Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Quote:And yet, the questions still go unanswered. Why is there not the bravery on some person's part to step forward and say: Clavii meant nothing! Sagums were a square piece of cloth worn by anyone!
The question is begged over and over.
As I read this discussion, you introduced the sagum as a military cloack, while Graham tells us that it could be worn by civilians as well. What question remains?
MIND YOUR QUOTING!
Posts: 775
Threads: 44
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:Vortigern StudiesAs I read this discussion, you introduced the sagum as a military cloack, while Graham tells us that it could be worn by civilians as well. What question remains?
To recap:
The "white" forces generally take the position that your tunic as a soldier can be any color you want, so long as it is white.
I introduced a picture of a mosaic showing what looks suspiciously like a a soldier wearing a green tunic with clavii.
The "white" forces demurred for a variety of reasons saying among other things it was a mosaic of an agricultural worker.
I pointed out he was wearing a tunic with clavii (hence a Roman citizen) and a sagum (military garb-hence a soldier).
The "white" forces stated, I think quite clearly, that clavii signify nothing and less clearly that the sagum is just a square piece of cloth that was worn by everyone, slaves included.
Oh, and the "white" forces pointed out the subject was next to a pig.
Hence, the "white" forces argue, what we see is clearly a slave.
I am unpersuaded.
At least in the early times, the clavii meant nobility and later citizenship. The Romans were stuck on formality. The "everyone wore everything" argument does not square with this tendency of theirs nor does it seem a proven proposition.
The sagum is depicted many times in military grave steles and is frequently pictured draped with the right (sword) arm free and the rest thrown over the left shoulder. This even appears in several figures, I think, in one of Graham Sumner's books and are identified as soldiers. The stylization is the same: Sagum draped over the left shoulder, sword arm free.
The entire mosaic shows Neptune as a central figure, with what appear to be scenes from everyday life. It also shows nude guys and gals.
To me, it does not follow that this particular figure is a slave. He carries several baskets and a pig is nearby, but given the variety of thematic material in the mosaic, it is a leap of logic to say this is a slave, when he is depicted with many of the features of a soldier.
John
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Quote:The "white" forces generally take the position that your tunic as a soldier can be any color you want, so long as it is white.
I say you are dreaming. You learly haven't been reading the posts in this discussion very well. I cannot see any 'white forces" in this discussion, nor continuous claims that a uniform should lways be white.
Furthermore, I doubt that you have read any of Graham Sumner's books, which is a real shame.
As to the figure with baskets & pig, no one can claim that he is a slave, or a worker, or a soldier. Mind you, I would not opt for the latter myself because he's completely unarmed, which is odd. I would not want to choose between a slave or free man, either, since we simply cannot tell without any references. Can you give us more info about that image? A date? Place?
Clavi wereused on tunics of slaves, btw - they can be seen in some of the Villa Armerina mosaics, where servants with unbelted tunics have clavi like the masters they serve.
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Robert,
I have read the books and seen many images etc. I agree with the arguments of the sagum and clavii and I also agree that we cannot simply state with certainty the nature of this man. However, you mentioned that you would not opt for the soldier since he is not armed. But can we categorically say that a soldier had to always be armed even if there was no impending danger? Ergo if a mosaic shows an armed man he is probably a soldier if not then he is not a soldier but something else.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 1,966
Threads: 79
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
22
John
After logging in I have just spent the last couple of hours writing you a reply and checking that I had my facts correct. So when I sent the post off you can imagine that I was well p****d off when I got a message saying I was not logged in and it was all lost :evil: :evil: . A lesson for us all!
So apologies for the following brief and my very annoyed by now response. Not aimed at you John by the way but the idiot typing this! :oops:
I did not think the character you showed was a soldier. Hence he is not in Roman Military Dress.' Why? No weapons or shield. The mosaic is 'Neptune and the Seasons' and appears to show farm workers in between the deities. Columella said you should get a Sagum for your farm workers!
There are other examples from North Africa which show similar characters in rural scenes See K.M.D. Dunbabin's book 'The Mosaics of Roman North Africa'. I did helpfully suggest earlier that he could be a veteran as opposed to just being a slave.
RMD gives references to Saga militaria However Martial mentions the Sagum in a civilian context as does the later Price Edict. Simple answer then , yes the sagum could be worn by anyone, except when various individuals tried to ban it!! References in RMD.
Many images in Dunbabin's book are in B&W so thanks for showing this one in colour. If you or anyone else can find an image of the Calender Mosaic from El Djem in colour, the month March represented by Mars might be of interest, Mars is with two men. They might be military so it would be interesting to see what colours their clothes are!
Any source relating to military clothing colour of any colour is of interest to me and will be included in any future editions. Generally any new stuff seems to match up with what I already have and if you have RMD you will see in colour catalogue no 14 page 121 there is a reference to a man in a green tunic with a red cloak from a fresco found at Stabiae. Why is he in then and not yours? Because he is spearing his boar with a very large spear and is not chasing it with baskets! NB. there are arguments against even hunters in mosaic scenes being soldiers either, just because they have weapons. as just mentioned in the previous post above.
Clavi. Any coffee table book on Romans should dispel any ideas that only soldiers wore tunics hitched up around the waist and with clavi. However if you can, get M.Pausch Der Romische Tunika that has lots of images and traces the history of the tunic.
As Robert said you can not have read RMD and allude to me as the 'white' Forces! :roll: I would not have said that a Sagum is square, they are not, they are longer than they are wide but the man is standing next to a pig (boar)!
Sorry again lots of other points on Sagum cloaks, cloaks in general and clavi were all lost. I even mentioned Antony in the series 'Rome' being told off for (deliberately) wearing his 'military cloak' within the city!
