Republican Army

[drsrob]

Cordus has 43 years age improbable he still is a skirmisher to dismiss and it is improbable he want on his gravestone the first career role in legion and not the last.

Now you're assuming that antesignani are young soldiers, like velites. However, we know that the later lanciarii were specialists, in light of the existence of discentes lanchiariorum. The position of the antesignani could be just as likely - if not more so - like that of the lanciarii, seeing that both age and wealth differentiation no longer existed.
The same applies for instance to the legionary cavalry.

Rounded shield and light weapons appear used by praetorians on Antonine column.

The oval shields of the praetoriani are older (republican) versions of the square legionary shield. The way that Flavoleius holds his shield suggests that it is flat, like those of auxiliaries and of Castricius.

The point is spear-like type so the doubt is that it can has a double function (launch and close combat).

The spear is far too short for close combat and anyway, the way it is held implies that it is fairly light as almost every other spear is depicted resting on the ground.

Sure but the point is that also Ceasar dont has unambiguous interpretation for the word antesignani.

Exactly my point.

I assume you refer to 23.29. This is exactly the line not derived from Polybius.

The Ibera description on Polybius has gone lost (improbably a Scipio family victory dont appear in the greek author).

You're right, I'm afraid my memory expanded om my conclusions.
If you'd check Livy, you'll see that with the exception of this passage Livy does not use the word velites from the moment he starts following Polybius until 211, the year when the story of the introduction of the velites is set. On that and the detailed description of the weaponry I base my conclusion that Polybius is Livy's source for the story.
That that particular line of 23.29 is based on another source was my assumption. One which turned into fact in my memory. Another possibility of course is that Livy got careless; in other words: a slip of the pen.

Livy affirm that the iron part of weapon of this soldiers are like the "hasta of velites?", so the velites have arms like the velites?

You're right, this passage does not make sense as it stands, but remember that Livy is not a military man and the velites had long been abolished when he wrote his history.

The evidence of continuos use of rorarii[...]For this Polybius can use grosphomachoi also for first punic war (the rorarii probably). Probably the episode is the first report of velites word use, before the only word sure are rorarii for light infantry.

What evidence is there? Livy only uses the word rorarii twice, in his description of army organization and the final battle of the Latin War. Again he is as good as his source, and that is untrustwordy in this case.

The Navio's innovation of episode (Livy last phrase) is the tactical combination with the cavalry. Another theory (Gabba) is that the episode is a not clear, in Livus sources, recall of reorganization of legionary light infantry after the lowering of census from 11000 to 4000.

The problem with these alternatives is that they reject an interpretation that leaves only one word inexplicable and substitute one that requires rejecting part or most of the story.

I have spoken of agmen not acies. [...]

An agmen is often simply an acies on the march.

> I still don't follow you.

The sense is that Livius and the other historian are the last authors where to find latin neologism.

We're hindered by linguistic barriers, I'm afraid.

There is for instance no Gracchan law on state weapans. What you are refering to is a law of 123 that provides for the issue of clothing free of charge. Clothing had been issued by the state for a long time, but it's costs were charged to the soldiers. The texts suggest that the law was immediatly withdrawn anyway. It certainly was not in operation in the imperial period.

The word used by Plutarch is "clothing" but the law like affirm Cassio Dio, has been made for help the young soldiers from the people, probably after the census reduction to 1500 assi from 4000 when many thousands of proletarii becoming adsidui; but so the word used by Plutarch must to be interpretated in a plus extensive sense like equipment, is strange to think Graccus remove only the minor cost and not the much heavy cost of weapons and food.

There is nothing in Cassius Dio to suggest that Plutarch is wrong. And about the armour: is it that more expensive? A soldier of the republic would normally buy his equipment once, he only required replacements in exceptional circumstances. Clothing had to be replaced regularly and it was contracted for in large quantities by the state.

The laws probably has been abolished by Silanus in the 109 b.c. (whee the law is that of detractions on the military salary, not specification only on one detraction), but in 14 years has permitted to equip at state expense, like heavy soldier, 70000 ex-proletarii .

I can't find that law, can you give me a source?

