Republican Army

[Tarbicus]

it was still the case that they were, for some reason, especially suited for this task.

I've read a reference somewhere that the most fleet of foot and agile were especially chosen to ride with a special unit of cavalry, as a special tactic accredited to a centurion during a siege, where the enemy regularly sortied on horseback from the city with great success. The centurion's tactic was very successful. The chosen men would ride behind the rider and, after practicing intensely, developed the skills to leap from the horse and attack the enemy on foot. I can't find the reference, but it's out there somewhere. I'm fairly sure it was in the Republican period.

[drsrob]

Correct. It dates from 211 (seige of Capua) and describes the origin of the velites.

• see:
  Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 26.4.
  Frontinus, Strategamata, 4.7.29.

[Tarbicus]

Thankyou kindly.

[drsrob]

You're welcome!

[Matthew]

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.

Yes, this is a good breakdown of the situation. It reminds me very much of the Bayeux Tapestry that depicts the majority of the armoured combatants without Mail Chausses, excepting for William himself and a small number of others. Conventions of art, perhaps? A comment on wealth?
I suspect it wasn't normal issue, but I find it hard to believe that a Roman Legionary who could afford to wouldn't choose to wear a Greave. On the other hand, the habits of Soldiers are difficult to predict!

Matthew James Stanham

[Mitra]

>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.

An viewing a best image is much probably true

but we return to the point this is little for affirm he a skirmisher; why to use an lighter javelin in heavy inf situation is well illustrated by Arrian, no? Pilum appear only in a limited number of gravestones (Feugere).

>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.

Sorry I dont know the century, but lancea appears from the I a.c. in legionary battle (Tacitus).
True nothing single inscription or sculpture can be used to think to a regular combination.

>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."

ad signa recipere simply signified the retreat to the formation, to the acies; is used for all the soldiers, light or heavy. In BG V.34 the Sabinus cohortes are "ad signa recipientes" after un charge to the enemy gauls. So the ad legionum recipere is perfectly true also for entire cohortes.

>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.

Rob, this is a reasoning (perfectly legitimate) not a positive evidence; only the necessity of found a light legionary corps can make think that Ceasar have alterated the reality creating a incoerence for a minor episode, nothing alternative source on the episode support this modification. But a reasoning cannot be used to demonstrate the assumption from what the reasoning start.

>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.)

Is contested the fact the velites are been created in the 211; the greek word used by Polybius for velites, grosphophoroi or grosphomachoi, appears in roman battle line also in Tunis battle during the first punic war, and in Livius in Ibera battle in 216. Source of Frontinus is Valerius Maximus, source of Valerius is Livy, source for Livy must been a roman chronicle direct or indirect via Polybius. Probably is only the changing of equipment of 300 leves (the exact number of eques in a legion) how thought by Daly, reported in this episode. The term rorarii appears still used in II century, so the adoption of term velites for all the light infantry can be a extension during the II century of the term to rorarii.

>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

Nothing in the passage suggest they are special training in light infantry tactics; Caesar take the younger of soldiers for evident phisical fitness and they learn the fighting skill with the use; this are assertions valid also for normal legionaries. The use of term antesignani (where they supposedly arent with pernicitatem armis and men of all age) make a reference to the same group of men used to Genuso river (creating in the reader with a single word the idea of the mental process of commander generating from the improvised tactic a schematic action), but the Genuso river is a unexpected battle where the roman army is in agmen formation to a ford, so we must start from the Ceasar's tactical options and our roman agmen knowledge for know what he think when speak of antesignani.

>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.

