Republican Army

[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: