Weapons of civilians

[Robert]

Salvete Omnes,

I am working on a traveling blacksmith/marketeer impression. I would like to portray a aux. veteran who has picked up a craft in the beginning of the first century. They "must" have carried so kind of self defence. I was thinking along the lines of a large utility knife and a spear, given the fact that swords were often not allowed inside a city or camp (assumption!). Please share your thoughts, if at all possible with a reference to shreds of evidence.

[Jona Lendering]

I was thinking along the lines of a large utility knife and a spear

I can imagine the knife; after all, there are sources about citizens using knives (e.g., Livy on the death of Verginia). But spears? Perhaps, but I do not remember representations of citizens with spears; of course there were hunters with javelins. If you chose a spear-like weapon, make it something light.

[Robert]

Ah, yes, but as I am a traveling blacksmith, using a spear as a walking stick could make sense? Just a simple stabbing spear, no javelin, mind you, which is also a great way of holding stray dogs and knife toting vagabonds at bay.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hmm, what weapons were citizens allowed to posess? And were they allowed to travel with them?

[Epictetus]

We briefly discussed the right to bear arms here.

In that thread I mentioned Cicero's speech:

What is the meaning of our retinues, what of our swords? Surely it would never be permitted to us to have them if we might never use them. This, therefore, is a law, O judges, not written, but born with us, - which we have not learnt or received by tradition, or read, but which we have taken and sucked in and imbibed from nature herself; a law which we were not taught but to which we were made, - which we were not trained in, but which is ingrained in us, - namely, that if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honourable. For laws are silent when arms are raised, and do not expect themselves to be waited for, when he who waits will have to suffer an undeserved penalty before he can exact a merited punishment.

The law very wisely, and in a manner silently, gives a man a right to defend himself, and does not merely forbid a man to be slain, but forbids any one to leave a weapon about him with the object of slaying a man; so that as the object and not the weapon itself, is made the subject of the inquiry, the man who had used a weapon with the object of defending himself would be decided not to have had his weapon about him with the object of killing a man. Let, then, this principle remembered by you in this trial, O judges; for I do not doubt that I shall make good my defence before you, if you only remember - what you cannot forget - that a plotter against one may be lawfully slain.

Cicero, Pro Milo

He makes a point that the law says you can't carry a weapon with the object of slaying a man. It says nothing about simply carrying a weapon, such as for self-defence, so Cicero explains that this is allowed.

[Robert]

Interesting quote, David, thanks. So it would not be odd for an ex-soldier to carry a sword. I found that in the Lex Julia de Vi Publica, it is also stated that "travelers and traders" may bear arms. Johan Nicolay in his book Armed Batavians suggests many Batavians in the 1st century chose not to sell back (part of) their equipment. A number of (hasta) spearheads were found in non-military graves. So carrying a spear along may also not be a bad idea and acceptable.

[Sean Manning]

The Satyricon has its low-life characters running around Italy with hidden swords and no other weapons. When one of them carries his sword openly and stomps along planning on confronting another character he gets stopped by a soldier. He tries to claim that he's a soldier, but he isn't wearing calligulae and can't get the name of his unit straight so the sword is confiscated. Its an aristocratic view from Italy the time of Nero, but does give the impression that civilians weren't supposed to carry swords and that some carried them much of the time anyways.

I agree with Jona that if a civilian carried a spear it would probably be a hunting spear or javelin. A knife and a stick or staff would definitely be safe, but I have no idea what veterans were allowed to carry at different places and in different times. You could try Lionel Casson's Travel in the Ancient World to see if it mentions anything. I don't think being a blacksmith would have much to do with it since spears were probably cheap, but being a veteran and a traveler probably would.

Events in 1st century BCE might be a bad example for later periods, though, since public order had broken down inside Italy. There was a lot of posturing around the edge of the law in that period (Tiberius Gracchus wears a knife under his tunic in the forum, Cicero wears his lorica under his toga), and of course Cicero is saying what he thinks will get Milo off whether or not that's exactly the same as the law.

[Jona Lendering]

From Sean's words about the Satyrica, I conclude that carrying a sword was permissable if you were a (former) soldier; and that seems to be corroborated by Robert's remark about Batavian veterans. That non-veterans were also allowed to carry arms, can be deduced from D. 48.6.1 (Marcian), a comment on Augustan legislation:

He is liable under the Lex Julia de vi privata aut vi publica who collects arms or darts in his house, or on his land, or in a farm house, in larger quantities than is customary for the purpose of hunting, or travel by land or water.

This raises the interesting question why the heroes of the Satyrica ran into trouble. Other lines from the Digests confirm what Marcian wrote about the Lex Julia. For example, D. 47.10.7.1 (Ulpian) proves that, when you used your sword, it mattered whether you used it to strike (as a club), or cut. This again suggests that it was possible to carry swords.

I have checked several other lines. "Arms" is taken widely, and includes helmets, shields, clubs, and stones. What seems to have been the central issue, was the way in which you used your weapon. This may be the way to solve the Satyrica problem: perhaps, it was possible to have a sword while traveling, but not inside a city - I do not have a copy of Petronius' masterpiece, but perhaps someone can check where our heroes were caught with a sword & without caligae.

However, Italy, Batavian veterans, and the Corpus Iuris were part of the system of Roman law. Until Caracalla, there were other legal traditions, and a lawsuit had to start with an agreement under which law system it was to be held. There is evidence from Syria that this was not merely a theoretical possibility, but that it actually happened that people of, say, Emesa decided to be judged following Emesene laws.

The gospels offer some tantalizing clues about local law. I would read Matthew 26.51 || Mark 14.47 || John 18.10 as evidence that it was possible to obtain swords. Luke 12.46 is evidence that a landlord could use a sword against a slave; Luke 22.36 suggests that travelers carried swords.

In sum, travelers could carry swords and other arms, under both Roman law and at least one local system of law. If, however, you had to use arms, you might have to answer some questions. Excess violence was prohibited, and there were severe sanctions: loss of property, for example. We encounter an example of excess violence in the epistles of good Synesius: building a catapult was too much. This was vis publica, and liable to punishment.

[Sean Manning]

It could also be that the soldier just took it upon himself to confiscate the sword. There are lots of other stories of soldiers going beyond their authority and using force against civilians. Or, the soldier decided that Encolpius was looking for trouble, and was therefore carrying the sword for an illegal purpose.

The scene where Encolpius runs around with his sword belted on and a fiery look in his eyes is at Puteoli (ch. 82). I noticed a few other references to weapons in the Satryicon while I was finding it. At Trimalchio's dinner, one of the guests (Niceros, the one with the werewolf story) talks about travelling to a villa near Rome with a sword. He was a slave at the time and was travelling with a soldier. So Petronius felt it was plausible that a slave travelling in Italy would carry a sword. A bit later we hear about slaves at country villas using a spear against a wolf and a sword against a witch.

[Jona Lendering]

There are lots of other stories of soldiers going beyond their authority and using force against civilians.

... and not all of them from the past, unfortunately. :wink: Some time ago, I was fined for cycling where I was not supposed to be cycling, and I had to prove at the police office that the policeman had been wrong.

[Robert]

Thanks all!

A sword, large knife and spear or staff with buttspike it will be, as the references are pretty conclusive. My impression is 1st century AD/CE, by the way. Now for the right kind of basket .....

[Jona Lendering]

A sword, large knife and spear or staff with buttspike it will be

We mustn't jump to conclusions. We have established that it was possible to travel armed, but we would be guilty of a secundum quid if we deduced that it was likely. And we happen to have a little bit of evidence about the likelihood that civilians were carrying swords. In Luke 22.38, those present at the Last Supper have two swords. Even if we assume that only the Twelve were present, this means that 1 in 6 people carried a sword, even after a lengthy trip up to Jerusalem. As statistical evidence, this is insufficient; but it prevents us from assuming that any civilian carried a sword.

[size=85:1c1n3370][Note: yes, Luke writes "apostles", not "twelve"; there is indeed a terminological problem over here; but at this point, it is irrelevant.][/size]

[Robert]

OK, lets take a step back. The fictional person we are talking about is a trader/traveler, selling his products to soldiers and civilians along the Limes. Given the fact that he is carrying both products and money, he will want some sort of protection against hoodlums and what have you. On basis of Nickolay, we know for sure ex-military personel took a number of swords home, as these were found in a non-military context. The Lex Julia permits the carrying of weapons by travelers. Is it such a leap of faith to envision a traveling blacksmith pedeling his wares carry a keepsake spatha? On the other hand, I myself would opt for a sturdy spear (hasta) and a good knife, as a well used spear can keep a swordsman at bay or at least make him think twice before making any rash moves.

[Jona Lendering]

Is it such a leap of faith to envision a traveling blacksmith pedeling his wares carry a keepsake spatha?

I really don't know. But if I were that man, traveling with a lot of metal, I would probably never be travelling alone, and always join a patrol of soldiers. They have to march twenty miles every ten day anyhow, carrying weapons, so there's always a patrol waiting for me.

[authorscott]

I found your site on a Google search into a related question, and I'm hoping that you might be able to help:
what restrictions, if any, would a visitor to a Roman city be subjected to? Did they have guards at the gates? Did they allow strangers, even Roman citizens, to enter bearing weapons, or did they confiscate these?
I am writing a novel set in 6th-century Constantinople, and I am trying to make it as realistic as I can. In my research, I have not found any conclusive writing on the laws regarding weapons and foreigners in Roman cities. It seems strange to me, however, that a state that controlled its citizens' activities as rigidly as did Imperial Rome, would allow everyone to wander around in the city with weapons of war, particularly when they were faced with enemies on all sides.
- Author, Scott