SPQR

[Anonymous]

Most of you have probably seen the movie "Gladiator". Maximus has the "mark of the legion," on his left arm. The tattoo is SPQR, which stands for senate and people of Rome. I have a friend who says that he has read that this marking is historically accurate, but I have yet to find a word of it. Please help shed some light on this problem. <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

Strictly the 'mark of the standards' (<em>puncta signorum</em>), mentioned by Vegetius (<em>Epitoma Rei Militaris</em> I,8 and II,5). It appears to have been a late Roman phenomenon and it is later made compulsory for workers in the state arms factories (Cod. Theod. X.22,4), that piece of text making it clear that it was done on the arm 'in imitation of recruits' and that it was the 'state mark' (<em>nota publica</em>). It is briefly discussed by Watson* p.50-1 with n.99. That it was SPQR is supposition on the part of the film-makers.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop<br>
<br>
G.R. Watson, <em>The Roman Soldier</em>, London 1969 <p></p><i></i>

[Matthew Amt]

Gosh, we're still doing damage control from Gladiator, eh?<br>
<br>
My understanding is that SPQR ("Senatus Populusque Romanus", The Senate and the People of Rome) was something put on official documents and public monuments, and had no military connotations at all. I'm not up on the late Empire, but sources like the Osprey books interpret the soldier's mark as a brand (not a tattoo), the letter M for "miles" (soldier). And while it was applied to the grunts to prevent desertion, there's no reason for an aristocratic officer to be marked as a soldier.<br>
<br>
My usual warning is to assume that everything you see in Gladiator is NOT historically accurate, and work from there. Any little historical bits that do sneak in can be considered gravy.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>sources like the Osprey books interpret the soldier's mark as a brand (not a tattoo)</em><br>
<br>
Must be true then ;-) V's use of <em>puncta</em> (literally 'pricked') implies tatooing, but Latin is notoriously imprecise. Branding may be one of those factoids that needs flushing out of the system, unless anyone can come up with a decent source.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

if it is in a book or movie, then it is always true! <p>-------------------------------------------------------<br>
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings -- they did it by killing all those who opposed them.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[Matthew Amt]

Hah, that's why I tried to qualify my statement! I remember one of those books being pretty explicit about branding, but as always, who knows?<br>
<br>
That's certainly more evidence than I'd ever heard that the Romans did tattooing at all (not that I've looked!).<br>
<br>
Well, just goes to show ya, you can't trust ANYone! (But you can still trust us more than Ridley Scott...)<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus <p></p><i></i>