Republican Army

[Caius Fabius]

I like the theory that antesignani were permitted for reason of 'rank' to leave their baggage and equipment on the carts, while the rest of the soldiers still carried much of their equipment.

[Mitra]

Vegetius quotes from various sources, true. Somewhere he apparantly found a reference to antesignani having lighter armour than ordinary legionnaries. That much should be certain. I don't think the tekst permits replacing antesignani with another category

But they aren't placed on the battle line where the velites role is cover by "scutati (qui) plumbatis gladiis et missibilibus accincti",( the animal cap can be make reference only to signiferi or and anachronism of velites) . This make sense if they are the Joseph and Arrian general bodyguard, not a front line corps.

so there were special arms for antesignani![

Not necessary, the name for a category of arms cannot derived a priori from an antesignani corps.Like for the men the sense can derive from different concepts

Then why does he not say principales? The words are almost mutually exclusive. The most important principalis of the century was the optio, who certainly stood behind the ranks, rather than in front of them

Dionysus of Alicarnassus call promachoi, the men that in same episode in Livy are the duplares and the signiferi (all principales), the same tribunes are in frontal zone just before the clash. Promachoi in greek indicate "they that fight before the phalanx". The optio is an exception due his role. On can think in Phil. 5.12 the sense is not only principalis but principiis in general.

Cicero make orations, is normal to use archaic or strange forms; why he use "Phil. 2.71 “fueras in acie Pharsalica antesignanus;" at place of commander or officer?
Rhetorical necessity.
Cicero can think the public from the context can distinguish the sense.

No, it's translated as "most active", but that part of the translation is not mine, and is it is not central to the argument either

Sorry, for error i'm making reference to precedent concept of special infantry at place of velites.

The latter is correct. About the rest: I'm talking about the Caesarian period and as I already indicated, I think that antesignani meant something else before and during the later empire. Therefore the fact that Livy uses it differently is IMO beside the point.

The problem is that antesignani cannot be a precise technical word also in Ceasar. For the same job of 3.84 in Bello Africo Caesar take 300 normal legionaries for legion maked expediti.

[Tarbicus]

( the animal cap can be make reference only to signiferi or and anachronism of velites)

But what of J. E. Lendon's opinion that the velites were, in a sense, there to prove themselves as worthy citizens, and the reason for them wearing the animal skins was to make them more easily identifiable afterwards for commendation for displays of personal courage and ability after they opened the battle; for displaying true virtus? He places all of the velites ahead of the legion in deployment on the battlefield, forming a fourth rank in front of the triplex acies, en masse and in loose order. Once their role had been fulfilled they withdrew into the legion leaving the hastati to continue the fight.

Of interest is the loose order formation that he also puts the hastati and principes in, and not regimented rank and file. They are still in groups of maniples but not in strict lines. The Triarii are in formal rank and file, albeit in fewer numbers.

[Dan Diffendale]

Of interest is the loose order formation that he also puts the hastati and principes in, and not regimented rank and file. They are still in groups of maniples but not in strict lines. The Triarii are in formal rank and file, albeit in fewer numbers.

The formal ordering of the triarii makes sense coupled with Rob's idea that they maintained the hoplite shield.

Etruscan sculpture of the late 2nd Century BC still shows the clipeus, while otherwise depicting modern equipment. This would suggest that before 211 the triarii still used the hoplite shield and thus must have been composed of men of the first class exclusively.

(from http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 8277#98277 )

[drsrob]

Vegetius quotes from various sources, true. Somewhere he apparantly found a reference to antesignani having lighter armour than ordinary legionnaries. That much should be certain. I don't think the tekst permits replacing antesignani with another category

But they aren't placed on the battle line where the velites role is cover by "scutati (qui) plumbatis gladiis et missibilibus accincti",( the animal cap can be make reference only to signiferi or and anachronism of velites) . This make sense if they are the Joseph and Arrian general bodyguard, not a front line corps.

