uniforms

[NCSU Mom]

Hi all. I'm new here, just stumbled on this forum last night, so please bear with me in my ignorance.

I am researching clothing as a form of "signpost", such as modern-day uniforms signifying law-enforment, military, politician,etc. Most specifically, I remember some time ago running across mention of a "beggars coat" (which was probably actually a robe or vest-type of thing) which signified a person's "license to beg".

Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks in advance!!

Edited December 6, 2010 by NCSU Mom

[Melvadius]

There were some items of apparel which were an indicator of class liek the toga virilis (the toga of an adult man) which is explained at length on the Lacus Cirtius site. In addition I beleive slaves probably had identifying garments but apart from that while some professions may have had specific apparel in most cases I suspect these have not been recorded.

 

Although it may be buried somewhere in one of Mommsen's volumes on Roman Law; I do not remember noticing any Roman reference to a specific requirement for a "beggars coat". However, on a quick search it does seem to crop up on several sites as writings relating to a Biblical story.

 

If it originates in the Bible then my assumption would be that it probably derives from Hebrew religious practices, which had the force of law in most of Palestine despite the Roman presence, rather than being a specifically Roman legal practice.

[caldrail]

There were conventions about clothing in Roman times that went above fashion, such as the toga as a symbol of formal authority, but be careful, because the Romans were concerned with status in terms of clothing rather than affiliation, thus legionaries clothing varies and there's no specific mention in the sources that I know of concerning military uniforms, since legionary clothing and equipment was designed with a functional rather than symbolic ideal. Certainly, as still happens, the quality of clothing is a visual guide to a persons wealth and in Rome that meant an outward display of your social status. Look how irate Caligula got when a visiting king went to the arena in a fine purple cloak. Caligula soon got rid of him for that faux pas. In terms of fashion, the cloak was probably little different to anyone elses apart possibly for an ethnic origin, but that the colour and quality were the factors that caught our naughty emperors eye. Colour was very important to Romans.

[Maty]

There were a few pointers one could get from a toga - e.g. Black togas meant mourning, white togas meant candidates (in fact that's where the word comes from; the toga candida), a broad purple stripe meant a senator, a narrow stripe an equestrian. Also, there are indications that in times of military emergency, togas were not worn in public life. And of course only Roman citizens could wear togas

 

A purple cloak meant a conquering general (an imperator) which probably why Caligula took exception to someone else wearing one in his presence.

 

I recall (I think from Livy) that it was mooted that slaves should have to wear distinctive dress, but this was voted down as it was considered dangerous for slaves to know how numerous they were.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Maty