Republican Army

[drsrob]

Therefore I don't integrate or try to combine the information in Vegetius. I use the quote 'as is', and try to determine whether the quote can be placed in a particular time frame.

This is a legitimate tentative, but, i think, the lost of original Vegetius sources and the little informations in late roman author about this make this plus an intellectual game (nothing of bad in this, me as well make much of this) that a historical proof.

You're right, it is not proof (but I didn't say so, did I?)

I don't think it is sound methodology to reject a source that actually mentions the type of soldier we're looking for by one that absolutely does not.

One moment: i reject a interpretation of a source that dont tell or suggest nothing about the role of antesignani.

Yes, but you give as an alternative a quote that does not even mention the word antesignani.

There are better explanations for the 'longophoroi' of Josephus, namely the beneficiarii, who are well known to have carried a spear with a decorated head. The Cancerellia relief combines this with a round bronze faced shield, combining neatly the two special arms, mentioned by the jewish author. Trying to combine his longophoroi with those of Arrianus creates more problems than it solves

This is a good theoria, but vs this we have than the relief spear isn't a war weapon, while the Josephus pass describe war equipment much probably. Secondly Josephus speak of "peri ton strategon epilektoi pezoi" where peri can be translated "in defence of".

The early version are not extremely decorative and modern ones could perhaps still be used as a weapon. And if not, Josephus might simply not have realised this.
Besides, early modern guards also had very decorative haldards etc.

PS: is Cancelleria

Ehh, whoops :oops:

I agree that by itself this gravestone could lead equally well to your conclusion, but that would not be in accordance with Vegetius. But you say: 'like the third century lanciarii'. These are certainly skirmichers, so why not the antesignani?

We have the certitude the lanciarii are skirmishers? Only because the lancea is lighter of pilum?

No, because we have the grave stele of Aurelius Mucianus, discens lanchiariorum of the legio II Parthica who is shown carrying an quiver of javelins.

The latin word specifically means: 'those who fight in front of the standards'. Assuming the standards to be behind their units, it could denote the front line, as it does occasionally in Livy and Frontinus. When we think of the standards moving in front of their units, the word would denote skirmishers, fighting in front of the line, as it does in Caesar's "De Bello Civico".

This because you start from the idea the signa of ante"signani" are originally the maniple's standards, but if the standards are back the unit for the hastati the same must be valid also for principes and triarii, but this aren't called antesignani. If the hastati originally are the young soldiers of second and third census class separated from hoplitical phalanx for fight in open order, then the signa are in reality the standards of phalanx. THe velites dont was called antesignani because the rorarii in original are back the triarii. So the hastati line, the first line, is in origin the "antesignani", the use of call the prima acies "antesignani" stays in the latin language.

It doesn't work out as straightforward as that. Signum refers both to the standard and to the unit. My opinion is that generally antesignani refers to those that have no standards in front of them and postsignani to those that do.
Don't forget that where the word is used in the description of earlier battles, the text is generally late and in many cases translated from Greek at some point in time. So you cannot assume that the word was used in those early times as well.