07-01-2009, 10:50 PM
Antiochus wrote:
D B Campbell wrote :
Maybe I misunderstand, but Livius XXVII mentions that the surviving Equites that took part in the Battle of Cannae lost their right to a public horse, there's no direct mention of Equites Equo Privato unless one assumes that these Equites then had to buy their own horse and thus became became Equites Equo Privato.
While this seems feasible, what about the privileges? Livius specifically mentions that very few Equites were stricken off the Equestrian order i.e. the Equites that lost their right to a horse did not lose their rank as Equites. As I understand it, Equites Equo Privato were not part of the Equestrian order, the only reason why they were called "Equites" was because it was the ordinary term for horsemen, it did not specifically mean you were part of the Equestrian order.
Quote:Without knowing who the Equites Privato is this is conjecture. ... But what was it really? Well it was a one off event when the army suffered a defeat at Veii in 403 BC.
D B Campbell wrote :
Quote:I think you're mistaken. Livy mentions equites serving equo publico during the Hannibalic War (Livy 27.11). But maybe you have another explanation?
Maybe I misunderstand, but Livius XXVII mentions that the surviving Equites that took part in the Battle of Cannae lost their right to a public horse, there's no direct mention of Equites Equo Privato unless one assumes that these Equites then had to buy their own horse and thus became became Equites Equo Privato.
While this seems feasible, what about the privileges? Livius specifically mentions that very few Equites were stricken off the Equestrian order i.e. the Equites that lost their right to a horse did not lose their rank as Equites. As I understand it, Equites Equo Privato were not part of the Equestrian order, the only reason why they were called "Equites" was because it was the ordinary term for horsemen, it did not specifically mean you were part of the Equestrian order.
Cheers,
Jesper
Jesper
