Republican Army

[Mitra]

Diatribe is much more dramatic! Give importance to the post


PS: in Italian language is used frequently in journals language like synonimous of "intense discussion" in politics

[drsrob]

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).

Hmm, interesting, I didn't know that.

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.

In peacetime yes, but it is not entirely impossible that the acted as a bodyguard in time of war.

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. [...]

No but having multiple spears generally is a good indication.

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.

I have collected most if not all of these quotes, but they are much to detailed for such early battles. And again, the earliest Roman histories were written in Greek, so terminology is always suspect.

[Mitra]

Hmm, interesting, I didn't know that.

It is a fragmented part of book IV.6, not findable in the Latin Library; I found this in PHI5: "Ducebat ipse rex antesignanos".

In peacetime yes, but it is not entirely impossible that the acted as a bodyguard in time of war.

Possible

No but having multiple spears generally is a good indication.

The good of have lighter weapons is you can transport more. The plumbate isn't five for soldiers? If you fight behind the first acies, up and down the line, without the possibility to retake much of missiles weapons launched by the enemy, have a good numbers of yours arms in the hand is better. But this concern the complex argument of role of launch weapons in battle and everyone have is point of view, so is best leave this apart.

I have collected most if not all of these quotes, but they are much to detailed for such early battles. And again, the earliest Roman histories were written in Greek, so terminology is always suspect.

The sources for Livy is the various Annales, all in Latin, the greek histories used is Polybius and Posidonius, but they concern the middle republican period and have contemporary roman sources (like Cato). In Greek is also the roman history of Fabius Pictor, but he write also one Annales in Latin.

The sources of Annalisti are the "Annales Maximi" in primis,the libri lintei, the archive of senatus consulta, and the private archives of senatorial families, so we have the language of sources are latin of IV century; the first 10 books have little "contamination" with greek sources. The probable principal annalist used by Livy for the "Prima deca" is Elius Tubero, the much recent annalist but famous for antiquarian studies.

[drsrob]

No but having multiple spears generally is a good indication.

The good of have lighter weapons is you can transport more. The plumbate isn't five for soldiers? If you fight behind the first acies, up and down the line, without the possibility to retake much of missiles weapons launched by the enemy, have a good numbers of yours arms in the hand is better. But this concern the complex argument of role of launch weapons in battle and everyone have is point of view, so is best leave this apart.

Normally grave stones show only a single spear or javelin. Having a bundle a javelins is in litarary sources an indication of being light infantry. So let's not leave this aside and view it as the piece of evidence it is.

I have collected most if not all of these quotes, but they are much to detailed for such early battles. And again, the earliest Roman histories were written in Greek, so terminology is always suspect.

The sources for Livy is the various Annales, all in Latin, the greek histories used is Polybius and Posidonius, but they concern the middle republican period and have contemporary roman sources (like Cato). In Greek is also the roman history of Fabius Pictor, but he write also one Annales in Latin.

The sources of Annalisti are the "Annales Maximi" in primis,the libri lintei, the archive of senatus consulta, and the private archives of senatorial families, so we have the language of sources are latin of IV century; the first 10 books have little "contamination" with greek sources. The probable principal annalist used by Livy for the "Prima deca" is Elius Tubero, the much recent annalist but famous for antiquarian studies.

The first Roman histories were written in Greek by Q. Fabius Pictor and L. Cincius Alimentus. Both dealt mainly with the foundation period and the Punic Wars. The first history of Rome written in Latin verse was that of Q. Ennius (239-169 BC), the first in Latin prose by Cato the Elder (234-149 BC). From that moment onwards the Roman histories were mostly written in Latin. The Annales Maximi were compiled in the late 2nd century BC. They did not provide much detail however, certainly not about battles and the like.
Another source for Livy is Valerius Antias though Livy himselfs observes that he often invents facts and events, both major and minor.

A good example of the unreliability of terminology in the early period is the fact that the senior magistrates are called 'consuls' from the beginning, while it is virtually certain that they were actually titled praetores.

[Mitra]

Normally grave stones show only a single spear or javelin.

True, but this make suspect of symbolism's form the use of five lancea in right hand in two lanciarii images where one or two is one hand is normal,
like this:

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

Having a bundle a javelins is in litarary sources an indication of being light infantry.

at example?