He make a precise subdivision "Legio autem propriis cohortibus plena cum grauem armaturam, hoc est principes hastatos triarios antesignanos, item leuem armaturam, hoc est ferrentarios sagittarios funditores ballistarios,"; Vegetius dont says in anyone passage they are trained in skirmisher tactics, the "ursinis pellibus" is very little to make logical association with velites, because they are associated in the passage to signiferi that use also animal skin. In his battle line description the antesignani dont appear in the skirmishers line, anyone role is assigned. In precedent passage they are categorized between the principales, so we can think their number is little, like that of signiferi which they are associated. Much probably Vegetius dont know nothing of sure about the antesignani, he finds they a number of time in his variegated sources with different sense and assume that the same word have the same sense in all texts.

>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.

Epic books of Naevius and Ennius, other not-historical texts (like Plautus, Andronicus), private chronicles of senatorial family, old laws, old commentary of military commanders, commentarii of magistrates, private correspondence, correspondence to senatus of military commanders, military handbook (many think Polybius used a handbook for tribunes in his description of roman army,Valerius Maximus allude to a military handbook to Marian time), Cato's Origines, and if annales maximi are of II century, the text of annales is much more ancient, from IV century. So the terminology is survived, and if the description cannot been precise or real, are in all case imprecisions or false battles of III and II century when the hastati are a battle line.And Tubero have a fame of antiquarian, so he collect and study old texts (and use ancient terminology).

>How would this be strange?

Because is Livy and not Catullus; it is been a terrific style horror for a historian.

>I think it simply proves that the velites still existed in 86 BC.

Possible but highly improbable, after the graccan laws on state weapons, Marius reforms and the end of old enrolment system.

> Also, Frontinus says: postsignanis qui in secunda acie erant implying that there were also postsignani qui in tertia acie > > erant

Or it was be only the specification of author for the word, automatically creating the explication for antesignani successive word.

[drsrob]

but we return to the point this is little for affirm he a skirmisher; why to use an lighter javelin in heavy inf situation is well illustrated by Arrian, no? Pilum appear only in a limited number of gravestones (Feugere).

He has a skirmisher arm, so it is eminently reasonable to conclude that he is a skirmisher.

ad signa recipere simply signified the retreat to the formation, to the acies; is used for all the soldiers, light or heavy. In BG V.34 the Sabinus cohortes are "ad signa recipientes" after un charge to the enemy gauls. So the ad legionum recipere is perfectly true also for entire cohortes.

I'll agree with you on that: you're explanation of this passage is equally valid.

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.

Rob, this is a reasoning (perfectly legitimate) not a positive evidence [...]

Sure it is reasoning. It's not meant to prove my point, only to show that the passage does not necessarely proves your's.

Is contested the fact the velites are been created in the 211; the greek word used by Polybius for velites, grosphophoroi or grosphomachoi, appears in roman battle line also in Tunis battle during the first punic war, and in Livius in Ibera battle in 216.

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

Source of Frontinus is Valerius Maximus, source of Valerius is Livy, source for Livy must been a roman chronicle direct or indirect via Polybius. Probably is only the changing of equipment of 300 leves (the exact number of eques in a legion) how thought by Daly, reported in this episode. The term rorarii appears still used in II century, so the adoption of term velites for all the light infantry can be a extension during the II century of the term to rorarii.

But Polybius also describes the velites in a seperate passage (VI, 22). He gives the length of the javelins as 1.15 meter. In Livy it is 1.18 m for the special corps. Livy also says that these javelins were shorter than the regular ones. He also specifically states that the corps was placed on a permanent footing as a result of it's succes. All in all there can be little room for doubt that the velites were created in 211.

Nothing in the passage suggest they are special training in light infantry tactics; [...] so we must start from the Ceasar's tactical options and our roman agmen knowledge for know what he think when speak of antesignani.

In Caesar's days the legions were subdivided in cohorts, each composed of one maniple each of hastati, principes and pilani. These cohorts were arranged with the maniples place next to each other. Each battle line was composed of several cohorts. There is no evidence that the cohorts had a fixed position i.e. that they always were placed in the same line.
Therefore in Caesar's days antesignani cannot refer to the hastati and to the first battle line, because there were hastati in all three battlelines. So you'll have to make a choice. The antesignani were:

• 1. hastati;
  2. the first battle line.

