Republican Army

[drsrob]

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.

Now you're assuming that antesignani are young soldiers, like velites. However, we know that the later lanciarii were specialists, in light of the existence of discentes lanchiariorum. The position of the antesignani could be just as likely - if not more so - like that of the lanciarii, seeing that both age and wealth differentiation no longer existed.
The same applies for instance to the legionary cavalry.

Rounded shield and light weapons appear used by praetorians on Antonine column.

The oval shields of the praetoriani are older (republican) versions of the square legionary shield. The way that Flavoleius holds his shield suggests that it is flat, like those of auxiliaries and of Castricius.

The point is spear-like type so the doubt is that it can has a double function (launch and close combat).

The spear is far too short for close combat and anyway, the way it is held implies that it is fairly light as almost every other spear is depicted resting on the ground.

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

Exactly my point.

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).

You're right, I'm afraid my memory expanded om my conclusions.
If you'd check Livy, you'll see that with the exception of this passage Livy does not use the word velites from the moment he starts following Polybius until 211, the year when the story of the introduction of the velites is set. On that and the detailed description of the weaponry I base my conclusion that Polybius is Livy's source for the story.
That that particular line of 23.29 is based on another source was my assumption. One which turned into fact in my memory. Another possibility of course is that Livy got careless; in other words: a slip of the pen.

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?

You're right, this passage does not make sense as it stands, but remember that Livy is not a military man and the velites had long been abolished when he wrote his history.

The evidence of continuos use of rorarii[...]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.

What evidence is there? Livy only uses the word rorarii twice, in his description of army organization and the final battle of the Latin War. Again he is as good as his source, and that is untrustwordy in this case.

The Navio's innovation of episode (Livy last phrase) is the tactical combination with the cavalry. 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.

The problem with these alternatives is that they reject an interpretation that leaves only one word inexplicable and substitute one that requires rejecting part or most of the story.

I have spoken of agmen not acies. [...]

An agmen is often simply an acies on the march.

> I still don't follow you.

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

We're hindered by linguistic barriers, I'm afraid.

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.

There is nothing in Cassius Dio to suggest that Plutarch is wrong. And about the armour: is it that more expensive? A soldier of the republic would normally buy his equipment once, he only required replacements in exceptional circumstances. Clothing had to be replaced regularly and it was contracted for in large quantities by the state.

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 .

I can't find that law, can you give me a source?

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.

Rather, the original name is triarii. It is found in Polybius I.26.6. Where it is a nickname of a naval squadron. In this light it is certain that the word was already in use at that date. Pilani on the other hand is found not even in Livy VIII.8-10 (only antepilani is).