liked to use archaic words and images.

Yet from what I can gather doesn't the vast majority of literature that survives come from the educated elite who pursued civilian posts? These men weren't connected to the barbarians and so dismissed them and all who were influenced by them.

I think that is indeed correct. Generals did not write, and men like Ammianus or Procopius are the exception - which is why they survived, as models for later generations. Personally I think that it is more of a miracle that we still have Sidonius' bad poetry than Ammianus' observations. Uninteresting stuff was less copied. Histories, military and religious books had something to offer. Meaning, we lack a good common view of what Romans thought about non-Romans. Most is from the period when the barbarians began to be a problem.

When you say that you're not convinced by the 'supposed 'sub-human' view of barbarians by Romans', you are going against the view held by many classicists and historians, who base their views almost entirely on a biased reading of Sidonius and others like him who were not involved in military affairs.

Dunno 'bout that, sir. :wink:
I say you have to look at actions, not just at writings. Paper is patient, as they say over here. So when I hear or see emperors and their retinue in barbarian garb, I assume there must be some admiration, not ideas of a sub-human enemy.[/quote]