If you chose 1 you cannot say that the antesignani were chosen accidently to perform some special task. Also Caesar did not sent whole cohorts to occupy the hill (see above).
If you chose 2 you'll have a hard time explaining how and why the word was used outside the context of a battle. Remember that in 1.57 Caesar also says that he formed ships crews, selected from antesignani and centurions.

[...] Much probably Vegetius dont know nothing of sure about the antesignani, he finds they a number of time in his variegated sources with different sense and assume that the same word have the same sense in all texts.

I agree with you that Vegetius has little idea what all these terms meant. It is therefore not useful to follow his reasoning. More fruitful would be to seperate his text into possible quotes. And I agree with you that antesignani meant different things at different times. :wink:

Because is Livy and not Catullus; it is been a terrific style horror for a historian.

I still don't follow you.

>I think it simply proves that the velites still existed in 86 BC.

Possible but highly improbable, after the graccan laws on state weapons, Marius reforms and the end of old enrolment system.

It is not at all certain exactly how and when these transformations took place.
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.
Marius call to the capite censo in 107 was a one-off ploy. That it resulted in a permanent change at that time is a modern assumption, which has been challenged recently.
The old enrolment system was never abolished anyway, it simply went in abayance, but was occasionaly revived in times of emergency (in AD 9 for instance).

> Also, Frontinus says: postsignanis qui in secunda acie erant implying that there were also postsignani qui in tertia acie > > erant

Or it was be only the specification of author for the word, automatically creating the explication for antesignani successive word.

But then what was the name for the third battle line? Postpostsignani? :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

[...] Much probably Vegetius dont know nothing of sure about the antesignani, he finds they a number of time in his variegated sources with different sense and assume that the same word have the same sense in all texts.

I agree with you that Vegetius has little idea what all these terms meant. It is therefore not useful to follow his reasoning. More fruitful would be to seperate his text into possible quotes. And I agree with you that antesignani meant different things at different times.

Hear hear! Indeed. Vegetius is so often misused to prove point of the Republican army - even when it's clear he is using much earlier sources for his own (Tetrarchy) period and is probably constructing his own order of battle.

[Matthew]

Marius call to the capite censo in 107 was a one-off ploy. That it resulted in a permanent change at that time is a modern assumption, which has been challenged recently.
The old enrolment system was never abolished anyway, it simply went in abayance, but was occasionaly revived in times of emergency (in AD 9 for instance).

Rob, could you elaborate on who is challenging this? I keep hearing about it (I'm even pretty much sold on it), but I'm not clear who are the main proponents of either side of the argument.

Thanks

Matthew James Stanham

[drsrob]

[Rob, could you elaborate on who is challenging this? I keep hearing about it (I'm even pretty much sold on it), but I'm not clear who are the main proponents of either side of the argument.

Thanks

Matthew James Stanham

Well, answering this question is not as easy as I though. I had to search real hard to (re)find my sources.
Basically I got it from Lawrence Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (London 1984) pp. 61-63. Keppie nevertheless still thinks that the property qualification ceased to function after Marius. J.B. McCall, The Cavalry of the Roman Republic (London, New York 2002) p. 104 gives the notion that Marius's ploy with the capite censeo was a one off as an example to prove a point, suggesting this is excepted wisdom. However most other books I have seam to adhere to the opposite view.
McCall quotes E. Gabba, Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (Oxford 1976)) p. 15 and P.A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (London 1971) pp. 438-9. The first of these two sources was also used by Keppie.
Unfortunately I have read neither Gabba, nor Brunt.
By the way. The book of Gabba is a translation of two articles in Italian, published in 1949 and 1951.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I have just read recently, possibly in Goldworthies Caesar, that Marius' lowering of the property requirements, was not unusual, just was frowned upon, and he just made it more of a norm! If that makes any sense.
Mind you, no offense to the author, but he does make a few glaring errors in his book, as well as a few other authors I have read, but possibly he is one of those who takes that viewpoint?

