Republican Army

[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)