The chapter from which this quote is drawn mentions neither velites nor antesignani as such. It is confusing in itself as it combines the old hastati and principes with the Marian cohort-system and 3rd Century AD armament. And I fail to see entirely what it has to do with the general's bodyguard of Josephus and Arrianus.

so there were special arms for antesignani![

Not necessary, the name for a category of arms cannot derived a priori from an antesignani corps.Like for the men the sense can derive from different concepts

You lost me here...

Then why does he not say principales? The words are almost mutually exclusive. The most important principalis of the century was the optio, who certainly stood behind the ranks, rather than in front of them

Dionysus of Alicarnassus call promachoi, the men that in same episode in Livy are the duplares and the signiferi (all principales), the same tribunes are in frontal zone just before the clash. Promachoi in greek indicate "they that fight before the phalanx". The optio is an exception due his role. On can think in Phil. 5.12 the sense is not only principalis but principiis in general.

Principales and principes (I assume those are the ones you mean) are two quite different types of men; the first are NCO's ('under-officers'), the second a battle line. To combine the two terms in any way does not really clarify matters. Firstly - I think - you have to explain why you feel justified to equate antesignani with principales

Cicero make orations, is normal to use archaic or strange forms; why he use "Phil. 2.71 “fueras in acie Pharsalica antesignanus;" at place of commander or officer?
Rhetorical necessity.
Cicero can think the public from the context can distinguish the sense.

as I said, antesignani can have other meanings besides that of a special type of infantrymen. The other meanings didn't disappeared during the time the word was used in this specific meaning. Cicero apparently uses it in both senses.

No, it's translated as "most active", but that part of the translation is not mine, and is it is not central to the argument either

Sorry, for error i'm making reference to precedent concept of special infantry at place of velites.

The latter is correct. About the rest: I'm talking about the Caesarian period and as I already indicated, I think that antesignani meant something else before and during the later empire. Therefore the fact that Livy uses it differently is IMO beside the point.

The problem is that antesignani cannot be a precise technical word also in Ceasar. For the same job of 3.84 in Bello Africo Caesar take 300 normal legionaries for legion maked expediti.

You mean in chapter 75? That is not much of a problem. Firstly Caesar is not obliged to use the same troops for the job and secondly, this book is not written by Caesar himself. It could be that this writer simply did not bother using the proper name of these soldiers.

[Mitra]

It is confusing in itself as it combines the old hastati and principes with the Marian cohort-system and 3rd Century AD armament.

True and this is the motivation because Vegetius isn't a reliable source for antesignani; he found the term in different sources with different senses and makes a mixture:

For Vegetius the antesignani are:

1 - A principia of legion called campigeni
2 - A grave armatura soldier
3 - A lighter armour soldeir without place in battle line (nothing in Vegetius battle line description is equivalent to antesignani successive description)

And I fail to see entirely what it has to do with the general's bodyguard of Josephus and Arrianus.

If we want to make found a special legionary like possible equivalent to antesignanus, then we have the longophoroi the only legionaries with special equipment, with numerical consistency, with sure references in the sources. But how i have told i have found only a possible little reference in the sources (a confront between the Arrian Anabasi Gaza assault and Curzius Rufus same assault).

You lost me here...

If existed a "antesignani" corps, the veteranus have identified himself "militavit antesignanis" or "Militavit armis antesignanorum", like the third century lanciarii.Probably this phrases not have sense, at contrary he identified himself like a veteranus using arms antesignans.We dont know the effective difference between the arma antesignana and postsignana in legion armoury, we can also think, the antesignana arma is a much more heavy equipment for the first line soldier and the postsignana lighter.

Principales and principes (I assume those are the ones you mean) are two quite different types of men; the first are NCO's ('under-officers'), the second a battle line. To combine the two terms in any way does not really clarify matters. Firstly - I think - you have to explain why you feel justified to equate antesignani with principales

Principes and Principia [sing. Princeps and Principium] are terms with multiuse in latin (a part from the specific use of principes in republican acies): can be used for indicate the first acies or the first fighters (view Sallustius BJ, or Ceasar B.Afr.), but also the officers in general,probably princeps because have the sense of first, leader, principium because the castrum zone where the officers have their tents is the starting point (the principium) of castrum construction; via principalis and principalis have the same origin.

