Republican Army

[Mitra]

>He has a skirmisher arm, so it is eminently reasonable to conclude that >he is a skirmisher

COrdus has 43 years age improbable he still is a skirmisher to dismiss and it is improbable he want on his gravestone the first career role in legion and not the last. Rounded shield and light weapons appear used by praetorians on Antonine coloumn. The point is spear-like type so the doubt is that it can has a double function (launch and close combat).

>Sure it is reasoning. It's not meant to prove my point, only to show >that the passage does not necessarely proves your's.

Sure but the point is that also Ceasar dont has unambiguous interpretation for the word antesignani.

>I assume you refer to 23.29. This is exactly the line not derived >from Polybius.

The Ibera description on Polybius has gone lost (improbably a Scipio family victory dont appear in the greek author).

>But Polybius also describes the velites in a seperate passage (VI, >22). >He gives the length of the javelins as 1.15 meter. >In Livy it is >1.18 m >for the special corps. Livy also says that these javelins were >shorter >than the regular ones. He also >specifically states that the >corps was >placed on a permanent footing as a result of it's succes. >All in all there >can be >little room for doubt that the velites were >created in 211.

Livy affirm that the iron part of weapon of this soldiers are like the "hasta of velites?", so the velites have arms like the velites?; the conclusion is that episode isn't clear, also for the evidence of light infantry in the legion also before. The evidence of continuos use of rorarii and the number much superior of Polybian velites respect the cavalry in the legion, leave the image that the 160 bc velites dont coincide (dont completly) with this 211 bc soldiers. For this Polybius can use grosphomachoi also for first punic war (the rorarii probably). Probably the episode is the first report of velites word use, before the only word sure are rorarii for light infantry. The Navio's innovation of episode (Livy last phrase) is the tactical combination with the cavarly. Another theory (Gabba) is that the episode is a not clear, in Livus sources, recall of reorganization of legionary light infantry after the lowering of census from 11000 to 4000.

>In Caesar's days the legions were subdivided in cohorts, each composed >of one maniple each of hastati, principes and pilani. >These cohorts >were arranged with the maniples place next to each other. Each battle >line was composed of several cohorts. >There is no evidence that the >cohorts had a fixed position i.e. that they always were placed in the >same line.

I have spoken of agmen not acies. In the episode Caesar use agmen. Nothing not the first not the second choice. THe antesignani appear in Livius and Ammianus agmen context with precise different sense.

> I still don't follow you.

The sense is that Livius and the other historian are the last authors where to find latin neologism.

>There is for instance no Gracchan law on state weapans. What you are >refering to is a law of 123 that provides for the issue >of clothing free of >charge. Clothing had been issued by the state for a long time, but it's >costs were charged to the >soldiers. The texts suggest that the law was >immediatly withdrawn anyway. It certainly was not in operation in the >imperial >period.

The word used by Plutarch is "clothing" but the law like affirm Cassio Dio, has been made for help the young soldiers from the people, probably after the census reduction to 1500 assi from 4000 when many thousands of proletarii becoming adsidui; but so the word used by Plutarch must to be interpretated in a plus extensive sense like equipment, is strange to think Graccus remove only the minor cost and not the much heavy cost of weapons and food. THe laws probably has been abolished by Silanus in the 109 b.c. (whee the law is that of detractions on the military salary, not specification only on one detraction), but in 14 years has permitted to equip at state expense, like heavy soldier, 70000 ex-proletarii .

The Gabba idea about the Marius capite censi is that it is the inevitable conclusion of the progressive proletarianization of army. The end of social war made also the end of formula togatorum; the system of Polybian dilectus for tribes with heavy equipment for the first 3 classes is abandoned for the system of conquisistores; sure when the voluntaries isn't in a good number the dilectus can be made but nothing suggest with the respect of census classes (probably the preference is for the poors).
THe Silla army in Greece is made by legions created with the massives enrolments for the social wars (one of Irpinians voluntaries, see V.Patercolus).

>But then what was the name for the third battle line? Postpostsignani?

Triarii, the Thirds; "pilani triarii quoque dicti", pilani is the original name (pili how name of centurions, antepilani how nickname for principes and hastati) and triarii the nickname that come in use after.