Triarii, the Thirds; "pilani triarii quoque dicti", pilani is the original name (pili how name of centurions, antepilani how nickname for principes and hastati) and triarii the nickname that come in use after.

Rather, the original name is triarii. It is found in Polybius I.26.6. Where it is a nickname of a naval squadron. In this light it is certain that the word was already in use at that date. Pilani on the other hand is found not even in Livy VIII.8-10 (only antepilani is).

[Mitra]

Now you're assuming that antesignani are young soldiers, like velites. However, we know that the later lanciarii were specialists, in light of the existence of discentes lanchiariorum. The position of the antesignani could be just as likely - if not more so - like that of the lanciarii, seeing that both age and wealth differentiation no longer existed.
The same applies for instance to the legionary cavalry.

Exactly the existence of discentes confirm the fact they cannot been skirmishers; the discentes teach precise technical notions of higher level respect the arms and phisical training of legionaries; we have discentes of signiferi, aquiliferi, equites, architecti, instructors (discens armaturarum), capsarii, librarii (Le Bohec). I doubt the skirmishing need high competence apart the phisical fitness and use of javelin (all included in the normal legionary preparation).

If we think the antesignani are born for replace the velites, we cannot leave a part the fact the velites are the younger and poorer soldier in the legion. If the motivation for "poorer" is the weapons cost, for "younger" can be only the phisical need to run for protacted periods of time with velocity (and probably the recklessness of the youngs).
But it is the mere fact of find a substitute for the velites the curiousness; if the velites are so necessaries the aren't been disappeared, but in a century where the roman general have access to a vast manpower of warrior people with skirmishing tradition, and the stronger enemy are principaly the heavy infantry of other roman armies, what strong motivation we can find for the recreation on minor scale of legionary light javeliners, dissipating roman heavy infantry resources, without a unquestionable evidence from the sources?

The oval shields of the praetoriani are older (republican) versions of the square legionary shield. The way that Flavoleius holds his shield suggests that it is flat, like those of auxiliaries and of Castricius.

On what basis you affirm this? I dont view signs to think this.

And if we follow Feugere subrectangular and oval shield are much communes in legions respect the rectangular-curved shield. ANd the fact that the auxiliary infantry use it is a indication that isn't specific for light infantry (only if on think all aux. are skirmishers)

The spear is far too short for close combat and anyway, the way it is held implies that it is fairly light as almost every other spear is depicted resting on the ground.

On must take regard of this:

- perspective effect: the spear is evidently not perpendicular to the ground and not parallel to the soldier body, the position of fingers of the hand implicates a angle with the lower part much more in relief respect the other parts (a perspective game of sculptor can explain the big mass at the end); spears which seem shorters for this effect, they appear frequently on MArcus Aurelius Column.

- spears so short appear on the same Marcus's column ( http://biblio.cribecu.sns.it/blrimg/b/ca10.jpg , http://biblio.cribecu.sns.it/blrimg/b/ca18.jpg ) in the hands of soldiers with hamata o squamata. THese can be only pila simplified because spears are more easy to represent, but this is true also in soldiers grave (where pilum appears rarely ).

- The scroll he has in left hand, can indicate a clerk work (this is not in contradiction with he has sword and shield also the clerks must fight in the legion); so the spear can be only a simbolic status weapon (this can explcate why she is hold in different mode respect the spears or javelins in other grave).

If you'd check Livy, you'll see that with the exception of this passage Livy does not use the word velites from the moment he start following Polybius until 211, the year when the story of the introduction of the velites is set.

The term velites appears in Livy other two times (Ibera excluded): XXI.55 (Trebbia) and XXIV.34 (Syracuse siege).

You're right, this passage does not make sense as it stands, but remember that Livy is not a military man and the velites had long been abolished when he wrote his history.

Yes, but this implicate Livy made a elaboration on this passage and not reported simply a not clear source passage (much more probable in Livy). Critical analisys is much rare in Livius respect to Polybius specially if not he not has alternative sources on the episode.

What evidence is there? Livy only uses the word rorarii twice, in his description of army organization and the final battle of the Latin War. Again he is as good as his source, and that is untrustwordy in this case.