We must think to the sense of original identification of hastati with antesignani: probably the term identifies the troops fighting in open order before the old phalanx legion (and the principes are the first line (and unique?) of phalanx), in the passage time between the hoplitic and manipular legion. From this the word was been used for call the men before the units, officers and small officers. If we want translate from greek to latin "promachoi" the best word is sure "antesignani".

as I said, antesignani can have other meanings besides that of a special type of infantrymen. The other meanings didn't disappeared during the time the word was used in this specific meaning. Cicero apparently uses it in both senses.

Perfect, but we return to the fact Cicero in the text oppose manipulares(= gregarius) to antesignani (not gregari evidently, so from principales to general ) of Alaude. The context of phrase is a comparison on personal and moral qualities of judges choiced by Antonius not a technical discussion of soldier types of legion (Cicero has used manipulares and stop in this case).

You mean in chapter 75? That is not much of a problem. Firstly Caesar is not obliged to use the same troops for the job

True but if he have special soldiers , trained for this job, with battle experience why use normal legionaries? Maybe the antesignani of BC 3 are in effect normal soldiers.

and secondly, this book is not written by Caesar himself. It could be that this writer simply did not bother using the proper name of these soldiers.

The writer much probably is one of Ceasar officer (or more than one), using high command or Ceasar personal notes, with direct experience of African campaign. I dont think that if existed an antesignani corps, can make the error of not using a proper name. Different is the stylistical choices of Ceasar like "author": the superior sophistication of BC in terminology, also military, respect the BG is evident, so the reason beacuse the antesignani appear 5 times with probably 3 different sense in BC, but in BG and in the anonymous authors dont appear.

[drsrob]

It is confusing in itself as it combines the old hastati and principes with the Marian cohort-system and 3rd Century AD armament.

True and this is the motivation because Vegetius isn't a reliable source for antesignani; he found the term in different sources with different senses and makes a mixture:

For Vegetius the antesignani are:

1 - A principia of legion called campigeni
2 - A grave armatura soldier
3 - A lighter armour soldeir without place in battle line (nothing in Vegetius battle line description is equivalent to antesignani successive description)

Therefore I don't integrate or try to combine the information in Vegetius. I use the quote 'as is', and try to determine whether the quote can be placed in a particular time frame.

And I fail to see entirely what it has to do with the general's bodyguard of Josephus and Arrianus.

If we want to make found a special legionary like possible equivalent to antesignanus, then we have the longophoroi the only legionaries with special equipment, with numerical consistency, with sure references in the sources. But how i have told i have found only a possible little reference in the sources (a confront between the Arrian Anabasi Gaza assault and Curzius Rufus same assault).

I don't think it is sound methodology to reject a source that actually mentions the type of soldier we're looking for by one that absolutely does not. There are better explanations for the 'longophoroi' of Josephus, namely the beneficiarii, who are well known to have carried a spear with a decorated head. The Cancerellia relief combines this with a round bronze faced shield, combining neatly the two special arms, mentioned by the jewish author. Trying to combine his longophoroi with those of Arrianus creates more problems than it solves.

You lost me here...

If existed a "antesignani" corps, the veteranus have identified himself "militavit antesignanis" or "Militavit armis antesignanorum", like the third century lanciarii.Probably this phrases not have sense, at contrary he identified himself like a veteranus using arms antesignans.We dont know the effective difference between the arma antesignana and postsignana in legion armoury, we can also think, the antesignana arma is a much more heavy equipment for the first line soldier and the postsignana lighter.

I agree that by itself this gravestone could lead equally well to your conclusion, but that would not be in accordance with Vegetius. But you say: 'like the third century lanciarii'. These are certainly skirmishers, so why not the antesignani?

Principales and principes (I assume those are the ones you mean) are two quite different types of men; the first are NCO's ('under-officers'), the second a battle line. To combine the two terms in any way does not really clarify matters. Firstly - I think - you have to explain why you feel justified to equate antesignani with principales

Principes and Principia [sing. Princeps and Principium] are terms with multiuse in latin (a part from the specific use of principes in republican acies): can be used for indicate the first acies or the first fighters (view Sallustius BJ, or Ceasar B.Afr.), but also the officers in general,probably princeps because have the sense of first, leader, principium because the castrum zone where the officers have their tents is the starting point (the principium) of castrum construction; via principalis and principalis have the same origin.

