Presumably someone, at some point, has gone through film history and compiled the various visual signifiers of 'barbarians' (the random furs, lots of leather, facial hair, etc) origins/implications/etc? Don't suppose anyone has bibliography on that handy?
-
im not saying they wore or used leather in the same way as the groups they called "barbarians", rather that the act of skinning animals and wearing that skin was by no means a uniquely "barbarian" or distinctly non-roman practice
To be clear, the groups they called barbarians also didn't wear leather in the way they are represented as having done. Gallic clothing was made of wool. Scythian clothing was made of wool.
-
-
This is my point. "Hollywood Roman" involves a lot more leather than actual Romans because it 'looks ancient' and "Hollywood Barbarian" involves even more leather than that because it 'looks savage.' But actual Romans and actual 'barbarians' made their clothes out of textile.
-
Yes I understand their use of leather is exaggerated in media, but I thought they did have tanneries and wore leather items such as shoes and satchels and the like? I didn't think the general practice of skinning animals would be perceived as "barbarian" to them, is that wrong?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.