Not Livy, Rorarii are reported by fragments of Plautus Frivolaria (last III century - begin of II century) and Lucilius Saturae (last of II century). Particularly interesting is Lucilius which speaks of "rorarius veles".

The problem with these alternatives is that they reject an interpretation that leaves only one word inexplicable and substitute one that requires rejecting part or most of the story.

THey reject the phrase "institutum ut uelites in legionibus essent" not the entire passage and rejected the idea that before this episode the legion dont has light infantry. Probably before the punic war the situation of light infantry is different but not to zero level; if we take Varro De vita populi romani we have the fragment "qui gladiis cincti sine scuto cum binis gaesis essent.
" after the fragment where Varro speaks of rorarii. So or Varro refers to the same rorarii or to another old type of light troops. Interesting is the fact that the Livy's Leves armament is analogue this troops, and it is between Livius and Dionysus armament for forth census class.

An agmen is often simply an acies on the march.

This can be true only with the agmen quadratus or pilatus; but this is not the case in the Caesar episode.

We're hindered by linguistic barriers, I'm afraid.

My fault; I have used the italian phrase structure, probably in english dont sounds good.

"Because is Livy and not Catullus" in italian is "Perchè (used both the responses and the questions) è (is) Livio e (and) non (not) Catullo.

There is nothing in Cassius Dio to suggest that Plutarch is wrong. And about the armour: is it that more expensive? A soldier of the republic would normally buy his equipment once, he only required replacements in exceptional circumstances. Clothing had to be replaced regularly and it was contracted for in large quantities by the state.

Yes the weapons must been bought una tantum and more rarely substituted (but the swords, lances, javelins broken, and the quaestor detracts from salary all the needed weapons of soldier); but their initial value is much higher of many time that of clothing. Only the first class can permit the cost of purchase and maintenance of mail armor, the forth class not even the the cost of pectorale. If we make a comparison with the law ripuarian: a mail armor has the cost of six oxs or 4 mares, a sword without scabbard like a mare, a helmet like 3 oxs.
I dont propose this cost are valid also for roman time, but in a pre-industrialized society the rapport of values cannot be much different, since the metallurgic production in carolingian time aren't more primitive that in Republican Rome (on the contrary probably are more advanced, it depend by the time of diffusion of Catalan type furnace).

I can't find that law, can you give me a source?

Reported by Gabba:
Asconius Pro Cornelio: atque ipse quoque hic Iunius male rem adversus Cimbros gessit ac plures leges quae per eos annos quibus hec significabantur populo latae erant, quibus militiae stipendia minuebantur, abrogavit.

The (possible

and many laws that in those yeas are presented by the people, among those signalled (is a reference to a previous passage), with whose the burden (stipendia has the sense of salary bu also of tribute, tax) military are reduced, abrogated.

I am not so sure of my english translation from my italian translation.

Rather, the original name is triarii. It is found in Polybius I.26.6. Where it is a nickname of a naval squadron. In this light it is certain that the word was already in use at that date. Pilani on the other hand is found not even in Livy VIII.8-10 (only antepilani is).

This only indicates that pilani and triarii are more ancients of punic wars; the rarity of term in the source indicates that cannot been enter in use after (so ancient that Varro are not capable to assign it the correct origin). THe fact that it remains in the centurion titling, in a conservative environment like the roman army, is the sign that term is the first word used for the triarii.

[drsrob]

Exactly the existence of discentes confirm the fact they cannot been skirmishers; the discentes teach precise technical notions of higher level respect the arms and phisical training of legionaries; we have discentes of signiferi, aquiliferi, equites, architecti, instructors (discens armaturarum), capsarii, librarii (Le Bohec). I doubt the skirmishing need high competence apart the phisical fitness and use of javelin (all included in the normal legionary preparation).

That discentes are instructors is one theory. The other is that they are trainees. As we know of a discens aquiliferi (serving in the 8th cohort) the latter option seams preferable. But in this case it's irrelevant. From the existance of the discens lanchiariorum we can deduce that the lanciarii are specialists, whether he is student or trainer; the existance of the one virtually implies that of the other.

[...], what strong motivation we can find for the recreation on minor scale of legionary light javeliners, dissipating roman heavy infantry resources, without a unquestionable evidence from the sources?