You're not clearing up my confusion

We must think to the sense of original identification of hastati with antesignani: probably the term identifies the troops fighting in open order before the old phalanx legion (and the principes are the first line (and unique?) of phalanx), in the passage time between the hoplitic and manipular legion. From this the word was been used for call the men before the units, officers and small officers. If we want translate from greek to latin "promachoi" the best word is sure "antesignani".

No, I don't agree. The Greek word refers to officers who fight within the front ranks of the phalanx. The latin word specifically means: 'those who fight in front of the standards'. Assuming the standards to be behind their units, it could denote the front line, as it does occasionally in Livy and Frontinus. When we think of the standards moving in front of their units, the word would denote skirmishers, fighting in front of the line, as it does in Caesar's "De Bello Civico".

as I said, antesignani can have other meanings besides that of a special type of infantrymen. The other meanings didn't disappeared during the time the word was used in this specific meaning. Cicero apparently uses it in both senses.

Perfect, but we return to the fact Cicero in the text oppose manipulares(= gregarius) to antesignani (not gregari evidently, so from principales to general ) of Alaude. The context of phrase is a comparison on personal and moral qualities of judges choiced by Antonius not a technical discussion of soldier types of legion (Cicero has used manipulares and stop in this case).

Cicero does not oppose the terms, he simply expands on the word manipulari for rhetorical purposes.

You mean in chapter 75? That is not much of a problem. Firstly Caesar is not obliged to use the same troops for the job

True but if he have special soldiers , trained for this job, with battle experience why use normal legionaries? Maybe the antesignani of BC 3 are in effect normal soldiers.

and secondly, this book is not written by Caesar himself. It could be that this writer simply did not bother using the proper name of these soldiers.

The writer much probably is one of Ceasar officer (or more than one), using high command or Ceasar personal notes, with direct experience of African campaign. I dont think that if existed an antesignani corps, can make the error of not using a proper name. Different is the stylistical choices of Ceasar like "author": the superior sophistication of BC in terminology, also military, respect the BG is evident, so the reason beacuse the antesignani appear 5 times with probably 3 different sense in BC, but in BG and in the anonymous authors dont appear.

Ehh, so you agree with me?


PS. our posts get very long this way... :wink:

[Felix]

Wow! Thanks for all the feedback!

I had already read the Ploybius account of the Roman Army during the Second Punic War, I just wasn't sure if there was elsewhere. And I do also realize that the changes we today call the "Marian Reforms" were not necessarily started (or ended with) C. Marius, but rather are simply called that because he is best known among those that reformed the army.

You see, I'm writing an essay/paper for school concerning this topic, more or less. In it, I am attributing the CARS/Modular Brigade reforms of the U.S. Army to the Marian Reforms of the Roman Army. Let me explain. The U.S. Army through the CARS program transformed the Army from a regiment-based fighting force to a division-based fighting force. In the present, the Army is taking these reforms one step further in making the U.S. Army into a brigade-based fighting force (similar to the British Army) wherein brigades are modular, meaning they can be transferred from one divisional (or higher) command to another, or can operate independantly.

Now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the so-called "Marian" Reforms did the same thing in taking the Roman Army from an older, less effective fighting formation to a better-suited force. Just as how the cohort was an extraordinary unit, the brigade in the U.S. Army only as recently as World War II and the Korean War was also a rather temporary, unusual unit formed for a specific mission. So the Marian Reforms changed the Roman Army from manipuli-centered legions to cohort-centered legions in the same way the current reforms have taken the U.S. Army from regiment-centered divisions to brigade-centered divisions.

Do you believe this comparison is adequate?


...

One caution: I would be careful about saying the older, less flexible formations (in either US or Roman history) were less effective. They were certainly more rigid, but also used in different types of warfare against different enemies. Scipio Africanus was facing forces of equal sophistication and comparable technology; Caesar was not. (This does not mean Caesar's enemies were necessarily easier to beat, but they weren't the same type.) Pershing was facing a massed German army of comparable technology and sophisticated doctrine, not a guerilla army. The means vary to match the obstacles.

