07-19-2011, 02:13 AM
It's in Chapter 4 (HERE):
Besides which, the case concerns the murder of Clodius, which happened on the Appian Way eight miles outside Rome, so this point may have no bearing on the pomerium and its laws.
However, despite many claims that weapons were not allowed inside the pomerium, I can't actually find any source that backs this up. The note about Caesar's assassins not being charged with blasphemy as they were outside the pomerium is found on the Wikipedia page on the subject, but no reference is given to support it.
There are quite a few references to people carrying weapons within the city from throughout Roman history, although most of these relate to periods of civil war or uprising, when such weapons were being used and were therefore worthy of notice. None of these references, as far as I can tell, specifically mention that that the bearing of arms itself was illegal or impious - again, it's what's done with them that matters!
Tacitus (Histories I.27) has Otho being met in the Forum (by the temple of Saturn) by a group of Praetorians who salute him 'with drawn swords'. A detachment of troops from Illyria were encamped in the Vipsanian Colonnade (on the Campus Martius, so perhaps outside the pomerium?) and 'drove Celsus away at the point of their spears'. A praetorian, Julius Atticus, waves a bloody sword in the palace and claims to hae killed Otho. "Who gave you orders, comrade?" says Galba - but doesn't comment on the man carrying a weapon. Later (I.40) Otho receives 'a report that the rabble was being armed' - from where, if there were no weapons in the city? His troops burst into the Forum 'terrifying men by their arms' - which suggests that openly displaying weapons was unusual.
During the murder of Galba (41-43), the soldiers supporting Otho are clearly carrying swords, which they seem to have brought with them from the Praetorian camp. One of Galba's own bodyguard, however, 'Sempronius Densus... a centurion of a praetorian cohort... drew his dagger (and) rushed to meet the armed men'. This implies that the togata praetorians protecting the emperor were indeed armed only with daggers.
Again, this scene occurs in a time of civil war, so perhaps does not represent the norm. There is no mention, though, of weapons being actually illegal or blasphemous - just unusual.
All I can find on the subject in secondary sources refers to a general's imperium being void within the pomerium, and therefore the sacramentum that a soldier swears to his commander, which permits him to kill, also lapsing. Soldiers within the pomerium became civilians, in other words. I wonder, though, about the position of the emperor himself - his own imperium was presumably intact within the city, and his own personal troops (ie the praetorians) remained soldiers and thus legally under arms. Would this extend also to the urban cohorts (who by definition operated within the city) and the vigiles (who surely had weapons of some kind - even catapults are mentioned - as part of their firefighting equipment)?
- Nathan
Quote: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 is a tricky bit of legalese from Cicero - in the second paragraph above, he's actually saying that there is no law allowing the carrying of arms, just a law preventing such with the 'object of slaying a man' - therefore, Cicero, says the unwritten law is that carrying a weapon in self defence is allowed...
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.
Besides which, the case concerns the murder of Clodius, which happened on the Appian Way eight miles outside Rome, so this point may have no bearing on the pomerium and its laws.
However, despite many claims that weapons were not allowed inside the pomerium, I can't actually find any source that backs this up. The note about Caesar's assassins not being charged with blasphemy as they were outside the pomerium is found on the Wikipedia page on the subject, but no reference is given to support it.
There are quite a few references to people carrying weapons within the city from throughout Roman history, although most of these relate to periods of civil war or uprising, when such weapons were being used and were therefore worthy of notice. None of these references, as far as I can tell, specifically mention that that the bearing of arms itself was illegal or impious - again, it's what's done with them that matters!
Tacitus (Histories I.27) has Otho being met in the Forum (by the temple of Saturn) by a group of Praetorians who salute him 'with drawn swords'. A detachment of troops from Illyria were encamped in the Vipsanian Colonnade (on the Campus Martius, so perhaps outside the pomerium?) and 'drove Celsus away at the point of their spears'. A praetorian, Julius Atticus, waves a bloody sword in the palace and claims to hae killed Otho. "Who gave you orders, comrade?" says Galba - but doesn't comment on the man carrying a weapon. Later (I.40) Otho receives 'a report that the rabble was being armed' - from where, if there were no weapons in the city? His troops burst into the Forum 'terrifying men by their arms' - which suggests that openly displaying weapons was unusual.
During the murder of Galba (41-43), the soldiers supporting Otho are clearly carrying swords, which they seem to have brought with them from the Praetorian camp. One of Galba's own bodyguard, however, 'Sempronius Densus... a centurion of a praetorian cohort... drew his dagger (and) rushed to meet the armed men'. This implies that the togata praetorians protecting the emperor were indeed armed only with daggers.
Again, this scene occurs in a time of civil war, so perhaps does not represent the norm. There is no mention, though, of weapons being actually illegal or blasphemous - just unusual.
All I can find on the subject in secondary sources refers to a general's imperium being void within the pomerium, and therefore the sacramentum that a soldier swears to his commander, which permits him to kill, also lapsing. Soldiers within the pomerium became civilians, in other words. I wonder, though, about the position of the emperor himself - his own imperium was presumably intact within the city, and his own personal troops (ie the praetorians) remained soldiers and thus legally under arms. Would this extend also to the urban cohorts (who by definition operated within the city) and the vigiles (who surely had weapons of some kind - even catapults are mentioned - as part of their firefighting equipment)?
- Nathan
Nathan Ross