That's a tough one. My personal opinion is that the Romans concentrated on their own specialty for garrison armies of the post social war period and hired everything else. The antesignani as an elite force probably originated in the Spanish legions. Caesar would then have been vague about it as he didn't want to state that he copied the enemy's tactics. (But that is only an hypothesis of course.)

On must take regard of this:

- perspective effect [...]

The way the spear is held and the amentum is the basis of my argument, not so much it's exact length as that is often distorted in sculpture.

- spears so short appear on the same Marcus's column [...] These can be only pila simplified because spears are more easy to represent, but this is true also in soldiers grave (where pilum appears rarely ).

where pila appear in 1st century gravestones they are faithfully rendered. The only exception seams to be C. Castricius. However, he clearly has two spears. Possibly these are intended to represent what we know as light pila, otherwise they might be lanceae.

- The scroll he has in left hand, can indicate a clerk work (this is not in contradiction with he has sword and shield also the clerks must fight in the legion); so the spear can be only a symbolic status weapon [...]

A viable alternative explanation, except that it doesn't explain the amentum.

If you'd check Livy, you'll see that with the exception of this passage Livy does not use the word velites from the moment he start following Polybius until 211, the year when the story of the introduction of the velites is set.

The term velites appears in Livy other two times (Ibera excluded): XXI.55 (Trebbia) and XXIV.34 (Syracuse siege).

:oops: You're correct. Serves me right for working from memory.

Nevertheless, exactly XXI.55 is the passage which gave me the idea. Here Livy gives an abridgement of Polybius's story. The sentence containing the word velites however is clearly drawn from another source. However, XXIV.34 is quoted directly from Polybius so Livy is not consistent. On the other hand, why else would he translate 'javelineers' with velites on some occasions and not on other?

Not Livy, Rorarii are reported by fragments of Plautus Frivolaria (last III century - begin of II century) and Lucilius Saturae (last of II century). Particularly interesting is Lucilius which speaks of "rorarius veles".

Plautus is quoted in Varro, De lingua latina as follows:In Frivolaria:
Ubi rorarii estis? En sunt. Ubi sunt accensi?
Ecce sunt.
This is not much to go on. Possibly it's were Livy got his idea of the existence of rorarii and accensi as old troop types.
Unfortunately I can't find Lucilius on the net.

The problem with these alternatives is that they reject an interpretation that leaves only one word inexplicable and substitute one that requires rejecting part or most of the story.

They reject the phrase "institutum ut uelites in legionibus essent" not the entire passage and rejected the idea that before this episode the legion dont has light infantry. Probably before the punic war the situation of light infantry is different but not to zero level;

That the velites were created in 211 does not mean that there were no light infantry before. But it was a less effective type of light infantry, prossibly purely composed of the poorest class, irrespective of age.

if we take Varro De vita populi romani we have the fragment "qui gladiis cincti sine scuto cum binis gaesis essent.
" after the fragment where Varro speaks of rorarii. So or Varro refers to the same rorarii or to another old type of light troops.

Another quote I can't find on the net except as a note in a text about Gauls. But the word gaesum should already make clear that the quote concerns Gauls and not Romans.

Reported by Gabba:
Asconius Pro Cornelio: atque ipse quoque hic Iunius male rem adversus Cimbros gessit ac plures leges quae per eos annos quibus hec significabantur populo latae erant, quibus militiae stipendia minuebantur, abrogavit.

The (possible

and many laws that in those yeas are presented by the people, among those signalled (is a reference to a previous passage), with whose the burden (with the sense of tribute,tax, the other sense of stipendia) military are reduced, abrogated.

I am not so sure of my english translation from my italian translation.

Again, nothing specific about armament.

This only indicates that pilani and triarii are more ancients of punic wars;[...]

It says nothing about pilani

The fact that it remains in the centurion titling, in a conservative environment like the roman army, is the sign that term is the first word used for the triarii.

"Remains" is already a conclusion and therefore does not constitute proof.
Pilus was the title of certain centurions. Pilani was the name for the men. Hastati and Principes were both the men and the centurions. This suggests that the words were not formed at the same time. I'm not a linguist but I should think that the pilus-pilani pair is later.