The first Roman histories were written in Greek by Q. Fabius Pictor and L. Cincius Alimentus. Both dealt mainly with the
.....

THe annales maximi are true of II century but are the compilation of tabulae Pontificum which reported continue datas after the gallic invasion,they reported synthetic information on military campaign and embassy. THis with the other souces of previous post are the sources Fabius Pictor have for old roman history like the other annalists after him (a part from oral tradition). The consulate has been reestablished in IV century after about a century, so the old name of praetor are not actual for the rebuild of annales before Allia.

But in prima deca Livus use only little of Pictor and Alimentus, the principale annalist is probably Tuberone (usually Livy use a principal source and use the others for correction and append).

I agree the annalist is not the best form of history, for the events or datas but the research of anachronisms in battles is plausile before the IV century when the major part of tabulae anterior the Allia has been rebuild a posteriori. So for the time of passage between the phalanx and the maniple we are cover for the terminology.
The prima deca is normally considerated the most archaic and poetic of Livy (where in latin the poetic bear for the archaic style), so a battle narration cannot be sure for the reconstruction but the word's choice isn't casual.

[drsrob]

Normally grave stones show only a single spear or javelin.

True, but this make suspect of symbolism's form the use of five lancea in right hand in two lanciarii images where one or two is one hand is normal,
like this: [...]

Perhaps, but according to lLivy and Polybius the velites had up to 7 javelins.

Having a bundle a javelins is in litarary sources an indication of being light infantry.

at example?

careless posting; I meant of course sculpural sources, but see above.

The first Roman histories were written in Greek by Q. Fabius Pictor and L. Cincius Alimentus. Both dealt mainly with the
.....

THe annales maximi are true of II century but are the compilation of tabulae Pontificum which reported continue datas after the gallic invasion,they reported synthetic information on military campaign and embassy.

Given the nature of the annales maximae it seams unlikely that they would contain 'synthetic information on military campaigns'.

THis with the other souces of previous post are the sources Fabius Pictor have for old roman history like the other annalists after him (a part from oral tradition). The consulate has been reestablished in IV century after about a century, so the old name of praetor are not actual for the rebuild of annales before Allia.

And that is why it is a good example

But in prima deca Livus use only little of Pictor and Alimentus, the principale annalist is probably Tuberone (usually Livy use a principal source and use the others for correction and append).

And who is the source of Tubero?

I agree the annalist is not the best form of history, for the events or datas but the research of anachronisms in battles is plausile before the IV century when the major part of tabulae anterior the Allia has been rebuild a posteriori. So for the time of passage between the phalanx and the maniple we are cover for the terminology.

Ehh, "must cover for"; what does that mean?

The prima deca is normally considerated the most archaic and poetic of Livy (where in latin the poetic bear for the archaic style), so a battle narration cannot be sure for the reconstruction but the word's choice isn't casual.

Perhaps the choice isn't casual but that doesn't mean that it is based on 5th century usage as you yourself agree.
For instance Livy mentions cohorts as early as the battle of Lake Regillus (2.20) while we know that the legions were not organized into suchs subunits until the time of Marius or thereabouts.

[Mitra]

Perhaps, but according to lLivy and Polybius the velites had up to 7 javelins. careless posting;
...........
I meant of course sculpural sources, but see above.

Yes i know, but what i demanded is if the sources make a convention to depict skirmishers with 2,3,4,5,.. javelins. The other links i posted are all legionaries with two "not-pila" arms, and we have also images of ancient hoplites with two javelins or bow.

But we return to the inscription:
- the man has ten years of services
- He have 30 years a half-age man in roman term, the other lanciarius has 35, with 16 years of service
- The same sources of the number of javelins, make clear that the velites's role is a iuvenes job in legions, for status and phisical fitness necessity.
- On can expected a man enter in the legion first in leves and after had promotion in graves; this men at middle and last years of their career are in skirmisher's role?
- The first is discens lanchiarorum, i'm not sure the translation "apprentice" is correct, discens in military terminology can indicate also a instructor (Jasper what is the source of translation?). In the case of "instructor", in effect we have a promotion (but for the other soldier, only lanciarius, much older, the considerations on status and role remain valids). In the case of apprentice this reinforce the idea of a improvement of status between normal legionary and lanciarius like between pedes and eques; the soldier is died in the phase of passage in new rank, so recently has had a promotion at half of his career from a pilani century. Difficult to see the passage from gravis to levis like a improvement, only if levis have honorable and special duty (like the signiferi, at example).

