Tattoos in Ancient Rome

[Lost_Warrior]

(inspired by This Thread.)

 

I've heard differing opinions on this...I've heard that tattoos were seen as something "barbarian" and "lowly" and that only a slave would ever be marked thus (in reference to legion tattoos). I've also heard that tattoos, at least in the legions, were commonly accepted, at least as an identifying mark.

 

Does anyone have more information on this? Were they ever seen outside of the legions?

[Melvadius]

(inspired by This Thread.)

 

I've heard differing opinions on this...I've heard that tattoos were seen as something "barbarian" and "lowly" and that only a slave would ever be marked thus (in reference to legion tattoos). I've also heard that tattoos, at least in the legions, were commonly accepted, at least as an identifying mark.

 

Does anyone have more information on this? Were they ever seen outside of the legions?

 

I think the problem/association of tattoo's with the military arises from translations of Vegetius which include the 'claim' that men enrolled in the legion were given the 'military mark'. There is nothing to suggest that 'if' they were given such a 'mark' that it was necessarily a tattoo and I understand from threads I have previously read elsewhere that in Roman literature there is strong suggestions that only slaves or criminal's were normally given tattoos.

 

I don't know if the Vegetius translation is accurate regarding the 'military mark' or if it is another case of a poor translation or interpolation for either missing sections or the original text being incorrectly copied and so corrupted during the copying process.

[DecimusCaesar]

From Ancient Inventions by Peter James and Nick Thorpe:

 

Following the conquest of Britain in AD 43, Roman legionairies took to tatooing and spread the custom throughout the empire. The art flourished until the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor. Early Christians marked their faces with the sign of the cross, but tattooing later came to be seen as a pagan practice; Constantine banned facial tattoos on the grounds that they disfigured "that fashioned in God's image".

[caldrail]

This might make sense. Body decoration is used by people almost everywhere in the world, much the same way as beards or hairstyles are used for fashion or to denote tribal affiliation. Thats animal instinct coming to the fore - its a display, intended to communicate something to others of the species.

 

Now it appears the brits were influential toward the romans in more than one sense. Firstly, they noticed the british prediliction for narcotic substances used by them to help whip up a battle fury - there is a possibility that the romans legionaries adopted the same practice after seeing the battle frenzy of british warriors (Pertinax might be able to offer more info on that).

 

Secondly, the body decoration of british celts must have seemed impressive to the romans, barbarian style or not. It was after all intended for that purpose. A tattooed man always appears more aggresive and dangerous than one who hasn't decorated his body, something the average roman soldier may well have found desirable. Its also interesting that the roman commanders did not stamp this practice out given their desire for uniformity.

 

If there's any ancient source on this, I would really like to know.

[Gaius Octavius]

One could see the tattoos under all the armor?

[Lost_Warrior]

One could see the tattoos under all the armor?

 

Of course!! By using their ancient X-Ray Specs!

 

If visibility of the tattoos in battle was the intended purpose, one would assume that they put them on their arms and legs...or even their faces (though for some reason I just can't picture a Roman with facial tats).

[Gaius Octavius]

And the grieves?

[Lost_Warrior]

Not all soldiers wore greaves, if I recall, it was only the centurions and other high ranking officers (for the most part. Some did supply their own I believe.)

 

Still, the thighs remained largely uncovered.

[caldrail]

One could see the tattoos under all the armor?

 

In battle, no, but soldiers weren't dressed in combat gear 24/7. Some of them may well have enjoyed the notoriety of their violent reputation and tattoos would enhance the threat display. Thats if they actually did this sort of thing.