[Mitra]

But anyone make a post beside Rob and me? We talk in two by 3 months! hock:
I think the arguments are many and interesting.

As we know of a discens aquiliferi (serving in the 8th cohort) the latter option seams preferable. But in this case it's irrelevant.

The cohort number isn't relevant; we know a imaginifer of third cohort (Le bohec); only the aquilifer has to be of first cohort for sure.

the existance of the one virtually implies that of the other.

And the point is that for to be a skirmisher isn't necessary to be a specialist. So the duties has to be different (example bodyguards of officers and standards in battle (to detach special soldiers for standard guard-duty, are common: we find this in strategikon,templar rule, swiss regulation for mobilization)).

The way the spear is held and the amentum is the basis of my argument, not so much it's exact length as that is often distorted in sculpture.

If it is a amentum then the hand are not in the middle of spear because the amenta are above the centre like in this image
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Ima ... r/Periods/
Roman/Topics/Warfare/weapons/hastae/2*.gif
So the spear must to be longer that it appears.

where pila appear in 1st century gravestones they are faithfully rendered. The only exception seams to be C. Castricius. However, he clearly has two spears. Possibly these are intended to represent what we know as light pila, otherwise they might be lanceae.

Or simple artistic decision or economic (- work -money spend)

A viable alternative explanation, except that it doesn't explain the amentum

In the Marcus coloumn officers and Marcus same, in some plates, hold a short spear with a hand in this mode. Probably only a symbolic weapons (hasta pura?). The pose of soldier can be only an imitation of officers with (the amentum only a signal that the weapon aren't a decoration).

On the other hand, why else would he translate 'javelineers' with velites on some occasions and not on other?

Probably only literary choice; velites like many roman military terms can be used in strict or general sense (i remember a Legiones gallicae in Livy).

This is not much to go on. Possibly it's were Livy got his idea of the existence of rorarii and accensi as old troop types.
Unfortunately I can't find Lucilius on the net.

The existence in Plautus is much important. In a comedy before a "all-classes" public the
author cannot use words unknowed. So rorarii and accensi are not archaic terms at the end of
II punic war (and the reference to triarii in the same phrase "a/gite nunc, subsidite omnes, quasi solent triarii. "
contextualized them to the
roman army words). It is highly improbable that Livy can have taked a II century not-historical author and use informations for recreate a fictional 75 vexilla legion for the IV century.

For Lucilius "quinque hastae, aureolo cinctu rorarius uel[2es]2
primum fulgit, uti caldum [2e]2 furnaci[2bu]2 ferrum." "quamuis desubito trinis deducere scalis
pone paludatus stabat rorarius uelox @1
"

That the velites were created in 211 does not mean that there were no light infantry before. But it was a less effective type of light infantry, prossibly purely composed of the poorest class, irrespective of age.

The velites are the poorer also in Polibyus time.

Another quote I can't find on the net except as a note in a text about Gauls. But the word gaesum should already make clear that the quote concerns Gauls and not Romans.

yep, these fragments aren't in net, i found them in PHI5:

"
tum appellatus est dilectus et ab electione legio. ab
hac superuacaneorum consuetudine adscribuntur.
qui de ascriptiuis, cum erant adtributi decurionibus
et centurionibus, qui eorum habent numerum, accen-
si uocabantur. eosdem etiam quidam uocabant feren-
tarios, qui depugnabant fundis et lapidibus, his ar-
mis quae ferrentur, non quae tenerentur.
referentibus centurionibus et decurionibus adoptati in
cohortes subibant, ut semper plenae essent legiones.
a quo optiones in turmis decurionum et in cohorti-
bus centurionum appellati.
rorarii appellati quod imbribus fere primum rorare
incipit.
qui gladiis cincti sine scuto cum binis gaesis essent.
qui in exercitu donati essent et equo publico mere-
rent.
"

Again, nothing specific about armament.

Yep sorry, only after the traduction I have viewed that minuebantur cannot be translated with "to detract" in this phrase.