Given the nature of the annales maximae it seams unlikely that they would contain 'synthetic information on military campaigns'.

Since the tabulae registred the events of the year the military events are also registred in short form. But the annales are integrated with other contemporary sources public or private (and for teminology Livy have old latin not history's works like Plautus which confirm with a fragment the "accensi" "rorarii" old use in III century legion): the sources of Pictor and other successive annalist, so Livy has the same events narrated also in latin, without necessity to translate greek terms.
On view where greek author (Polybius) use explicitly the greek form of hastati (Zama battle), Livius choice the latin (supposedly more poetic, not technical and archaic) antesignani, maybe from Ennius (the principal source also for Polybius for Lehmann, reported by Delbruck, so maybe is Polibius to have transformed antesignani in hastati and not the contrary).

And that is why it is a good example

Only for the centuries before the Allia (consul is evidently the correct term for IV century magistratus), but for me the IV century terminology is important, the transformation period of army.

And who is the source of Tubero?

The sources of other annalists and precedent historians.

Ehh, "must cover for"; what does that mean?

Opss i have used an italianism with grammar error ("we are cover" at place of "we are covered"). The sense is that Livius has sources with the terminology (and "nicknames") for first phase of manipular legion.

Perhaps the choice isn't casual but that doesn't mean that it is based on 5th century usage as you yourself agree.

I say IV century not V.

One laus to Rob for to have tolerated me for all this posts (and the nexts)

[drsrob]

(...)
One laus to Rob for to have tolerated me for all this posts (and the nexts)

And one back for the same...

(answer will follow)

[Tarbicus]

And laudes to the both of you for a persistently interesting dialogue.

[Tarbicus]

Gregory Daly in Cannae raises an interesting point about the velites opening the battle. He also thinks (like Lendon) that their opening skirmish with the enemy's skirmishers was a test of courage for the youths involved. He also gives that an interesting slant and suggests that part of the battle, before the main engagement, acted as an augur of sorts, and could indicate the outcome. Another benefit of the pre-battle skirmish was that it allowed the main army to properly take up position and formation, which I thought was particularly worth mentioning.

[SOCL]

On a related matter, this specifically about the equipment of Roman soldiers (which is rather related to the original point of this topic :lol: :wink: ). In any event, by the looks and descriptions of the "transitionary legionaries", they seem to basically be principes in kit. Now, please understand that my term "transitionary legionaries" is provisional and used from the traditional perspective of Republican legionaries being the hamata-wearing fellows and the Imperial legionaries being the segmentata-wearing fellows. I realize that recent convention and studies have showed that this isn't necessarily pattern or completely true, but please bear with me...

In any event, I was reading through ...de Bello Gallico, the Loeb Classical Library (LCL) form, translated by Edwards (2004 reprint), and came to Appendix A, which details the Roman Army in the time of the Gallic Wars. Well, part of the text stood out to me, namely:

For defence [the legionary of Caesar] had a helmet of metal, on which he would set a coloured crest just before battle; a half-cylindrical shield (scutum) of leather on a wooden frame (4 feet by 2.5) tipped with metal; a greeve on his right leg, unprotected by the shield.

Now, I haven't seen any depictions of Roman legionaries this late in history wearing any greeves, much less one. Though this seems like the logial choice and I hardly remember once hearing something along these lines, I can't seem to locate any other sources that back the greeve bit, this includes Roman re-enactments. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is the Word of God, but is this perhaps an area still open to question or merely an oversight?

Opinions are welcome.

On an extended point, would it therefore be accurate for a re-enactor to wear a single greeve when doing a legionary impression of this period?

[drsrob]

I'm sorry that it took so long for me to answer you, but here goes...

Perhaps, but according to Livy and Polybius the velites had up to 7 javelins. careless posting;
...........
I meant of course sculptural sources, but see above.

Yes i know, but what i demanded is if the sources make a convention to depict skirmishers with 2,3,4,5,.. javelins. The other links i posted are all legionaries with two "not-pila" arms, and we have also images of ancient hoplites with two javelins or bow.

