Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Right to bear arms in Rome
#6
Oh, yes. I agree. In fact I argued the same thing recently in this post.

When I said "earlier times" I meant centuries earlier under the early monarchy. I think that prior to the 'Servian' reform mentioned in that post soldiers were obliged to furnish their own weapons.

The reasons are circumstantial but compelling. For one, we know that there were private armed companions (sodales or hetairoi) of various powerful aristocrats like Appius Claudius, Publius Valerius, or even the 'Mastarna' described by Emperor Claudius. I don't think that the state would arm these private citizens who sometimes "acted with state sanction" and sometimes independently, like the Fabii private war against Veii.

The second reason for thinking that archaic soldiers provided their own weapons is the change in the centuriate organisation which was first introduced as a military system (who could provide their own weapons) but later adapted into a political one. This political reform was instituted at the same time that indemnities were first imposed upon defeated enemies. The idea is that these indemnities were necessary because the state was providing soldiers with weapons and needed to pay for them.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Right to bear arms in Rome - by M. Eversberg II - 05-06-2009, 12:18 PM
Re: Right to bear arms in Rome - by M. Demetrius - 05-06-2009, 01:17 PM
Re: Right to bear arms in Rome - by Epictetus - 05-07-2009, 05:32 AM
Re: Right to bear arms in Rome - by Epictetus - 05-07-2009, 08:04 AM
Re: Right to bear arms in Rome - by Epictetus - 05-15-2009, 06:47 AM

Forum Jump: