06-17-2002, 08:02 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
Tacitus, <i> Historiae</i> 1.38 (text and translation<br>
<br>
<i> ... aperire deinde armamentarium iussit. Rapta statim arma, sine more et ordine militiae, ut praetorianus aut legionarius insignibus suis distingueretur: miscentur auxiliaribus galeis scutisque, nullo tribunorum centurionumve adhortante, sibi quisque dux et instigator...</i><br>
<br>
'... afterwards he gave the order to open the armoury. Immediately arms were seized, without consideration of established custom and branch of service, by which praetorian and legionary are distinguished by their insignia: these were mixed with helmets and shields of auxiliaries, with none of the tribunes or centurions encouraging them, but each one for himself leader and instigator ...'<br>
<br>
This passage refers to an incident in Rome where weapons were stored away due to the customary divide between peace and war along the <i> pomerium</i>. The <i> insignia</i> may refer just to shield designs, as according to Tacitus some soldiers, likely to have been praetorians since these are referred to just before this part, were able to infiltrate opposing legionary lines.<br>
<br>
<i> Historiae</i> 3.23<br>
<br>
<i> ...Namque Vitelliani tormenta in aggerem viae contulerant ut tela vacuo atque aperto excuterentur, dispersa primo et arbustis sine hostium noxa inlisa. Magnitudine eximia quintae decimae legionis ballista ingentibus saxis hostilem aciem proruebat. Lateque cladem intulisset ni duo milites praeclarum facinus ausi, arreptis e strage scutis ignorati, vincla ac libramenta tormentorum abscidissent. Statim confossi sunt eoque intercidere nomina: de facto haud ambigitur. ...</i><br>
<br>
'... The Vitellians had brought the artillery together on the causeway so that the missiles could be fired from a clear and open spot, (missiles) that at first were dispersed and had hit trees without injury to the enemies. A catapult of enormous size of the fifteenth legion was shattering the enemy line with enormous stones. And it would have inflicted defeat on a wide scale had not two soldiers executed a daring feat, not recognised after they had taken shields from the (site of the) slaughter, they cut the ropes and springs of the torsion guns. They were immediately cut down and their names have for this reason been lost: about the action itself however there is no doubt ...'<br>
<br>
This suggest that the rest of the equipment must have looked virtually indistinguishable from legionary kit.<br>
Another option is that ownership inscriptions are meant, since as their private property such items were regularly marked by their owners. Ownership issues also marked a divide between the various branches of the armed forces. Until now not a single <i> armorum custos</i> or <i> armicustos</i> has been attested for the praetorian cohorts, otherwise an epigraphically well attested unit, whereas an unique functionary called the <i> fisci curator</i> is. The reason for this was that praetorians, unlike the vast majority of the troops in the Roman army, were issued with kit that was to be returned on discharge. This imperial property was therefore registered by a caretaker of the <i> fiscus</i>. The privilege did not extend to the horse guards drawn from the auxiliaries, as the <i> equites singulares Augusti</i> did have <i> armorum custodes</i>.<br>
<br>
Speidel, MP, 'The weapons keeper (armorum custos) and the ownership of weapons in the Roman army' in: <i> Roman army studies</i> II, 131-136.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Tacitus, <i> Historiae</i> 1.38 (text and translation<br>
<br>
<i> ... aperire deinde armamentarium iussit. Rapta statim arma, sine more et ordine militiae, ut praetorianus aut legionarius insignibus suis distingueretur: miscentur auxiliaribus galeis scutisque, nullo tribunorum centurionumve adhortante, sibi quisque dux et instigator...</i><br>
<br>
'... afterwards he gave the order to open the armoury. Immediately arms were seized, without consideration of established custom and branch of service, by which praetorian and legionary are distinguished by their insignia: these were mixed with helmets and shields of auxiliaries, with none of the tribunes or centurions encouraging them, but each one for himself leader and instigator ...'<br>
<br>
This passage refers to an incident in Rome where weapons were stored away due to the customary divide between peace and war along the <i> pomerium</i>. The <i> insignia</i> may refer just to shield designs, as according to Tacitus some soldiers, likely to have been praetorians since these are referred to just before this part, were able to infiltrate opposing legionary lines.<br>
<br>
<i> Historiae</i> 3.23<br>
<br>
<i> ...Namque Vitelliani tormenta in aggerem viae contulerant ut tela vacuo atque aperto excuterentur, dispersa primo et arbustis sine hostium noxa inlisa. Magnitudine eximia quintae decimae legionis ballista ingentibus saxis hostilem aciem proruebat. Lateque cladem intulisset ni duo milites praeclarum facinus ausi, arreptis e strage scutis ignorati, vincla ac libramenta tormentorum abscidissent. Statim confossi sunt eoque intercidere nomina: de facto haud ambigitur. ...</i><br>
<br>
'... The Vitellians had brought the artillery together on the causeway so that the missiles could be fired from a clear and open spot, (missiles) that at first were dispersed and had hit trees without injury to the enemies. A catapult of enormous size of the fifteenth legion was shattering the enemy line with enormous stones. And it would have inflicted defeat on a wide scale had not two soldiers executed a daring feat, not recognised after they had taken shields from the (site of the) slaughter, they cut the ropes and springs of the torsion guns. They were immediately cut down and their names have for this reason been lost: about the action itself however there is no doubt ...'<br>
<br>
This suggest that the rest of the equipment must have looked virtually indistinguishable from legionary kit.<br>
Another option is that ownership inscriptions are meant, since as their private property such items were regularly marked by their owners. Ownership issues also marked a divide between the various branches of the armed forces. Until now not a single <i> armorum custos</i> or <i> armicustos</i> has been attested for the praetorian cohorts, otherwise an epigraphically well attested unit, whereas an unique functionary called the <i> fisci curator</i> is. The reason for this was that praetorians, unlike the vast majority of the troops in the Roman army, were issued with kit that was to be returned on discharge. This imperial property was therefore registered by a caretaker of the <i> fiscus</i>. The privilege did not extend to the horse guards drawn from the auxiliaries, as the <i> equites singulares Augusti</i> did have <i> armorum custodes</i>.<br>
<br>
Speidel, MP, 'The weapons keeper (armorum custos) and the ownership of weapons in the Roman army' in: <i> Roman army studies</i> II, 131-136.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
