Right to bear arms in Rome

[M. Eversberg II]

So I was watching HBO's "Rome", which isn't the most accurate thing in the world, but it got me thinking. In a lot of the scenes, there were knives, swords and daggers *everywhere*. They were carried in the open for all the world to see.

But just how legal is that in Rome? For time, let's say 44BC when Cæsar was stabbed to death.

M.

[M. Demetrius]

Q: Was it legal for a citizen to carry a weapon-sized blade in public?
Was it possible that many carried one in some concealed place under a tunic?
Did the Senators know that they were breaking several laws?
A: I don't think so.
I'm sure of it.
Yes, absolutely.

[PhilusEstilius]

I don't think it would have been anything of a problem at all and I am sure that most Roman senators would have carried a dagger under their toga most times when they had to go out.
Indeed when we read Juvenal he tells us that rich people were nervous about going out in the night for fear of being mugged, and if they managed to overcome that fear they found that when they returned home their house had been turned over anyway so does anything change in life.

[Epictetus]

I have read some claims that no weapons were allowed inside the pomerium, but I think this is a mistake. We know that soldiers under arms were not allowed in the pomerium, but I don't think this applies to a private citizen's weapons - in other words, when he was not officially "called up" and under the imperium of a magistrate. In fact, in earlier times each citizen was required to provide his own weapons for his service in the army - what was he supposed to do with them if he lived inside the pomerium?

Out of curiousity I checked the Twelve Tables. There are several laws about the use of weapons, but none forbidding them. Instead the Twelve Tables seem to take for granted the fact that citizens would own weapons. Cicero also seems to confirm this:

What is the meaning of our retinues, what of our swords? Surely it would never be permitted to us to have them if we might never use them. This, therefore, is a law, O judges, not written, but born with us, - which we have not learnt or received by tradition, or read, but which we have taken and sucked in and imbibed from nature herself; a law which we were not taught but to which we were made, - which we were not trained in, but which is ingrained in us, - namely, that if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honourable. For laws are silent when arms are raised, and do not expect themselves to be waited for, when he who waits will have to suffer an undeserved penalty before he can exact a merited punishment.

The law very wisely, and in a manner silently, gives a man a right to defend himself, and does not merely forbid a man to be slain, but forbids any one to leave a weapon about him with the object of slaying a man; so that as the object and not the weapon itself, is made the subject of the inquiry, the man who had used a weapon with the object of defending himself would be decided not to have had his weapon about him with the object of killing a man. Let, then, this principle remembered by you in this trial, O judges; for I do not doubt that I shall make good my defence before you, if you only remember - what you cannot forget - that a plotter against one may be lawfully slain.

Cicero, Pro Milo

In practice, I can't imagine a person strapping on a sword when he strolls down to the marketplace. Perhaps things would have been otherwise in tumultuos times, like when the gangs of Milo and Clodius were causing problems.

[Paullus Scipio]

Epictetus wrote:

In fact, in earlier times each citizen was required to provide his own weapons for his service in the army - what was he supposed to do with them if he lived inside the pomerium?

I don't think this is correct - see for example this post by Antiochus/Steven earlier today on another thread, giving examples of weapons being 'State' issued, and concerns about what could occur if the populace were armed...........


Re: Rome versus Pyrrhus
by antiochus » Wed 06 May 2009, 21:41

To add a bit to what Matt Amt said, at this time soldiers were all property-owning citizens, who purchased their own equipment.

But this is contrary to the primary sources which clearly indicate the State supplied the equipment. The following references by Dionysius confirm the soldier’s armament was State issued:

III 57 (between 578 and 535 BC), “But King Tarquinius, having for the ensuing year armed all the Romans and taken as many troops as he could get from his allies, led them out against the enemy.” V 44 (503 BC), “the other consul, Menenius, having armed all the men of military age, marched out with them in good order and discipline to the assistance of those upon the hill.” VIII 16 (488 BC), “Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius, raised as large an army as they could from the register of citizens…They also got ready a great quantity of money, corn and arms in a short time.” IX 18 (477 BC), “Then at last the Romans thought themselves safe and arming the youth that were in the city, they took the field.” XI 24 (450 BC), “Appius and Spurius supplied their colleagues who were in the field, with arms, money, corn and everything else of which they stood in need.”