[SOCL]

Wow! Thanks for all the feedback!

I had already read the Ploybius account of the Roman Army during the Second Punic War, I just wasn't sure if there was elsewhere. And I do also realize that the changes we today call the "Marian Reforms" were not necessarily started (or ended with) C. Marius, but rather are simply called that because he is best known among those that reformed the army.

You see, I'm writing an essay/paper for school concerning this topic, more or less. In it, I am attributing the CARS/Modular Brigade reforms of the U.S. Army to the Marian Reforms of the Roman Army. Let me explain. The U.S. Army through the CARS program transformed the Army from a regiment-based fighting force to a division-based fighting force. In the present, the Army is taking these reforms one step further in making the U.S. Army into a brigade-based fighting force (similar to the British Army) wherein brigades are modular, meaning they can be transferred from one divisional (or higher) command to another, or can operate independantly.

Now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the so-called "Marian" Reforms did the same thing in taking the Roman Army from an older, less effective fighting formation to a better-suited force. Just as how the cohort was an extraordinary unit, the brigade in the U.S. Army only as recently as World War II and the Korean War was also a rather temporary, unusual unit formed for a specific mission. So the Marian Reforms changed the Roman Army from manipuli-centered legions to cohort-centered legions in the same way the current reforms have taken the U.S. Army from regiment-centered divisions to brigade-centered divisions.

Do you believe this comparison is adequate?


...

One caution: I would be careful about saying the older, less flexible formations (in either US or Roman history) were less effective. They were certainly more rigid, but also used in different types of warfare against different enemies. Scipio Africanus was facing forces of equal sophistication and comparable technology; Caesar was not. (This does not mean Caesar's enemies were necessarily easier to beat, but they weren't the same type.) Pershing was facing a massed German army of comparable technology and sophisticated doctrine, not a guerilla army. The means vary to match the obstacles.

By saying that the cohorts/modular brigades are more effective, I did not mean to imply that that manipuli/regiments were less effective (I have to be careful with my word usage); rather, I meant that they were more effective for the more modern styles of combat which the Roman Army and U.S. Army faced/are facing. In any event, thank you for pointing that out because it certainly will look like an error in reasoning in my research-essay.

[Mitra]

Therefore I don't integrate or try to combine the information in Vegetius. I use the quote 'as is', and try to determine whether the quote can be placed in a particular time frame.

This is a legitimate tentative, but, i think, the lost of original Vegetius sources and the little informations in late roman author about this make this plus an intellectual game (nothing of bad in this, me as well make much of this) that a historical proof.

I don't think it is sound methodology to reject a source that actually mentions the type of soldier we're looking for by one that absolutely does not.

One moment: i reject a interpretation of a source that dont tell or suggest nothing about the role of antesignani.

There are better explanations for the 'longophoroi' of Josephus, namely the beneficiarii, who are well known to have carried a spear with a decorated head. The Cancerellia relief combines this with a round bronze faced shield, combining neatly the two special arms, mentioned by the jewish author. Trying to combine his longophoroi with those of Arrianus creates more problems than it solves

This is a good theoria, but vs this we have than the relief spear isn't a war weapon, while the Josephus pass describe war equipment much probably. Secondly Josephus speak of "peri ton strategon epilektoi pezoi" where peri can be translated "in defence of".

PS: is Cancelleria

I agree that by itself this gravestone could lead equally well to your conclusion, but that would not be in accordance with Vegetius. But you say: 'like the third century lanciarii'. These are certainly skirmichers, so why not the antesignani?

We have the certitude the lanciarii are skirmishers? Only because the lancea is lighter of pilum?

You're not clearing up my confusion

You demanded me of "principes", i tell you why i used the term for officers, and why the officers can been called antesignani, or using antesignani for indicate a leader,a chief in general (found this in Asconius,Apuleius,Ammianus).

The Greek word refers to officers who fight within the front ranks of the phalanx.

