Republican Army

[drsrob]

Not correct, i have tould if we want found a possible legionary to which give the name antesignanus, we have the legionary guard, which existence appears in Josephus and Arrian. But i have tould, i have found only on possible reference in the sources for this (the royal hypapistes in Alexander's Gaza assault in Arrian are called antesignani in Curtius Rufus same episodes).

Hmm, interesting, I didn't know that.

The early version are not extremely decorative and modern could perhaps still be used as a weapon. And if not, Josephus might simply not have realised this.

Possible; but the beneficiari normal duties were administratives, not of protection.

In peacetime yes, but it is not entirely impossible that the acted as a bodyguard in time of war.

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.

Yes i know the images of lanciarii, and doubtless the javelins are the lanceae; but we return to the point that using lighter weapons isn't equivalent to be a skirmisher. [...]

No but having multiple spears generally is a good indication.

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 were 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.

The source where the word is much used is Livy (and the only for archaic and middle republic); generally isn't a good technical source because dont have military experience, but in this case is good because he copy the terminology of first annalists. If we make a count on 21 reference in Livy 10 with the sense of hastati or prima acies(in the case of enemies) are in the 10 books before the II punic war, 11 in the 25 books after, but 4 of this have a different sense. The last reference is in book XXXVIII (a different sense). So we have a rarefaction of the term in Livius source proceeding in the modernity of the sources; thi is a important literary fact. In the older annalistical sources the use in the orginal sense is much more frequent that in the lasts, and we assit to the changing of the word use.

I have collected most if not all of these quotes, but they are much to detailed for such early battles. And again, the earliest Roman histories were written in Greek, so terminology is always suspect.