Livy is also forthcoming with references of State issued armament: III. 7 (463 BC), “Quintus Fabius was in command of the city; all men of military age were, by his instructions, armed.” III. 14 (460 BC), “the consuls were in a dilemma: to arm the people and not to arm them...they did finally distribute arms, though on a limited scale.” III. 18 (460 BC), “troops were enrolled and arms issued.” III. 20 (460 BC), “Valerius armed the people for the recovery of the Capitol.” (III 15) The consuls were afraid either to arm the plebeians or to leave them without arms. Arms were however, distributed, not indiscriminately, but only, as it was an unknown foe, to secure protection sufficient for all emergencies. (III 17) He ended his speech by saying that he was taking up arms, and he summoned all the Quirites to arms.…The tribunes had better order arms to be taken up against P. Valerius the consul, as they forbade them to be used against Appius Herdonius. (III 18) They decided that help should be sent, the men of military age were enrolled, arms were distributed. (III 20) At the time when P. Valerius supplied the people with arms for the recovery of the Capitol, they all took the oath to muster at the consul's orders, and not to disband without his orders. We, therefore, issue an order that all of you who took that oath appear under arms, tomorrow, at Lake Regillus. III. 42 (449 BC) “the senate…decreed a supply of arms to be sent to Tusculum to replace those that had been lost.” V. 39 (390 BC) they decided that the men of military age and the able bodied amongst the senators should…withdraw into the citadel…after getting stores of arms and provisions. VI. 2 (389 BC), when he (Marcus Camillus) had completed the enrolment and equipment of the army, he formed it into three divisions. VI. 6 (387 to 386 BC), You, Quintus Servilius, are to mobilise and equip a second army and keep it encamped in the city, ready for action…A third army must be recruited by Lucius Horatius…Lucius Horatius is to provide arms, missiles, corn and everything else to meet the demands of the situation.

In addition to the references cited above by Dionysius and Livy, both Gellius (Attic Nights XVI X 12), and Valerius Maximus (II 1), mention the distribution of “public arms.”

Now there are numerous more for most periods and sadly I have not been collecting them all but I think I better start again.

"Therefore, one's wealth and one's taste affected one's armor and weapons."

So therefore you propose the legion did not have a homogeneous array of weapons, but everyone turned up with what he liked? How would this impact on tactics and training?

[Epictetus]

Oh, yes. I agree. In fact I argued the same thing recently in this post.

When I said "earlier times" I meant centuries earlier under the early monarchy. I think that prior to the 'Servian' reform mentioned in that post soldiers were obliged to furnish their own weapons.

The reasons are circumstantial but compelling. For one, we know that there were private armed companions (sodales or hetairoi) of various powerful aristocrats like Appius Claudius, Publius Valerius, or even the 'Mastarna' described by Emperor Claudius. I don't think that the state would arm these private citizens who sometimes "acted with state sanction" and sometimes independently, like the Fabii private war against Veii.

The second reason for thinking that archaic soldiers provided their own weapons is the change in the centuriate organisation which was first introduced as a military system (who could provide their own weapons) but later adapted into a political one. This political reform was instituted at the same time that indemnities were first imposed upon defeated enemies. The idea is that these indemnities were necessary because the state was providing soldiers with weapons and needed to pay for them.

[Theodosius the Great]

For one, we know that there were private armed companions (sodales or hetairoi) of various powerful aristocrats

In other words, private bodyguards ? If so, I, too, thought that they were employed by the elite, at least to guard their homes during the night if not their person during the day. Though I can't cite any sources I thought that gladiators were sometimes hired to guard aristocrats as well. Does anyone know if this was really done or is it just the stuff of Hollywood ?

~Theo

[Epictetus]

Well, when I wrote that I was thinking of archaic warlords. They were semi-independent and not necessarily part of a “state.” Appius Claudius, the father of the Claudians, is probably one of the most famous. He migrated from the Sabine territory to Rome, bringing his armed retinue with him. If Livy is to be believed, this was in the era before gladiatorial games even came to Rome, so these were not gladiator guards. They were simply armed “companions,” loyal to their chief and not to their “country.”

But in regards to aristocrats using armed guards, we know that this did happen.

Of course, we know that magistrates that held imperium had lictors as rather formal bodyguards.

Other individuals from the upper class also used armed bodyguards, at least at times. For instance:

Now, the attendants of the senators carried clubs and staves which they had brought from home

Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus

But was this a regular occurrence, or were the attendants armed only during times of unrest? I don’t know.