Pilus was the title of certain centurions. Pilani was the name for the men. Hastati and Principes were both the men and the centurions. This suggests that the words were not formed at the same time. I'm not a linguist but I should think that the pilus-pilani pair is later

Pilus are the name of the unit; in latin primum pilum ducere (to command the primus pilus) are synonimous of centurio primopilus, which is the centurio of primus pilus. The pilani are the members of a pilus.

It says nothing about pilani

This signifies that the use of pilani is exited from the common use before the time of Polybius; nothing indicates the term enter in use after (anyone remember the original sense of this word).

[drsrob]

As we know of a discens aquiliferi (serving in the 8th cohort) the latter option seams preferable. But in this case it's irrelevant.

The cohort number isn't relevant; we know a imaginifer of third cohort (Le bohec); only the aquilifer has to be of first cohort for sure.

No, it's irrelevant for our argument whether the discens is an instructor or a trainee. That the discens aquiliferi is in the 8th cohort however, makes it almost certain that he is a trainee.

And the point is that for to be a skirmisher isn't necessary to be a specialist. So the duties has to be different (example bodyguards of officers and standards in battle (to detach special soldiers for standard guard-duty, are common: we find this in strategikon,templar rule, swiss regulation for mobilization)).

There is a growing professionalism in Roman javelineers. The velites were more than just the poorest men. They were preferably young men. The were armed with shield, sword and helmet and were therefore able to close in with the enemy and engage them one-on-one (cf. Livy 38.21).

alii ruentes in hostem undique configebantur et, cum comminus uenerant, gladiis a uelitibus trucidabantur. Hic miles tripedalem parmam habet et in dextera hastas, quibus eminus utitur; gladio Hispaniensi est cinctus; quodsi pede collato pugnandum est, translatis in laeuam hastis stringit gladium.

So they were lying about everywhere, and some who rushed down on their enemy were being pierced with missiles from all sides; those who got to close quarters the velites slew with their swords. These soldiers carry a shield three feet long, javelins in their right hand for use at a distance and a Spanish sword in their belts. When they have to fight at close quarters they transfer the javelins to their left hands and draw their swords.

In this they differed greatly from the Hellenistic skirmishers (Livy 31.35).

ita nec eques regius equiti par erat, insuetus ad stabilem pugnam, nec pedes concursator et uagus et prope seminudus genere armorum ueliti Romano parmam gladiumque habenti pariterque et ad se tuendum et ad hostem petendum armato.

Under these conditions Philip's cavalry, unaccustomed to a stationary combat, were no match for the Roman horse, and his infantry, trained to skirmish in loose order and unprotected by armour, were at the mercy of the velites who with their swords and shields were equally prepared for defence and attack.

This ability to close in and fight hand-to-hand must be what made them so succesful, and it must have been what made the Romans decide to retain them after 211 (both Livy and Frontinus quote the story, most likely from Polybius as I've stated before). The skirmishers that they replaced probably were similar to normal Hellenistic javelineers.

In the third century AD javelineers (lancearii) were selected and trained, like legionary cavalry. It is not unreasonable to suppose that there was a force of javelineers in the intervening period that was halfway on this road. And of the antesignani we at least know that they had different arms. Other tidbits of informations do not mean much in themselves, but - taken together - they suggest that the antesignani were the successors of the velites and the predecessors of the lancearii.

If it is a amentum then the hand are not in the middle of spear because the amenta are above the centre like in this image
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Ima ... r/Periods/
Roman/Topics/Warfare/weapons/hastae/2*.gif
So the spear must to be longer that it appears.

where pila appear in 1st century gravestones they are faithfully rendered. The only exception seams to be C. Castricius. However, he clearly has two spears. Possibly these are intended to represent what we know as light pila, otherwise they might be lanceae.

Or simple artistic decision or economic (- work -money spend)

How can that be a reason to depict two spears instead of one?

In the Marcus coloumn officers and Marcus same, in some plates, hold a short spear with a hand in this mode. Probably only a symbolic weapons (hasta pura?). The pose of soldier can be only an imitation of officers with (the amentum only a signal that the weapon aren't a decoration).

Here you have a good point.

Probably only literary choice; velites like many roman military terms can be used in strict or general sense (i remember a Legiones gallicae in Livy).