As soon as there is more then one spear, at least one of them must be a javelin. There is a development in the use of spears etc. In the imperial period a legionary normally is shown with a single (heavy) pilum. If we see contemporary depictions of legionaries with more than one spear, that should give pause to wonder.
P. Flavoleius of the Leg. XIIII Gem has an oval shield and one or more fairly short javelins, which clearly have an amentum. These are definitely not pila. Apparently he is a skirmisher. C. Castricius of the Leg. I Adiutrix also has an oval shield; his spear looks like a light pilum, but he has two. Some 3rd century legionnaries have two spear, probably lanceae. According to Arrianus half the legionnaries carried lanceae instead of pila. There definitely was an evolution. Most likely the arms of Flavoleius are those of the antesignani. The following evidence - largely discussed or mentioned above - tends to lend support to that theory:

• In Spain Caesar specifically uses antesignani for light infantry tactics.
  At other points he recruited special forces from them in preference to other legionaries. Especially the dragoon role is similar to the ploy for which the velites had been created in 211.
  On the site of a legionary camp signs have been found with arma antesignani and/or arma postsignani.
  The gravestone of 'Lucius Valerius Cometius, veteran of the legio VIII Augusta [who] has served with the arms of the antesignani[...].
  Vegetius sais that antesignani were armoured, but with lighter equipment than the other legionaries, just like signiferi and that both wore bearskin covers on their helmets. The shield of the two men mentioned above is indeed similair to the shield of several standard bearers, including Cn. Musius of the Leg. XIIII Gem MV.
  C. Castricius has a triple crest instead of a bearskin. However, Early Coolus helmets have no crest attachments whatsoever, which would make sense if the were used under bearskins, while later Coolus patterns often had a triple crest attachment.
  

But we return to the inscription:
- the man has ten years of services
- He have 30 years a half-age man in roman term, the other lanciarius has 35, with 16 years of service
- The same sources of the number of javelins, make clear that the velites's role is a iuvenes job in legions, for status and phisical fitness necessity.
- On can expected a man enter in the legion first in leves and after had promotion in graves; this men at middle and last years of their career are in skirmisher's role?
- The first is discens lanchiarorum, i'm not sure the translation "apprentice" is correct, discens in military terminology can indicate also a instructor (Jasper what is the source of translation?). In the case of "instructor", in effect we have a promotion (but for the other soldier, only lanciarius, much older, the considerations on status and role remain valids). In the case of apprentice this reinforce the idea of a improvement of status between normal legionary and lanciarius like between pedes and eques; the soldier is died in the phase of passage in new rank, so recently has had a promotion at half of his career from a pilani century. Difficult to see the passage from gravis to levis like a improvement, only if levis have honorable and special duty (like the signiferi, at example).

We have found in the laterculi a D(iscens) AQ(uiliforum) in the VIII cohort of Leg III Aug. (VIII, 2568, 20 of c. AD 220). It therefore seams preferable to translate discens with trainee.

Given the nature of the annales maximae it seams unlikely that they would contain 'synthetic information on military campaigns'.

Since the tabulae registred the events of the year the military events are also registred in short form. But the annales are integrated with other contemporary sources public or private (and for teminology Livy have old latin not history's works like Plautus which confirm with a fragment the "accensi" "rorarii" old use in III century legion): the sources of Pictor and other successive annalist, so Livy has the same events narrated also in latin, without necessity to translate greek terms.

Fabius Pictor wrote extensively about the regal period and the Punic Wars, but dealt with the intervening period in a very summary way. The same would apparently apply to Cato, the first historian writing in Latin.
We know nothing of the Latin sources of Pictor. Certainly they were not the Annales Maximi as these were only published in the second century. Although there is a lot of information about events in the latter, it is extremely unlikely that they contained full descriptions of battles. Therefore the earlier battles certainly were fleshed out with a lot of details, of which most must have been downright invention. One should be very careful in using these description as evidence for the legionary organization of the period.

• Sources:
  Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome (Berkely, Los Angelos, London 2005) pp. 60-64.
  T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (London, New York 1995) pp. 13-15.

