Republican Army

[Mitra]

But anyone make a post beside Rob and me? We talk in two by 3 months! hock:
I think the arguments are many and interesting.

As we know of a discens aquiliferi (serving in the 8th cohort) the latter option seams preferable. But in this case it's irrelevant.

The cohort number isn't relevant; we know a imaginifer of third cohort (Le bohec); only the aquilifer has to be of first cohort for sure.

the existance of the one virtually implies that of the other.

And the point is that for to be a skirmisher isn't necessary to be a specialist. So the duties has to be different (example bodyguards of officers and standards in battle (to detach special soldiers for standard guard-duty, are common: we find this in strategikon,templar rule, swiss regulation for mobilization)).

The way the spear is held and the amentum is the basis of my argument, not so much it's exact length as that is often distorted in sculpture.

If it is a amentum then the hand are not in the middle of spear because the amenta are above the centre like in this image
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Ima ... r/Periods/
Roman/Topics/Warfare/weapons/hastae/2*.gif
So the spear must to be longer that it appears.

where pila appear in 1st century gravestones they are faithfully rendered. The only exception seams to be C. Castricius. However, he clearly has two spears. Possibly these are intended to represent what we know as light pila, otherwise they might be lanceae.

Or simple artistic decision or economic (- work -money spend)

A viable alternative explanation, except that it doesn't explain the amentum

In the Marcus coloumn officers and Marcus same, in some plates, hold a short spear with a hand in this mode. Probably only a symbolic weapons (hasta pura?). The pose of soldier can be only an imitation of officers with (the amentum only a signal that the weapon aren't a decoration).

On the other hand, why else would he translate 'javelineers' with velites on some occasions and not on other?

Probably only literary choice; velites like many roman military terms can be used in strict or general sense (i remember a Legiones gallicae in Livy).

This is not much to go on. Possibly it's were Livy got his idea of the existence of rorarii and accensi as old troop types.
Unfortunately I can't find Lucilius on the net.

The existence in Plautus is much important. In a comedy before a "all-classes" public the
author cannot use words unknowed. So rorarii and accensi are not archaic terms at the end of
II punic war (and the reference to triarii in the same phrase "a/gite nunc, subsidite omnes, quasi solent triarii. "
contextualized them to the
roman army words). It is highly improbable that Livy can have taked a II century not-historical author and use informations for recreate a fictional 75 vexilla legion for the IV century.

For Lucilius "quinque hastae, aureolo cinctu rorarius uel[2es]2
primum fulgit, uti caldum [2e]2 furnaci[2bu]2 ferrum." "quamuis desubito trinis deducere scalis
pone paludatus stabat rorarius uelox @1
"

That the velites were created in 211 does not mean that there were no light infantry before. But it was a less effective type of light infantry, prossibly purely composed of the poorest class, irrespective of age.

The velites are the poorer also in Polibyus time.

Another quote I can't find on the net except as a note in a text about Gauls. But the word gaesum should already make clear that the quote concerns Gauls and not Romans.

yep, these fragments aren't in net, i found them in PHI5:

"
tum appellatus est dilectus et ab electione legio. ab
hac superuacaneorum consuetudine adscribuntur.
qui de ascriptiuis, cum erant adtributi decurionibus
et centurionibus, qui eorum habent numerum, accen-
si uocabantur. eosdem etiam quidam uocabant feren-
tarios, qui depugnabant fundis et lapidibus, his ar-
mis quae ferrentur, non quae tenerentur.
referentibus centurionibus et decurionibus adoptati in
cohortes subibant, ut semper plenae essent legiones.
a quo optiones in turmis decurionum et in cohorti-
bus centurionum appellati.
rorarii appellati quod imbribus fere primum rorare
incipit.
qui gladiis cincti sine scuto cum binis gaesis essent.
qui in exercitu donati essent et equo publico mere-
rent.
"

Again, nothing specific about armament.

Yep sorry, only after the traduction I have viewed that minuebantur cannot be translated with "to detract" in this phrase.

Pilus was the title of certain centurions. Pilani was the name for the men. Hastati and Principes were both the men and the centurions. This suggests that the words were not formed at the same time. I'm not a linguist but I should think that the pilus-pilani pair is later

Pilus are the name of the unit; in latin primum pilum ducere (to command the primus pilus) are synonimous of centurio primopilus, which is the centurio of primus pilus. The pilani are the members of a pilus.

It says nothing about pilani

This signifies that the use of pilani is exited from the common use before the time of Polybius; nothing indicates the term enter in use after (anyone remember the original sense of this word).