Posts: 86
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
I think that the association segmentata/legionnaries, hamata/auxiliares, squamata and long robes sirian archers is an artistic convention to make easy the recognision of diferent type troops
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
On Caesar's assassins escaping blasphemy charges - good points. I can't remember were I read it :roll: I'll have to hunt it out.
Did the Catline conspirators hoard weapons within the pomerium, as the extents of the pomerium were at the time? Was there not a sacrificial religious aspect to the games? Was the forum (cattle market) actually within the pomerium in 264 BC when Scaeva held the munus (a religious ceremony) there? Is the coliseum actually inside the pomerium (see below)?
Nathan, by "shield designs", do you mean their physical shapes?
Sean, “mundus” means "without contamination", and the carrying of weapons within the pomerium was seen as contamination.
But according to this, the pomerium didn't always follow the lines of the walls, so perhaps that explains how the Catiline conspirators managed to do what they did, if their houses weren't inside the pomerium itself?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
This piece from Common Errors at Lacus Curtius is worth a read.
Common Errors (37): Legionaries
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:I meant the designs on the shields themselves - emblems or blazons. There are so different ones on the Column it suggests that the sculptors were working from something more than generic models.
Perhaps a 2nd-C Notitia Dignitatum? Speculative, of course
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 114
Threads: 8
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
Just to toss in my 2 cents on the armour/no armour debate...
The more training and/or experience a soldier has, the more valuable he becomes.
Therefore, in an established military body, it makes a certain amount of sense to issue only the bare minimum to your recruits. This sort of policy can save you a lot of money, since recruits may decide to come in with better kit of their own or else buy it themselves out of wages during/after training. Once they've acquired some experience, you can pass out additional armour to your new "veterans" on an as-needed to bring them up to a certain (somewhat higher) minimum standard. At this point you have (in theory) already weeded out the ones who are naturally inept or incapable in battle -- meaning the (expensive to produce) armour you are giving them is less likely to end up on the repair bench or in enemy hands after the next battle. (you can further extend this argument by suggesting that you can save even more money by giving your new "veterans" equipment taken from the enemies' dead during that inaugural battle, etc.)
Was such a priority-based armouring scheme ever used by Rome? I don't know. But it does seem to crop up through many other parts of history, and personally I don't think the basic soldier/cost issue has really changed at any point prior to very modern times wherein TV gives every soldier a face and grieving family. Note: No disrespect is meant - I am simply pointing out that the reality of military casualties / public visibility & accountability is very different now from how it was even 100 years ago.
--------
Ross
[url="http://galeforcearmoury.blogspot.com"] Working on a segmentata.[/url]