Velites is to my knowledge never used in a general sense. It always refers specifically to Roman light infantry. Just as triarii, principes and hastati.

The existence in Plautus is much important. In a comedy before a "all-classes" public the author cannot use words unknowed. So rorarii and accensi are not archaic terms at the end of II punic war (and the reference to triarii in the same phrase "a/gite nunc, subsidite omnes, quasi solent triarii." contextualized them to the roman army words). It is highly improbable that Livy can have taked a II century not-historical author and use informations for recreate a fictional 75 vexilla legion for the IV century.

For Lucilius
"quinque hastae, aureolo cinctu rorarius uel primum fulgit, uti caldum furnaci ferrum."
"quamuis desubito trinis deducere scalis pone paludatus stabat rorarius uelox"

The first quote speaks of five hastae. The second says rorarius velox (not veles!). These indeed seem to suggest that the rorarius is a skirmisher. One wonders whether the word is actually a synonym for velite.

The velites are the poorer also in Polibyus time.

But also the younger!

yep, these fragments aren't in net, i found them in PHI5:

tum appellatus est dilectus et ab electione legio. ab hac superuacaneorum consuetudine adscribuntur. qui de ascriptiuis, cum erant adtributi decurionibus et centurionibus, qui eorum habent numerum, accensi uocabantur. eosdem etiam quidam uocabant ferentarios, qui depugnabant fundis et lapidibus, his armis quae ferrentur, non quae tenerentur. referentibus centurionibus et decurionibus adoptati in cohortes subibant, ut semper plenae essent legiones. a quo optiones in turmis decurionum et in cohortibus centurionum appellati. rorarii appellati quod imbribus fere primum rorare incipit. qui gladiis cincti sine scuto cum binis gaesis essent. qui in exercitu donati essent et equo publico mererent.

The last part describes the rorarii not just as armed with sword and two javelins and no shield, but also as deserving an equo publico (unless you left out a sentence). This suggests that they were a cavalry vanguard rather than infantry skirmishers. It's all rather vague. Anyhow, Varro is not explaining what they were, but how they got their name.

This signifies that the use of pilani is exited from the common use before the time of Polybius; nothing indicates the term enter in use after (anyone remember the original sense of this word).

On the contrary. Hastati, principes and triarii were an age class in the days of Polybius. By Caesar's time there were no age-classes anymore. The first two names survived as the title of centurions, but were also used to refer to their men. The senior centurions were called pili rather then triarii, probably because the latter title would infer third rank, while they actually were the senior ones.
If the word had been in use in earlier times, it would have referred to the men of some unit or battle line before. In that case the word would have had a double meaning like hastati and principes (see above). However, the men of the pili were known as pilani. This suggests that the word was newly formed.

Pfff. they're getting long again, our posts :roll:

But anyone make a post beside Rob and me? We talk in two by 3 months! hock:
I think the arguments are many and interesting.

I think that scarcely anybody still knows what we're talking about :lol: (sometimes I wonder whether wé do :wink: )

[Caballo]

"I think that scarcely anybody still knows what we're talking about "
But they are very interesting- and I read them!

[SOCL]

Still reading along, too! shock:

[Mitra]

I think that scarcely anybody still knows what we're talking about (sometimes I wonder whether wé do )

Yep, best to stop us now, we risk to continue until our death

[drsrob]

I think that scarcely anybody still knows what we're talking about (sometimes I wonder whether wé do )

Yep, best to stop us now, we risk to continue until our death

Yeah, we covered the subject prettty well

[Tarbicus]

Spoilsports. How can you stop now?!! We don't know who did it yet!! :evil:

[drsrob]

Spoilsports. How can you stop now?!! We don't know who did it yet!! :evil:

Oh, that we know: it was Caesar!


(wasn't it?)

[Mitra]

Spoilsports. How can you stop now?!! We don't know who did it yet!! :evil:

If you pay.....

My bank account is ...........

[caius aelius corvus]

:?:

Hi,

During Cesar's time, what could be the equipment of antesignani ? Parma, light small javelins, light pilum and no lorica ?

All the best.

Hervé CAILLAU

[Mitra]

All equipments are possible, because the sources don't indicate the antesignani nature in Caesar time. So this is at your preference.