Legionaire light infantry

[Praefectusclassis]

Mainz bases: [url:zazup430]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/reenactment-gallery/32.html[/url]

[drsrob]

I am well aware of the throwing strap on Flavoleius' pilum. I wonder though: you seem to distinguish the pilum from a "throwing javelin". A pilum is a type of javelin and is therefore meant to be thrown, making it a "throwing javelin".

I use the word "throwing javelin" to avoid naming the weapon with a Latin name, which would only create confusion, as the proper name is unknown or at least unclear. But you're right, any javelin is for meant throwing, including pila, so "light javelin" would have been a better name.

I cannot think of a good reason why a pilum should not be fitted with a throwing strap if the owner desired. A throwing strap is after all intended to assist in the launching of a thrown weapon, which is what a pilum is.

Well, I have never come across any source, whether written or pictorial, showing or suggesting that pila (i.e. the heavy kind) had an amentum. As I understand it, they were thrown at short range and the amentum was used to increase the range of the javelin, so it would serve little purpose anyway.

I don't see either that the carrying of two pila indicates a light infantryman. A heavy infantryman might still have the opportunity to throw more than one.

Perhaps, but in the idiom of the gravestones legionaries are regularly depicted with only a single pilum, so the presence of two is likely to have some significance. And the most likely purpose is to indicate light infantry status.

"To me the oval shields are not proof of their status, their status proofs the use of oval shields by light infantry"

Careful here. This looks like a circular argument based on the assumption that they are light infantry.

Not so, what I meant is that the proof for my argument that they are light infantry is in their spears and not in their shields, and therefore I can use them as evidence that light infantry carried oval shields

With reference to the column bases from Mainz, there are five bases which show soldiers, although only four of them are regularly published, the other being rather too badly damaged. Three of the regular four show curved scuta, one showing two. Three Imperial Gallic helmets are shown, as well as one which might be classified as Imperial Italic and one which is normally thought to be of Coolus type. The fifth stone is too worn to be able to identify a helmet type but it shows a helmeted soldier thrusting underarm with either a sword or spear and holding what may be a curving oval shield in front of him. The well known stone with the Coolus helmet, flat(?) oval shield and three javelins is definitely a light infantryman but is normally identified as an auxiliary and I see no reason not to agree with this.

That is an distinction ultimately derived from Traian's Column. Heavy infantry = legionary, light infantry = auxiliary. But you agree that he is light infantry, on the basis of the oval shield and multiple javelins, do you not? So why do you refuse to consider that a legionary with oval shield and two javelins is or at least might be a light infantryman?

Incidentally, one of the other bases shows a soldier with a mail shirt without shoulder doubling and no belt but carrying a curving scutum. Would you define him as light, based on his armour, or heavy, based on his shield? We do not have enough information available to say catagorically that heavy infantry automatically had shoulder doubling. Some may simply have worn a greater amount of padding on their shoulders to make up for the lack of doubling.

I don't recall having said that shoulder doubling was a distinction of postsignani. On the contrary, I believe it is common on 1st century mail-shirts and had disappeared entirely by the beginning of the 2nd.

Finally, I am not sure that the form of the central crest support on the Imperial Gallic 'I' helmets is very significant in terms of infantry type. It probably simply indicates a different centre of production.

That is imo exactly what it cannot mean, as the central crest support of the Imp. Gallic I is identical to that of the Coolus helmets and different from those of all other Imp. Gallic ones. If these would come from the same production area, why would they have retained these crest arrangements, while otherwise copying fully the Imperial Gallic pattern? The transference of these crest support (and thus of the accompanying crests) signifies to me that those crest arrangement had some identifying significance.

[Tasciavanous]

That is an distinction ultimately derived from Traian's Column. Heavy infantry = legionary, light infantry = auxiliary. But you agree that he is light infantry, on the basis of the oval shield and multiple javelins, do you not? So why do you refuse to consider that a legionary with oval shield and two javelins is or at least might be a light infantryman?

So by your reckoning the figures that are taken to be Auxillia on Trajan's column could/ should be seen as Legionary light infantry?
Fascinating stuff guys thanks
James

[drsrob]

That is an distinction ultimately derived from Traian's Column. Heavy infantry = legionary, light infantry = auxiliary. But you agree that he is light infantry, on the basis of the oval shield and multiple javelins, do you not? So why do you refuse to consider that a legionary with oval shield and two javelins is or at least might be a light infantryman?

So by your reckoning the figures that are taken to be Auxillia on Trajan's column could/ should be seen as Legionary light infantry?

Did I say that? No, on the column they are allmost all auxilia, though the legionary standardbearers are given exactly the same equipment. In scene XXXVI however there are some light infantry wearing animal skins like the standard-bearers. These were in my opinion very likely intended to depict antesignani or legionary light infantry. After all, Vegetius stated that standard-bearers and antesignani both wore light equipment and animal skins.
And yes, I did say before that antesignani no longer used animal skins. However, the column uses a kind of pictorial shorthand to make it easier to identify certain classes of troops, and the Romans of the city would have been more familiar with the literary descriptions (not Vegetius of course, but one of his sources) than with the actual looks of a particular type of soldier.