The greek word refers to the fighters before the phalanx (see Pritchett, GSTAW or Bar-Kochva ,Seleucid Army).

The latin word specifically means: 'those who fight in front of the standards'. Assuming the standards to be behind their units, it could denote the front line, as it does occasionally in Livy and Frontinus. When we think of the standards moving in front of their units, the word would denote skirmishers, fighting in front of the line, as it does in Caesar's "De Bello Civico".

This because you start from the idea the signa of ante"signani" are originally the maniple's standards, but if the standards are back the unit for the hastati the same must be valid also for principes and triarii, but this aren't called antesignani. If the hastati originally are the young soldiers of second and third census class separated from hoplitical phalanx for fight in open order, then the signa are in reality the standards of phalanx. THe velites dont was called antesignani because the rorarii in original are back the triarii. So the hastati line, the first line, is in origin the "antesignani", the use of call the prima acies "antesignani" stays in the latin language.

Cicero does not oppose the terms, he simply expands on the word manipulari for rhetorical purposes

He has expanded if he used antesignanos et postsignanos (at example) et manipulares alaudas, but like this he simply use two different categories.

Ehh, so you agree with me?

I dont view where ; I simply affirmed the antesignani is a stylistical choice in the text for different situations not a real name for a group of legion's troops.

our posts get very long this way

Yes

[drsrob]

Therefore I don't integrate or try to combine the information in Vegetius. I use the quote 'as is', and try to determine whether the quote can be placed in a particular time frame.

This is a legitimate tentative, but, i think, the lost of original Vegetius sources and the little informations in late roman author about this make this plus an intellectual game (nothing of bad in this, me as well make much of this) that a historical proof.

You're right, it is not proof (but I didn't say so, did I?)

I don't think it is sound methodology to reject a source that actually mentions the type of soldier we're looking for by one that absolutely does not.

One moment: i reject a interpretation of a source that dont tell or suggest nothing about the role of antesignani.

Yes, but you give as an alternative a quote that does not even mention the word antesignani.

There are better explanations for the 'longophoroi' of Josephus, namely the beneficiarii, who are well known to have carried a spear with a decorated head. The Cancerellia relief combines this with a round bronze faced shield, combining neatly the two special arms, mentioned by the jewish author. Trying to combine his longophoroi with those of Arrianus creates more problems than it solves

This is a good theoria, but vs this we have than the relief spear isn't a war weapon, while the Josephus pass describe war equipment much probably. Secondly Josephus speak of "peri ton strategon epilektoi pezoi" where peri can be translated "in defence of".

The early version are not extremely decorative and modern ones could perhaps still be used as a weapon. And if not, Josephus might simply not have realised this.
Besides, early modern guards also had very decorative haldards etc.

PS: is Cancelleria

Ehh, whoops :oops:

I agree that by itself this gravestone could lead equally well to your conclusion, but that would not be in accordance with Vegetius. But you say: 'like the third century lanciarii'. These are certainly skirmichers, so why not the antesignani?

We have the certitude the lanciarii are skirmishers? Only because the lancea is lighter of pilum?

No, because we have the grave stele of Aurelius Mucianus, discens lanchiariorum of the legio II Parthica who is shown carrying an quiver of javelins.

The latin word specifically means: 'those who fight in front of the standards'. Assuming the standards to be behind their units, it could denote the front line, as it does occasionally in Livy and Frontinus. When we think of the standards moving in front of their units, the word would denote skirmishers, fighting in front of the line, as it does in Caesar's "De Bello Civico".

This because you start from the idea the signa of ante"signani" are originally the maniple's standards, but if the standards are back the unit for the hastati the same must be valid also for principes and triarii, but this aren't called antesignani. If the hastati originally are the young soldiers of second and third census class separated from hoplitical phalanx for fight in open order, then the signa are in reality the standards of phalanx. THe velites dont was called antesignani because the rorarii in original are back the triarii. So the hastati line, the first line, is in origin the "antesignani", the use of call the prima acies "antesignani" stays in the latin language.

