Republican Army

[drsrob]

Exactly the existence of discentes confirm the fact they cannot been skirmishers; the discentes teach precise technical notions of higher level respect the arms and phisical training of legionaries; we have discentes of signiferi, aquiliferi, equites, architecti, instructors (discens armaturarum), capsarii, librarii (Le Bohec). I doubt the skirmishing need high competence apart the phisical fitness and use of javelin (all included in the normal legionary preparation).

That discentes are instructors is one theory. The other is that they are trainees. As we know of a discens aquiliferi (serving in the 8th cohort) the latter option seams preferable. But in this case it's irrelevant. From the existance of the discens lanchiariorum we can deduce that the lanciarii are specialists, whether he is student or trainer; the existance of the one virtually implies that of the other.

[...], what strong motivation we can find for the recreation on minor scale of legionary light javeliners, dissipating roman heavy infantry resources, without a unquestionable evidence from the sources?

That's a tough one. My personal opinion is that the Romans concentrated on their own specialty for garrison armies of the post social war period and hired everything else. The antesignani as an elite force probably originated in the Spanish legions. Caesar would then have been vague about it as he didn't want to state that he copied the enemy's tactics. (But that is only an hypothesis of course.)

On must take regard of this:

- perspective effect [...]

The way the spear is held and the amentum is the basis of my argument, not so much it's exact length as that is often distorted in sculpture.

- spears so short appear on the same Marcus's column [...] These can be only pila simplified because spears are more easy to represent, but this is true also in soldiers grave (where pilum appears rarely ).

where pila appear in 1st century gravestones they are faithfully rendered. The only exception seams to be C. Castricius. However, he clearly has two spears. Possibly these are intended to represent what we know as light pila, otherwise they might be lanceae.

- The scroll he has in left hand, can indicate a clerk work (this is not in contradiction with he has sword and shield also the clerks must fight in the legion); so the spear can be only a symbolic status weapon [...]

A viable alternative explanation, except that it doesn't explain the amentum.

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 start following Polybius until 211, the year when the story of the introduction of the velites is set.

The term velites appears in Livy other two times (Ibera excluded): XXI.55 (Trebbia) and XXIV.34 (Syracuse siege).

:oops: You're correct. Serves me right for working from memory.

Nevertheless, exactly XXI.55 is the passage which gave me the idea. Here Livy gives an abridgement of Polybius's story. The sentence containing the word velites however is clearly drawn from another source. However, XXIV.34 is quoted directly from Polybius so Livy is not consistent. On the other hand, why else would he translate 'javelineers' with velites on some occasions and not on other?

Not Livy, Rorarii are reported by fragments of Plautus Frivolaria (last III century - begin of II century) and Lucilius Saturae (last of II century). Particularly interesting is Lucilius which speaks of "rorarius veles".

Plautus is quoted in Varro, De lingua latina as follows:In Frivolaria:
Ubi rorarii estis? En sunt. Ubi sunt accensi?
Ecce sunt.
This is not much to go on. Possibly it's were Livy got his idea of the existence of rorarii and accensi as old troop types.
Unfortunately I can't find Lucilius on the net.

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.

They reject the phrase "institutum ut uelites in legionibus essent" not the entire passage and rejected the idea that before this episode the legion dont has light infantry. Probably before the punic war the situation of light infantry is different but not to zero level;

That the velites were created in 211 does not mean that there were no light infantry before. But it was a less effective type of light infantry, prossibly purely composed of the poorest class, irrespective of age.

if we take Varro De vita populi romani we have the fragment "qui gladiis cincti sine scuto cum binis gaesis essent.
" after the fragment where Varro speaks of rorarii. So or Varro refers to the same rorarii or to another old type of light troops.

Another quote I can't find on the net except as a note in a text about Gauls. But the word gaesum should already make clear that the quote concerns Gauls and not Romans.

Reported by Gabba:
Asconius Pro Cornelio: atque ipse quoque hic Iunius male rem adversus Cimbros gessit ac plures leges quae per eos annos quibus hec significabantur populo latae erant, quibus militiae stipendia minuebantur, abrogavit.

The (possible

and many laws that in those yeas are presented by the people, among those signalled (is a reference to a previous passage), with whose the burden (with the sense of tribute,tax, the other sense of stipendia) military are reduced, abrogated.

I am not so sure of my english translation from my italian translation.

Again, nothing specific about armament.

This only indicates that pilani and triarii are more ancients of punic wars;[...]

It says nothing about pilani

The fact that it remains in the centurion titling, in a conservative environment like the roman army, is the sign that term is the first word used for the triarii.

"Remains" is already a conclusion and therefore does not constitute proof.
Pilus was the title of certain centurions. Pilani was the name for the men. Hastati and Principes were both the men and the centurions. This suggests that the words were not formed at the same time. I'm not a linguist but I should think that the pilus-pilani pair is later.