Republican Army

[Mitra]

Now you're assuming that antesignani are young soldiers, like velites. However, we know that the later lanciarii were specialists, in light of the existence of discentes lanchiariorum. The position of the antesignani could be just as likely - if not more so - like that of the lanciarii, seeing that both age and wealth differentiation no longer existed.
The same applies for instance to the legionary cavalry.

Exactly the existence of discentes confirm the fact they cannot been skirmishers; the discentes teach precise technical notions of higher level respect the arms and phisical training of legionaries; we have discentes of signiferi, aquiliferi, equites, architecti, instructors (discens armaturarum), capsarii, librarii (Le Bohec). I doubt the skirmishing need high competence apart the phisical fitness and use of javelin (all included in the normal legionary preparation).

If we think the antesignani are born for replace the velites, we cannot leave a part the fact the velites are the younger and poorer soldier in the legion. If the motivation for "poorer" is the weapons cost, for "younger" can be only the phisical need to run for protacted periods of time with velocity (and probably the recklessness of the youngs).
But it is the mere fact of find a substitute for the velites the curiousness; if the velites are so necessaries the aren't been disappeared, but in a century where the roman general have access to a vast manpower of warrior people with skirmishing tradition, and the stronger enemy are principaly the heavy infantry of other roman armies, what strong motivation we can find for the recreation on minor scale of legionary light javeliners, dissipating roman heavy infantry resources, without a unquestionable evidence from the sources?

The oval shields of the praetoriani are older (republican) versions of the square legionary shield. The way that Flavoleius holds his shield suggests that it is flat, like those of auxiliaries and of Castricius.

On what basis you affirm this? I dont view signs to think this.

And if we follow Feugere subrectangular and oval shield are much communes in legions respect the rectangular-curved shield. ANd the fact that the auxiliary infantry use it is a indication that isn't specific for light infantry (only if on think all aux. are skirmishers)

The spear is far too short for close combat and anyway, the way it is held implies that it is fairly light as almost every other spear is depicted resting on the ground.

On must take regard of this:

- perspective effect: the spear is evidently not perpendicular to the ground and not parallel to the soldier body, the position of fingers of the hand implicates a angle with the lower part much more in relief respect the other parts (a perspective game of sculptor can explain the big mass at the end); spears which seem shorters for this effect, they appear frequently on MArcus Aurelius Column.

- spears so short appear on the same Marcus's column ( http://biblio.cribecu.sns.it/blrimg/b/ca10.jpg , http://biblio.cribecu.sns.it/blrimg/b/ca18.jpg ) in the hands of soldiers with hamata o squamata. THese can be only pila simplified because spears are more easy to represent, but this is true also in soldiers grave (where pilum appears rarely ).

- The scroll he has in left hand, can indicate a clerk work (this is not in contradiction with he has sword and shield also the clerks must fight in the legion); so the spear can be only a simbolic status weapon (this can explcate why she is hold in different mode respect the spears or javelins in other grave).

If you'd check Livy, you'll see that with the exception of this passage Livy does not use the word velites from the moment he start following Polybius until 211, the year when the story of the introduction of the velites is set.

The term velites appears in Livy other two times (Ibera excluded): XXI.55 (Trebbia) and XXIV.34 (Syracuse siege).

You're right, this passage does not make sense as it stands, but remember that Livy is not a military man and the velites had long been abolished when he wrote his history.

Yes, but this implicate Livy made a elaboration on this passage and not reported simply a not clear source passage (much more probable in Livy). Critical analisys is much rare in Livius respect to Polybius specially if not he not has alternative sources on the episode.

What evidence is there? Livy only uses the word rorarii twice, in his description of army organization and the final battle of the Latin War. Again he is as good as his source, and that is untrustwordy in this case.

Not Livy, Rorarii are reported by fragments of Plautus Frivolaria (last III century - begin of II century) and Lucilius Saturae (last of II century). Particularly interesting is Lucilius which speaks of "rorarius veles".

The problem with these alternatives is that they reject an interpretation that leaves only one word inexplicable and substitute one that requires rejecting part or most of the story.

THey reject the phrase "institutum ut uelites in legionibus essent" not the entire passage and rejected the idea that before this episode the legion dont has light infantry. Probably before the punic war the situation of light infantry is different but not to zero level; if we take Varro De vita populi romani we have the fragment "qui gladiis cincti sine scuto cum binis gaesis essent.
" after the fragment where Varro speaks of rorarii. So or Varro refers to the same rorarii or to another old type of light troops. Interesting is the fact that the Livy's Leves armament is analogue this troops, and it is between Livius and Dionysus armament for forth census class.

An agmen is often simply an acies on the march.

This can be true only with the agmen quadratus or pilatus; but this is not the case in the Caesar episode.

We're hindered by linguistic barriers, I'm afraid.

My fault; I have used the italian phrase structure, probably in english dont sounds good.

"Because is Livy and not Catullus" in italian is "Perchè (used both the responses and the questions) è (is) Livio e (and) non (not) Catullo.

There is nothing in Cassius Dio to suggest that Plutarch is wrong. And about the armour: is it that more expensive? A soldier of the republic would normally buy his equipment once, he only required replacements in exceptional circumstances. Clothing had to be replaced regularly and it was contracted for in large quantities by the state.

Yes the weapons must been bought una tantum and more rarely substituted (but the swords, lances, javelins broken, and the quaestor detracts from salary all the needed weapons of soldier); but their initial value is much higher of many time that of clothing. Only the first class can permit the cost of purchase and maintenance of mail armor, the forth class not even the the cost of pectorale. If we make a comparison with the law ripuarian: a mail armor has the cost of six oxs or 4 mares, a sword without scabbard like a mare, a helmet like 3 oxs.
I dont propose this cost are valid also for roman time, but in a pre-industrialized society the rapport of values cannot be much different, since the metallurgic production in carolingian time aren't more primitive that in Republican Rome (on the contrary probably are more advanced, it depend by the time of diffusion of Catalan type furnace).

I can't find that law, can you give me a source?

Reported by Gabba:
Asconius Pro Cornelio: atque ipse quoque hic Iunius male rem adversus Cimbros gessit ac plures leges quae per eos annos quibus hec significabantur populo latae erant, quibus militiae stipendia minuebantur, abrogavit.

The (possible

and many laws that in those yeas are presented by the people, among those signalled (is a reference to a previous passage), with whose the burden (stipendia has the sense of salary bu also of tribute, tax) military are reduced, abrogated.

I am not so sure of my english translation from my italian translation.

Rather, the original name is triarii. It is found in Polybius I.26.6. Where it is a nickname of a naval squadron. In this light it is certain that the word was already in use at that date. Pilani on the other hand is found not even in Livy VIII.8-10 (only antepilani is).

This only indicates that pilani and triarii are more ancients of punic wars; the rarity of term in the source indicates that cannot been enter in use after (so ancient that Varro are not capable to assign it the correct origin). THe fact that it remains in the centurion titling, in a conservative environment like the roman army, is the sign that term is the first word used for the triarii.