Tunic color

[Tarbicus]

Okay, I'll go with the flow. If anyone wants to discuss the subject further you can email me at: tarbystunics*at*aol.com

:wink:

[drsrob]

[Due to a swerve OT this thread has been split in two]

Marsh has a point in a way. From now on, please refrain from rehashing the same opinions. I welcome discussion on this subject, but ONLY when statements are backed up with SOURCES (and no, "IIRC" or "Some book" or "Somewhere in Livy" do not count as sources).

At one time a debate on tunic colours got terribly out of hand. Of course we wouldn't want to have that happen again. But it hasn't. Those that participate in the debate here respect each other's opinion as far as I can see.
And opinions are used everywhere. As long as they are not stated as facts I see no problem with that.

Surely the solution cannot be to never mention the subject again?

[drsrob]

The jews of Josephus' days wore white tunics with purple clavi too, so no it wouldn't. A sagum is itself of Gallic origin and the Gauls would not have respectfully laid of this pattern when the Romans adopted it. It is worn widely by auxiliaries, for instance. The paludamentum was indeed a purely Roman piece of clothing, but it was red or scarlet for generals.

Good points, thanks. Genuine question - where do you get the info that a general's paladumentum was red?

Cheers.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 22.iii,3:

... coccum imperatoriis dicatum paludamentis....

coccum is the origin of scarlet dye (cochinelle in French).

Plutarch, Live of Crassus, 23

It is related that Crassus came abroad that day not in his scarlet robe, which Roman generals usually wear, but in a black one, which, as soon as he perceived, he changed.

Silius Italicus, Punica, 9.419-420:

isque ut Varronem procul inter proelia vidit
et iuxta sagulo circumvolitare rubenti

[Praefectusclassis]

And opinions are used everywhere. As long as they are not stated as facts I see no problem with that.

I agree, as long as it's clear that they are opinions and are not repeated ad nauseam INSTEAD of sources.

Surely the solution cannot be to never mention the subject again?

But that's not what I said. Feel free to continue the discussion as you did Rob, with sources to back up you arguments. That way, everyone can learn something.

[drsrob]

All right, here goes:

The Clavii originally did have meaning, but the provincials, like the Jews seem to have copied the style without giving though to precedents of rank or standing. This practice reminds me of the modern phenomena of American Levis jeans being worn all over the world as status symbols.

a tunic with clavi is - I believe - a common style in the Hellenistic world. One of two paintings on the Alexander Sacofagus already show this style. So the borrowing might have been the other way round.
As far as I know, our Roman sources just refer to the difference between wide and small clavi and they date from the early empire. Unfortanetely I don't know what they are. That they are late is the consensus (my old Latin dictionary). Wide clavi are the distinction of senators, while small ones are used by knights.
The words are mainly used to distinguish between senatorial and non-senatorial tribunes. The last ones are always knights so it is assumed that the small clavi are a distinction of the knightly class. However there is to my knowledge no proof for this assumption. (If there is, please correct me!)
I rather think that all tunics had clavi, and the senator's only were distinguished by a broad one.

[drsrob]

Okay, I'll go with the flow. If anyone wants to discuss the subject further you can email me at: tarbystunics*at*aol.com

:wink:

I prefer to argue with you in public, so that others may learn too and just the two of us

[Tarbicus]

:wink: You're sure now? I'll delete the AOL screen name, 'cos nobody's sent a message yet and it's just a waste. Last chance?

Cheers.

[drsrob]

:wink: You're sure now? I'll delete the AOL screen name, 'cos nobody's sent a message yet and it's just a waste. Last chance?

Cheers.

You have mail...