On view where greek author (Polybius) use explicitly the greek form of hastati (Zama battle), Livius choice the latin (supposedly more poetic, not technical and archaic) antesignani, maybe from Ennius (the principal source also for Polybius for Lehmann, reported by Delbruck, so maybe is Polibius to have transformed antesignani in hastati and not the contrary).

As I said, at this time the antesignani of Caesar did not yet exist so how the term was used here is irrelevant to our discussion.

And who is the source of Tubero?

The sources of other annalists and precedent historians.

These sources are however extremely suspect. In the early 1st century following Greek example Cn. Gellius wrote an extensive history of the republic with lots of speaches and battle descriptions, that were entirely invented, certainly for the earlier period. During the 80's and 70's Q. Claudius Quadrigarius wrote in reaction a history for the period after 390 BC, concentrating heavily on military history. This was used almost exclusively by Livy for his second series of 5 books. [Forsythe, p. 63] Interestingly, use of the word antesignani in these books correspond nicely to that in the description of a battle fought by Sulla in 86.

[Mitra]

I'm sorry that it took so long for me to answer you, but here goes...

Nope Rob

P. Flavoleius of the Leg. XIIII Gem has an oval shield and one or more fairly short javelins, which clearly have an amentum.

Ok for oval shield, but why "short" javelins? the arma is in so bad condition that is impossible to know how many is long. It appears to rest against the right shoulder. Is little to affirm is a skirmisher only by the form of shield. Cassio Dio talking of testudo, speaks of two shield forms.

According to Arrianus half the legionnaries carried lanceae instead of pila

At best of us knowing we cannot affirm how widespread is the combination described by Arrian. Is an ad hoc arrangement? Only regional? An ad hoc theoretical improvement of author? In Cyruspedia, Xenophon, Arrian model, makes a very like combination.

Most likely the arms of Flavoleius are those of the antesignani

In an inscription a centurio of III cyrenaica make donus to a local godness of lancea and scutum. So we have a combination of legionary shield and the lancea.

In Spain Caesar specifically uses antesignani for light infantry tactics.

I agree with GOldsworthy, when affirm than in Spain, the "antesignani" fighting behavior isn't that of light infantry. "Haec tum ratio nostros perturbavit insuetos huius generis pugnae: circumiri enim sese ab aperto latere procurrentibus singulis arbitrabantur; ipsi autem suos ordines servare neque ab signis discedere neque sine gravi causa eum locum, quem ceperant, dimitti censuerant oportere." The antesignani dont leave the signa or the ordines and dont can make a true resistance to hit-run tactic of Pompeians; strange behavior for skirmishers! The best idea is that Caesar send the entire first acies of legion without wait the deployment of the other lines. So we understand why the collapse of antesignani cause confusion in all the legion.

At other points he recruted special forces from them in preference to other legionnaries. Especially the dragoon role is similar to the ploy for which the velites had been created in 211.

The Livius passage is contested; but the use in this case remember much the mixed use of musket and cav of Gustavus Adolphus. In all case we dont are sure the use of antesignani at Pharsalus have the same nature. THe legionaries can be used only like cover force for permit the equites to regroup after an attack. Pernicitatem armis isn't equivalent to skirmisher's arms, can make only reference to defensive equipment.

Vegetius sais that antesignani were armoured, but with lighter equipment than the other legionnaries, just like signiferi and that both wore bearskin covers on their helmets. The shield of the two men mentioned above is indeed similar to the shield of several standard bearers, including Cn. Musius of the Leg. XIIII Gem MV.
C. Castricius has a triple crest instead of a bearskin. However, Early Coolus helmets have no crest attachments whatsoever, which would make sense if the were used under bearskins, while later Coolus patterns often had a triple crest attachment.

True, but the same Vegetius affirm antesignani is not skirmisher, but heavy inf.

We have found in the laterculi a D(iscens) AQ(uiliforum) in the VIII cohort of Leg III Aug. (VIII, 2568, 20 of c. AD 220). It therefore seams preferable to translate discens with trainee.

