The nature of the ban on arms within Rome\'s pomeri

[Tarbicus]

Gladiators, however, surely did fight within the pomerium - Caesar staged several days of combat in the Forum. But gladiators were not citizens, and so could not be classed as soldiers, which is perhaps the point. This would, of course, make arming one's slaves perfectly fine. :???:

Good point, but as I asked in the other thread, didn't the gladitorial games have a religious ceremonial and sacrificial aspect to them?

Where I see the logic in a ban on (let's call them "martial") weapons was to protect the Senate, the seat of power, just as there was a ban on monarchs entering the pomerium (Cleopatra as an example). A dictator was temporarily given imperium within the pomerium, so the Senate takes second place (I assume they were subject to the lictors' axes). But what better way to enforce this protection of the Senate than to make it a blasphemy and risk angering the gods? An hypothesis, I know, but I see a logic and practicality to it, at least.

Pompey tried to fit Milo up by accusing him of having an hidden sword strapped to his thigh within the Senate, which Cicero used to denounce Pompey's motives when it turned out there was no sword, by the way.

I can find references to Gallic arms decorating a house in Rome,...

The nailing of spolia to homes as a display was an age old tradition. I don't see anything to cause anger from the heavens by demonstrating that the householder or ancestors are or were good and brave Romans.