P.S Look how the Toga changes very little before Augustus and the Empire compared to how often it changes afterwards. I imagine the tunic with clavi going through the same process. While Rome was small and a very conservative Republic it would have been easy to control and regulate things. After Augustus they sort of gave up. Nonetheless and this is a hard point to put across Cicero would have been appalled if he saw what Romulus wore and yet he considered himself a guardian of traditional Roman values. Equally he would have been horrified if he knew what was coming, i.e tunics with long sleeves and trousers. The Romans were still trying to ban them in the fifth century!
Hope this helps you a bit in spite of losing most of the stuff I wanted to send you!
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Graham,
You may have seen this before. If not, here is a site I think has the pictures you were asking about. I cannot exactly make out the colors that well, but one could see some indications.
http://www.sitesandphotos.com/catalog/p ... 36939.html
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 1,966
Threads: 79
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
22
Thanks Paolo
That is what I love about RAT! I have been looking for that image for some time.
Quote:I cannot exactly make out the colors that well, but one could see some indications.
Sadly you are right. That clothing and colours in that particular scene are still a bit open to interpretation! Answers anyone?
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Well,
The color of the tunic on the man to the left appears to be a dark greenish color. But it could also be a deep purple, blue........ The greens, purples, and blues do compliment each other and at certain shades are difficult to distinguish especially when small or far away.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Graham,
It also appears that many of the figures in the mosaics have green but are around wild animals, like a hunt of sorts. There is one man carrying a basket with fish but he is wearing a white tunic with thin clavii.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 1,513
Threads: 210
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
1
Quote:After logging in I have just spent the last couple of hours writing you a reply and checking that I had my facts correct. So when I sent the post off you can imagine that I was well p****d off when I got a message saying I was not logged in and it was all lost :evil: :evil: . A lesson for us all!
Side note to the discussion: After doing the same thing a couple times I now type out long replies in a Word document and copy and paste. It's saved me a few times!
Posts: 3,079
Threads: 50
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
20
If I write a long post I generally highlight and copy it before submitting it. This means I can paste it back on again if the posting is somehow lost. I too have lost long and carefully researched posts in the past and I understand the frustration this causes.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Posts: 775
Threads: 44
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:I doubt that you have read any of Graham Sumner's books, which is a real shame.
Actually, he mentions me in the credits of his last book in the back.
Quote:As to the figure with baskets & pig, no one can claim that he is a slave, or a worker, or a soldier. Mind you, I would not opt for the latter myself because he's completely unarmed, which is odd.
And why would soldiers always be pictured armed? If this is your criteria, you are ruling out lots of potential evidence for what soldiers looked like. Why would the boar not be a military symbol?
Quote:Clavi wereused on tunics of slaves, btw - they can be seen in some of the Villa Armerina mosaics, where servants with unbelted tunics have clavi like the masters they serve.
Why is the assumption made, as you have in this case, that persons pictured doing menial labor are slaves? Why would Roman artists constantly picture slaves and not freemen? Why would they show slaves richly dressed and not as they would have been-in rags? Perhaps this mosaic (Villa Armerina) seeks to depict slaves, but is this the rule to be followed in all mosaics? Are all persons depicted doing menial labor assumed to be slaves, no matter what other features are shown?
And yes, I think that there is a general argument made in this thread that Roman soldiers must have been clothed in white and not in colors. For example, in this thread:
-White shows status because it requires cleaning.
-The bulk of the surviving orders for cloth for soldiers call for white cloth.
-A general resistance to any notion Roman soldiers would have worn green.
CAVEAT: MY ARGUMENTS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST IDEAS, NOT PEOPLE
John
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Posts: 775
Threads: 44
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
0
My reply to Graham Sumner's lengthy and most recent post: Good show!
John
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Posts: 303
Threads: 36
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:Why is the assumption made, as you have in this case, that persons pictured doing menial labor are slaves? Why would Roman artists constantly picture slaves and not freemen? Why would they show slaves richly dressed and not as they would have been-in rags? Perhaps this mosaic (Villa Armerina) seeks to depict slaves, but is this the rule to be followed in all mosaics? Are all persons depicted doing menial labor assumed to be slaves, no matter what other features are shown?
Why are you assuming that all slaves wore rags? Some slaves wore rags. Some slaves wore really nice clothes. Some freeman/citizens wore rags. Some wore really nice clothes. The argument that anyone doing menial labor may or may not be a slave is a decent one. I assume that in some cases, there are clues in how people are drawn or from the context of the picture that denotes status.
Quote:And yes, I think that there is a general argument made in this thread that Roman soldiers must have been clothed in white and not in colors. For example, in this thread:
-White shows status because it requires cleaning.
There's also a huge tradition of white in military clothing as well, probably because it's easier to bleach a whole load of white trousers than to separate out colors in laundry. Military clothing does not necessarily follow the same fashion rules as civilian clothing.
----------
Deb
Sulpicia Lepdinia
Legio XX
Posts: 775
Threads: 44
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:Why are you assuming that all slaves wore rags? Some slaves wore rags. Some slaves wore really nice clothes. Some freeman/citizens wore rags. Some wore really nice clothes. The argument that anyone doing menial labor may or may not be a slave is a decent one. I assume that in some cases, there are clues in how people are drawn or from the context of the picture that denotes status.
They may have, but why would an artist go to the trouble to depict slaves when they were not accorded much significance? Why are all the figures slaves? Why depict slaves at all? Why not citizens, allegorical figures and soldiers, all of whom have more status than slaves?
Quote:There's also a huge tradition of white in military clothing as well, probably because it's easier to bleach a whole load of white trousers than to separate out colors in laundry. Military clothing does not necessarily follow the same fashion rules as civilian clothing.
Ah! The white "forces" are at it again! There is no such rule! Military uniforms abound in colors!
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
|