An searching I have found other records of lanciarii:

this is the career from a simple to legionary, to lanciarius to pretorian:

"
D(is) M(anibus) / Val(erius) Tertius militi / co(ho)rti(s) X pr(a)etori(a)e qui / vixit annis XXXVI me(n)s(ibus) III / die(bu)s XV militabit legi/one M(o)esiaca ann(i)s V in/ter lanciarios annis XI / in pr(a)etoria ann[is 3] / |(centuria) Salbi Zipe[3] / (h)eres et cete[ri commanu]/culis pr[3]/cvit [3] / I["

This is a pretorian lanciarius:

"
D(is) M(anibus) / Val(erius) Ursinus mi(les) / lanciarius nat(ione) / Italus <q=O>ui vix(it) / ann(os) XXVII stupe/ndiorum(!) IIII Va/l(erius) Vitalis mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) e(iusdam) / pr(a)e(toriae) commanu/culo bene mere/nt(i) fecit memo/ria // D(is) M(anibus) / Aur(eliae) Cepasiae / qui vixit an/nis VI m(ensibus) III d(iebus) / XXVIII et Fau/stus qui vixit / anno I m(ensibus) X d(iebus) V / Casianus et / Faustus filib(us) / bene merentib(us) f(aciendum) c(uravit)"

Fabius Pictor wrote extensively about the regal period and the Punic
.....
invention. One should be very careful in using these description as evidence for the legionnary organization of the period.

This isn't question of correct battle description or organisation, but only of terminology. In a very conservative language like the latin and a literature where the archaism is equivalent to good style, isn't casual the hastati is associated many times with the term antesignani. If the battle is correct or real isn't rilevant.

As I said, at this time the antesignani of Caesar did not yet exist so how the term was used here is irrelevant to our discussion.

ok, but how on have viewed for the Spain, in Caesar the term dont have a unique sense. So we found a special legionary corp in Caesar army only if we want found it, otherwise we have other explications.

This was used almost exclusively by Livy for his second series of 5 books. [Forsythe, p. 63] Interestingly, use of the word antesignani in these books correspond nicely to that in the description of a battle fought by Sulla in 86.

This is true (7 use on 21 total), and the 5 books corresponding to changing period in the manipular legion, last V-IV century (first record a Camillus battle in VI book); a period where much of the writing records and text are successive to celtic slaughter and burning. So we return to dating the term antesignani to early stage of manipular legion; it strange Livius can have used a neologism of I bc.
It is the Frontinus battle description to make use of archaism (he use also velites), he use also postsignani for second line (unique other citation, a Ammianus passage), only the second not the third line.

Davide

[drsrob]

P. Flavoleius of the Leg. XIIII Gem has an oval shield and one or more fairly short javelins, which clearly have an amentum.

Ok for oval shield, but why "short" javelins? the arma is in so bad condition that is impossible to know how many is long. It appears to rest against the right shoulder. Is little to affirm is a skirmisher only by the form of shield. Cassio Dio talking of testudo, speaks of two shield forms.

Even though the arm is much damaged, it's "shadow" is quite clear, so it's length is obvious. The amentum is also very clear, if only by the way it is held by Flavoleius.

According to Arrianus half the legionnaries carried lanceae instead of pila

At best of us knowing we cannot affirm how widespread is the combination described by Arrian. Is an ad hoc arrangement? Only regional? An ad hoc theoretical improvement of author? In Cyruspedia, Xenophon, Arrian model, makes a very like combination.

True

In an inscription a centurio of III cyrenaica make donus to a local godness of lancea and scutum. So we have a combination of legionary shield and the lancea.

From what period? The 3rd century, is it not? Even so, it is not proof that this was a regular combination, thought it is confusing, I'll grant you that.

In Spain Caesar specifically uses antesignani for light infantry tactics.

I agree with Goldsworthy, when affirm than in Spain, the "antesignani" fighting behavior isn't that of light infantry. "Haec tum ratio nostros perturbavit insuetos huius generis pugnae: circumiri enim sese ab aperto latere procurrentibus singulis arbitrabantur; ipsi autem suos ordines servare neque ab signis discedere neque sine gravi causa eum locum, quem ceperant, dimitti censuerant oportere." The antesignani dont leave the signa or the ordines and dont can make a true resistance to hit-run tactic of Pompeians; strange behavior for skirmishers! The best idea is that Caesar send the entire first acies of legion without wait the deployment of the other lines. So we understand why the collapse of antesignani cause confusion in all the legion.

