Posts: 273
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
On the subject of ownership of arms, I've already read a lot of different opinions about it. But still it's not completely clear to me. Could, for instance, a soldier on the completion of his service take his sidearms with him? And how about Roman arms in riverbeds or in sacred places?<br>
<br>
Anyone out there who can clear things up for me?<br>
<br>
Hans <p></p><i></i>
Flandria me genuit, tenet nunc Roma
Posts: 273
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
Indeed, Aaron, I should have made it clear that I was refering to the Principate period.<br>
<br>
The private ownership of equipment items like belts, shoes,... seems to be obvious, like you pointed out, Vardulli. But is it the same for weapons like swords, daggers,...? I cannot imagine that the authorities would allow veterans to take (state issued?) swords home with them as such, even though during their active service they payed for their weapons (weren't there some pay-deductions for weapons?). By taking weapons home they could become a threath to the state. So this points to state-owned weapons the soldiers had to 'lease' (which could explain several 'owner's names' punched onto them). But this doesn't explain the fact that swords, spearblades, ... were found in temples and as votive gifts in riverbeds. This would indicate a certain right to 'dispose' of weapons and therefore a kind of private ownership.<br>
<br>
I'm still confused.<br>
<br>
Hans <p></p><i></i>
Flandria me genuit, tenet nunc Roma
I seem to recall some reference to veterans sailing to Sicily on their own initiative and appointing their own officers in order to stop a slave revolt....can't say I can recall the source. I've I'm right, this would indicate that they still had their equipment. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 273
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
One big, one small? <p></p><i></i>
Flandria me genuit, tenet nunc Roma
