12-14-2005, 11:23 PM
Hoplite,
Very difficult to say really. One thing that we do know is that privately purchased equipment was acceptable in the army in the Early Imperial period. Bishop and Coulston cite letters in the Terentius Archive where a marine with aspirations to join a legion writes to his family asking them to send him military belts and a pickaxe and some of the Vindolanda tablets record items of clothing sent to soldiers by their families. It seems likely that the army commissioned and bought stocks of military equipment and clothing but had no objection to soldiers obtaining kit privately, which would in any case allow the army's stock to go further. It is likely that soldiers may have been able to sell excess kit back to the army as well. Another letter cited by Bishop and Coulston is from the army to the mother of a deceased soldier and lists payment to her for a number of items of military equipment which had belonged to the soldier and which the army was obviously retaining by purchasing it back from the decease's family. This letter, with its itemised list of items and prices, suggests that there was a 'buy-back' system in operation, allowing the army to retain supplies of kit. Soldiers who obtained privately produced equipment might have been able to take advantage of this system to get the army to take back issued items which were now excess to their requirements. B & C also refer to a cavalryman who used a dagger sheath decorated with ivory as security for a loan. It might be reasonable to think that this sheath was not issued by the army but instead was purched privately.
As to daggers simply being acceptable privately purchased items again it is impossible to know, although the degree of standardisation to be found in daggers and their sheaths suggests to me that most were manufactured to specifications issued by the army, meaning that although there is great variety, this variety falls within fairly strict parameters most of the time. The fact that not all soldiers carry daggers does not necessarily mean they were not issued by the army. There may have been subtle differences between the equipment of troops in different units or between troops who may have had different roles within the same units which we are not party to.
Two well known daggers may offer clues to an answer to your question. The Oberamagau dagger has the message 'C.ANTONIVS.FECIT' inlaid on its guard, suggesting a private (although not necessarily so) purchase and one of the daggers from Mainz has the message 'LEG XXII PRIMI' on its sheath, identifying the unit of its owner (although this does not necessarily mean that it was commissioned or issed by the army).
I suppose that this has really been a round about way of simply saying I don't know, but I hope it is of some use.
Crispvs
Very difficult to say really. One thing that we do know is that privately purchased equipment was acceptable in the army in the Early Imperial period. Bishop and Coulston cite letters in the Terentius Archive where a marine with aspirations to join a legion writes to his family asking them to send him military belts and a pickaxe and some of the Vindolanda tablets record items of clothing sent to soldiers by their families. It seems likely that the army commissioned and bought stocks of military equipment and clothing but had no objection to soldiers obtaining kit privately, which would in any case allow the army's stock to go further. It is likely that soldiers may have been able to sell excess kit back to the army as well. Another letter cited by Bishop and Coulston is from the army to the mother of a deceased soldier and lists payment to her for a number of items of military equipment which had belonged to the soldier and which the army was obviously retaining by purchasing it back from the decease's family. This letter, with its itemised list of items and prices, suggests that there was a 'buy-back' system in operation, allowing the army to retain supplies of kit. Soldiers who obtained privately produced equipment might have been able to take advantage of this system to get the army to take back issued items which were now excess to their requirements. B & C also refer to a cavalryman who used a dagger sheath decorated with ivory as security for a loan. It might be reasonable to think that this sheath was not issued by the army but instead was purched privately.
As to daggers simply being acceptable privately purchased items again it is impossible to know, although the degree of standardisation to be found in daggers and their sheaths suggests to me that most were manufactured to specifications issued by the army, meaning that although there is great variety, this variety falls within fairly strict parameters most of the time. The fact that not all soldiers carry daggers does not necessarily mean they were not issued by the army. There may have been subtle differences between the equipment of troops in different units or between troops who may have had different roles within the same units which we are not party to.
Two well known daggers may offer clues to an answer to your question. The Oberamagau dagger has the message 'C.ANTONIVS.FECIT' inlaid on its guard, suggesting a private (although not necessarily so) purchase and one of the daggers from Mainz has the message 'LEG XXII PRIMI' on its sheath, identifying the unit of its owner (although this does not necessarily mean that it was commissioned or issed by the army).
I suppose that this has really been a round about way of simply saying I don't know, but I hope it is of some use.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