On the contrary: the antesignani do leave their units; see: 1.43: ..."Contenditur proelio, et quod prius in tumulum Afraniani venerant, nostri repelluntur atque aliis submissis subsidiis terga vertere seque ad signa legionum recipere coguntur." When defeated the antesignani withdrew to the standards of the legion. Chapter 1.44 is very much propaganda. Caesar berates the enemy for adopting local tactics, so he has to deny that the antesignani act similarly.
One possible difference is dat in the Spanish legions whole cohorts acted this way and in Caesar's army only the antesignani. Another possibility is that the Spanish legions had devised/adopted/retained the use of antesignani light infantry and Caesar had copied it from them. This is a fact he surely would have wanted to cover up.

The Livius passage is contested[...].

How is it contested? It can also be found in Frontinus (4.7.29) It is clearly derived from a lost portion of Polybius. In quotes from this author Livy translates 'javalineers' with velites after 211, but with jaculatores before. The one time he does use the word velites before 211, it is in a quote from another author (This can be checked because the relevant portion of Polybius has survived.)

In all case we dont are sure the use of antesignani at Pharsalus have the same nature. THe legionaries can be used only like cover force for permit the equites to regroup after an attack. Pernicitatem armis isn't equivalent to skirmisher's arms, can make only reference to defensive equipment.

These men, drawn from the antesignani were expected to advance and retreat with the cavalry, and they were equipped to suit this role. Even if this meant that the standard equipment of the antesignani was not suitable, it was still the case that they were, for some reason, especially suited for this task. Otherwise the corps would not have been recruited from them alone. The most likely reason would then have been that they were already trained in light infantry tactics.

True, but the same Vegetius affirm antesignani is not skirmisher, but heavy inf.

Not so. Vegetius says that they wore armour, but also that it was lighter than the regular armour. The term "light" infantry is confusing. It does not necessarily mean that it's men were more lightly equipped, but that they were trained in skirmisher tactics.

Fabius Pictor wrote extensively about the regal period and the Punic
.....
invention. One should be very careful in using these description as evidence for the legionnary organization of the period.

This isn't question of correct battle description or organisation, but only of terminology. In a very conservative language like the latin and a literature where the archaism is equivalent to good style, isn't casual the hastati is associated many times with the term antesignani. If the battle is correct or real isn't rilevant.

It's unfortunate however that all these descriptions were written at a time that the hastati no longer form the front line of the legion.

[...] So we return to dating the term antesignani to early stage of manipular legion; it strange Livius can have used a neologism of I bc.

How would this be strange?

It is the Frontinus battle description to make use of archaism (he use also velites), he use also postsignani for second line (unique other citation, a Ammianus passage), only the second not the third line.

I think it simply proves that the velites still existed in 86 BC. Also, Frontinus says: postsignanis qui in secunda acie erant implying that there were also postsignani qui in tertia acie erant

[drsrob]

On a related matter, this specifically about the equipment of Roman soldiers (which is rather related to the original point of this topic :lol: :wink: ). [...]
Now, I haven't seen any depictions of Roman legionaries this late in history wearing any greeves, much less one. Though this seems like the logial choice and I hardly remember once hearing something along these lines, I can't seem to locate any other sources that back the greeve bit, this includes Roman re-enactments. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is the Word of God, but is this perhaps an area still open to question or merely an oversight?

Opinions are welcome.

On an extended point, would it therefore be accurate for a re-enactor to wear a single greeve when doing a legionary impression of this period?

The question of greaves is complicated. No ancient author ever says the Romans wore only a single greave on the left leg, certainly not Polybius. What little pictorial evidence there is points to two greaves or none.
There is little if any pictorial evidence of greaves during the 1st century BC. The altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus (early 1st Century BC shows none, except on the hellenisticly equipped officer, who may be Mars. However, it does not show footwear either.
Even more confusingly the monument of Aemilius Paullus (168 BC) doesn't show them either, while we know from Polybius that greaves were used at that time.
In the 1st century AD greaves were not used apparently, except by centurions. The trophaeium Traiani at Adamklissi, does however show legionaries with greaves (and armguards). A lot of decorative greaves dating from the 2nd and 3rd century have been found. They are generally classed as cavalry sports equipment, but I wonder about that.
The consensus however is that the 'transitional' legionary did not wear greaves.