Roman Travel And Authentication

[Guest globalwarmer]

Hi,

I was wondering how Roman citizens proved they were citizens while travelling. Did they have to carry papers or scrolls? I understand that they were city orientated for social reasons but there had to be many travellers. Did they just tell people they were Roman citizens with dire consequences if they lied? If they had to carry paper proof what happened if they lost it, or were robbed of it?

[Andrew Dalby]

Hi,

I was wondering how Roman citizens proved they were citizens while travelling. Did they have to carry papers or scrolls? I understand that they were city orientated for social reasons but there had to be many travellers. Did they just tell people they were Roman citizens with dire consequences if they lied? If they had to carry paper proof what happened if they lost it, or were robbed of it?

 

I look forward to seeing an answer from soeone who actually knows ...

 

Meanwhile, bear in mind that most of the people you meet when travelling don't want to know your citizen status. They prefer to know your economic status. Your clothes, your travelling gear, the number of your companions will indicate whether you do or don't have enough money.

 

If you read Cicero's letters, you realise how often when travelling you were likely to be meeting, and staying with, friends and friends-of-friends. There's another, informal, way in which you make clear your status.

 

But if you get into trouble, yes, your citizen status suddenly matters a lot. This is when, like St Paul, you need to be able to assert it. See Acts of the Apostles chapter 21.37 to 22.3 for an example.

 

These points may help a bit, but maybe someone else knows if there is evidence of documents on this subject.

[Gaius Octavius]

I don't really know, so this is a question. Wouldn't it only be the 'freedmen' and discharged alien Roman soldiers who had 'papers'? Something like the U.S. today.

[Pantagathus]

This is kind of a tricky one. Andrew is right to the effect that when traveling, money is more what mattered; not where you were from. In essence, a traveler would mainly be recognized as a citizen by their clothes.

 

The only document of importance that I know of per se was a diploma which would have been issued by the Emperor or one of his representatives, and sometimes by a Provincial Governor. This allowed the bearer the right to utilize the cursus publicus and travel with the use of Government operated facilities (mansions or stationes, i.e.

[Primus Pilus]

And very few people actually travelled in the Roman world (in comparison to modern times). Those who did were likely to be of the equestrian/aristocratic classes.

[docoflove1974]

And very few people actually travelled in the Roman world (in comparison to modern times). Those who did were likely to be of the equestrian/aristocratic classes.

 

What about traders, who were peddling their wares? Or was this done more on water than on land?

[Gaius Octavius]

Problem. Assume a rich Syrian non-Roman and a rich Roman are travelling together on business to Egypt. They commit a major infraction of the rules of the road and are apprehended by the magistrates. Since different judgements would be called for, for Romans and non-Romans, how would the problem be solved?

Edited July 28, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[P.Clodius]

I would assume they would both be subject to the judgement of the govenor, but the citizen would have the right of appeal to the emperor.

[Gaius Octavius]

I would assume they would both be subject to the judgement of the govenor, but the citizen would have the right of appeal to the emperor.

 

Here I am really going out on a limb. For example, for the same capital offence, weren't Roman citizens entitled to the axe while non-citizens were crucified upside down? I hope all get my general drift.

[Primus Pilus]

And very few people actually travelled in the Roman world (in comparison to modern times). Those who did were likely to be of the equestrian/aristocratic classes.

 

What about traders, who were peddling their wares? Or was this done more on water than on land?

 

Allow a clarification.. very few people travelled for pleasure as we do in the modern day. Though you are correct that trading via water was preferred, but obviously not always practical. There were obviously land based traders who weren't part of some large merchant company and probably didn't have much more than an ox, a wagon and whatever was inside it.

 

The topic really is an interesting question. Were not all citizenship identifications (paternal lineage, etc.) filed with the vestals in Rome, or was this simply for wills? Still this would have been terribly unpractical as the empire expanded beyond Italy (and even beyond the confines of the city for that matter). Perhaps each province held such records and perhaps even local administrative centers? However, if such records existed en masse, one would think that something would've survived.

 

[edit] removed some redundancies already touched upon by Pantagathus

[Primus Pilus]

Additionally I believe it was Marcus Aurelius who first instituted a form of birth certificate registration as part of the alimenta of the adoptive and Antonine emperors, but the details elude me. We do know that children of citizens wore the bulla until marriage or entry into adulthood, but there seems to be no adult equivalent. We also know that citizen men were traditionally identified by the toga virilis (or libera) on formal occasions, but they did not wander about at all times in such an unwieldy state of attire.

[P.Clodius]

"Possession of citizenship was desired by Romans and barbari alike. Besides making one safe from the death penalty, a Roman citizen enjoyed:

 

* suffragium - the right to vote

* commercium - the right to make contracts

* conubium - the right to contract a legal marriage

 

Citizens did have responsibilities: they were taxed, and the men needed to complete a term of military service (in fact, only a citizen could become a Roman legionary). Only a citizen could use the praenomen-nomen-cognomen set of names.

 

A complex set of rules determined who was or was not a Roman citizen. One could be a citizen by virtue of one's birth if certain circumstances applied. If both mother and father had conubium, the child was deemed a citizen and held the social class of its father (e.g., eques, patrician, plebeian). If a Roman citizen had a child outside of conubium, the child took the status of its mother. If the mother was not a citizen, the child was not a Roman citizen and could even be a slave.

 

Children born to Roman legionaries during their military service were NOT citizens. it was illegal for legionaries to wed while serving their 20-year tour of duty and, thus, there could be no conubium. Since the mothers of legionaries' children generally were not Roman citizens themselves, in the eyes of Roman law the children simply received the status and nationality of the mother.

 

Factors other than birthright arose over time to determine citizenship:

 

* Latini, people from the Latin states, who took up residence in Rome were granted a class of citizenship with limited rights.

* Slaves, upon being freed, became citizens.

* Peregrini, foreigners living in conquered lands, could be given full or partial citizenship.

* Citizenship could be bestowed as a reward for service to the state. For example, citizenship was eventually granted to all who served as Auxilii (Peregrini who served as auxiliary troops).

 

In AD 212, all free inhabitants of the empire were finally granted citizenship."

 

TAKEN FROM

Still nothing on how to diferentiate other than the wearing of a toga and the use of the praenomen-nomen-cognomen.

Edited July 28, 2006 by P.Clodius

[WotWotius]

And very few people actually travelled in the Roman world (in comparison to modern times). Those who did were likely to be of the equestrian/aristocratic classes.

 

I vaguely remember my History teacher speak of a man named Pausanius (I think that’s his name, I’m really searching my memory banks), who was a 2nd century Greek travel writer. Anyway, in his works he describes tourist attractions such as Delphi and Troy—both of which are still tourist destinations today. This may in fact show that after Hadrian's imperial travels, travelling across the empire may have become 'fashionable'.

 

I was wondering if anybody had any more information on this topic.

.

Edited July 28, 2006 by WotWotius

[Gaius Octavius]

And very few people actually travelled in the Roman world (in comparison to modern times). Those who did were likely to be of the equestrian/aristocratic classes.

 

I vaguely remember my History teacher speak of a man named Pausanius (I think that

Edited July 28, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Dominus Rex]

While reading some of the Roma Sub Rosa series books, which are fiction and therefore could be incorrect, Roman citizens had a special citizen ring that they wore. Is this correct?