It doesn't work out as straightforward as that. Signum refers both to the standard and to the unit. My opinion is that generally antesignani refers to those that have no standards in front of them and postsignani to those that do.
Don't forget that where the word is used in the description of earlier battles, the text is generally late and in many cases translated from Greek at some point in time. So you cannot assume that the word was used in those early times as well.

[Tarbicus]

I agree that by itself this gravestone could lead equally well to your conclusion, but that would not be in accordance with Vegetius. But you say: 'like the third century lanciarii'. These are certainly skirmichers, so why not the antesignani?

We have the certitude the lanciarii are skirmishers? Only because the lancea is lighter of pilum?

No, because we have the grave stele of Aurelius Mucianus, discens lanchiariorum of the legio II Parthica who is shown carrying an quiver of javelins.

Are you sure you guys aren't getting tied up in trying to pin a name on a unit type, where the name may have had wider application over the centuries?

This might be useful, where the paper's author states they are a mounted unit of 9 turmae in this instance:
[url:2ekvo3d6]http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=49976#49976[/url]

[drsrob]

Are you sure you guys aren't getting tied up in trying to pin a name on a unit type, where the name may have had wider application over the centuries?

That is my point exactly: the word had a wider meaning. Only in a certain period and connotation it meant something specific.

This might be useful, where the paper's author states they are a mounted unit of 9 turmae in this instance:
[url:1b16kl54]http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=49976#49976[/url]

Now you quoted that text to me for the second time

If I'm not mistaken, in the 4th Century there was a lanciarii legion in Egypt too so if lanciarii are not all infantry, they are not all cavalry either.

[Mitra]

You're right, it is not proof (but I didn't say so, did I?)

Have patience my english isn't so good

Yes, but give as an alternative a quote that does not even mention the word antesignani.

Not correct, i have tould if we want found a possible legionary to which give the name antesignanus, we have the legionary guard, which existence appears in Josephus and Arrian. But i have tould, i have found only on possible reference in the sources for this (the royal hypapistes in Alexander's Gaza assault in Arrian are called antesignani in Curtius Rufus same episodes).

The early version are not extremely decorative and modern could perhaps still be used as a weapon. And if not, Josephus might simply not have realised this.

Possible; but the beneficiari normal duties were administratives, not of protection.

No, because we have the grave stele of Aurelius Mucianus, discens lanchiariorum of the legio II Parthica who is shown carrying an quiver of javelins.

Yes i know the images of lanciarii, and doubtless the javelins are the lanceae; but we return to the point that using lighter weapons isn't equivalent to be a skirmisher. Without make a direct association with lanciarii, we can observe in Arrian the "kouphoon lonchophoroon" light javeliners (expediti or leves in latin) have a role in the general little comitatus (also intervention on battle line problems); we found also in B.Cat. the "Interea Catilina cum expeditis in prima acie vorsari", where Catilina intervene along the prima acies with expediti for help his soldiers. Normal for soldier, that must run with the general up and down the battle line, to have a lighter equipment.

It doesn't work out as straightforward as that. Signum refers both to the standard and to the unit. My opinion is that generally antesignani refers to those that have no standards in front of them and postsignani to those that do.
Don't forget that were the word is used in the description of earlier battles, the text is generally late and in many cases translated from Greek at some point in time. So you cannot assume that the word was used in those early times as well.

The source where the word is much used is Livy (and the only for archaic and middle republic); generally isn't a good technical source because dont have military experience, but in this case is good because he copy the terminology of first annalists. If we make a count on 21 reference in Livy 10 with the sense of hastati or prima acies(in the case of enemies) are in the 10 books before the II punic war, 11 in the 25 books after, but 4 of this have a different sense. The last reference is in book XXXVIII (a different sense). So we have a rarefaction of the term in Livius source proceeding in the modernity of the sources; thi is a important literary fact. In the older annalistical sources the use in the orginal sense is much more frequent that in the lasts, and we assit to the changing of the word use.

Are you sure you guys aren't getting tied up in trying to pin a name on a unit type, where the name may have had wider application over the centuries?

Sure, the same is much more valid for antesignani; the diatribe is on one of this application in Ceasar time

[Tarbicus]

the diatribe is on one of this application in Ceasar time

You mean 'dialogue', not 'diatribe' ?