[drsrob]

I have just read recently, possibly in Goldworthies Caesar, that Marius' lowering of the property requirements, was not unusual, just was frowned upon, and he just made it more of a norm! If that makes any sense.
Mind you, no offense to the author, but he does make a few glaring errors in his book, as well as a few other authors I have read, but possibly he is one of those who takes that viewpoint?

Possibly, I haven't got/read that book.

[Matthew]

Well, answering this question is not as easy as I though. I had to search real hard to (re)find my sources.
Basically I got it from Lawrence Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (London 1984) pp. 61-63. Keppie nevertheless still thinks that the property qualification ceased to function after Marius. J.B. McCall, The Cavalry of the Roman Republic (London, New York 2002) p. 104 gives the notion that Marius's ploy with the capite censeo was a one off as an example to prove a point, suggesting this is excepted wisdom. However most other books I have seam to adhere to the opposite view.
McCall quotes E. Gabba, Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (Oxford 1976)) p. 15 and P.A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (London 1971) pp. 438-9. The first of these two sources was also used by Keppie.
Unfortunately I have read neither Gabba, nor Brunt.
By the way. The book of Gabba is a translation of two articles in Italian, published in 1949 and 1951.

Thanks very much for your hard work Rob. I read Brunt when I was an undergraduate and Keppie and Mccall a few years back. I'll have to seek them out again when I next have the opportunity.

Thanks again,

Matthew James Stanham

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You should try it then, if only to see how many errors you can find! Still an interesting read, about my favorite period! Most of his books are readable without droning on.

[Mitra]

>He has a skirmisher arm, so it is eminently reasonable to conclude that >he is a skirmisher

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. Rounded shield and light weapons appear used by praetorians on Antonine coloumn. The point is spear-like type so the doubt is that it can has a double function (launch and close combat).

>Sure it is reasoning. It's not meant to prove my point, only to show >that the passage does not necessarely proves your's.

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

>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).

>But Polybius also describes the velites in a seperate passage (VI, >22). >He gives the length of the javelins as 1.15 meter. >In Livy it is >1.18 m >for the special corps. Livy also says that these javelins were >shorter >than the regular ones. He also >specifically states that the >corps was >placed on a permanent footing as a result of it's succes. >All in all there >can be >little room for doubt that the velites were >created in 211.

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?; the conclusion is that episode isn't clear, also for the evidence of light infantry in the legion also before. The evidence of continuos use of rorarii and the number much superior of Polybian velites respect the cavalry in the legion, leave the image that the 160 bc velites dont coincide (dont completly) with this 211 bc soldiers. 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. The Navio's innovation of episode (Livy last phrase) is the tactical combination with the cavarly. 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.

>In Caesar's days the legions were subdivided in cohorts, each composed >of one maniple each of hastati, principes and pilani. >These cohorts >were arranged with the maniples place next to each other. Each battle >line was composed of several cohorts. >There is no evidence that the >cohorts had a fixed position i.e. that they always were placed in the >same line.

I have spoken of agmen not acies. In the episode Caesar use agmen. Nothing not the first not the second choice. THe antesignani appear in Livius and Ammianus agmen context with precise different sense.

> I still don't follow you.

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

>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. 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 .

The Gabba idea about the Marius capite censi is that it is the inevitable conclusion of the progressive proletarianization of army. The end of social war made also the end of formula togatorum; the system of Polybian dilectus for tribes with heavy equipment for the first 3 classes is abandoned for the system of conquisistores; sure when the voluntaries isn't in a good number the dilectus can be made but nothing suggest with the respect of census classes (probably the preference is for the poors).
THe Silla army in Greece is made by legions created with the massives enrolments for the social wars (one of Irpinians voluntaries, see V.Patercolus).

>But then what was the name for the third battle line? Postpostsignani?

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.