As far as I know the "subarmalis" appear in no text as element of armament.
It appears - it seems to me - only in two texts without relation with the very armor.
In the "life of Claude", by Trebellius Pollion, in a long enumeration of gifts made by the emperor to reward a tribune
"subarmalem unum cum purpura Maura".
And in the "life of Septime Sévère", by Spatianus, when the emperor order to the Praetorians to appear at him without weapon
"Praetorianos cum subarmalibus inermes sibi iussit occurere".
It seems to me that it is rather necessary to see in the thoracomachus, as describes it the anonymous author of "de rebus Bellicis" this stuffed bottom garment worn bottom the armor, even if this text is very late (IV° or V° century).
Quote:As far as I know the "subarmalis" appear in no text as element of armament.
...[snip]
And in the "life of Septime Sévère", by Spatianus, when the emperor order to the Praetorians to appear at him without weapon
"Praetorianos cum subarmalibus inermes sibi iussit occurere".
I think the interpretation of a relationship with armour or weaponry here comes from the juxtaposition of inermes (referring to the Praetorians) made to appear 'cum subarmalibus'. Lewis and Short contains nothing that disagrees with this.
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
It is a possible intepretation, even if - regrettably - we have no formal text to support it.
But, for this txt, we are quite a few, in France, to admit rather that the emperor asks them to come without weapons nor dress military, thus in a dress devoid of any armed sign.
It would be surprising that the emperor asks to his Praetorians to come dressed in a garment which served as protection under the armor.
Moreover, the assimilation, by Wikipedia, of the subarmalis to the thoracomachus seems to me a rough error.
I hope that, one day, the archaeological finds or texts which still escape us, can give us a more assured interpretation.
Quote:It is a possible intepretation, even if - regrettably - we have no formal text to support it.
And here's me thinking the etymology of the word (sub=under arma=equipment) is at least vaguely persuasive compared to... what? How can subarmalis be explained in the text otherwise?! :???:
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
People better at Latin than I, which is nearly everybody, might help here. But my understanding is that sub- in this sense means "under" as in "beneath", not "lesser value".
in Latin there are numerous examples of the use of the prefix sub- in the meaning of "to some extent", "somewhat", "a little bit", so at first sight this meaning can not be ruled out.
some examples: subamarus - a little bitter, subblandiri - flatter a litttle, subdurus - a little hard; there are many, many more of these words which are quite common in Latin.
in fact, the use of the prefix sub- in the meaning of "a little" surely is as common as the use of sub- for "under" as referring to where something is located.
but if we look at words which refer to a fabric / substance, the prefix seems to refer to something that is underneath something else: examples: sublinteatus - covered in linen, subtemen - the lower thread in weaving, subaeratus - a metal that has copper under it.
I do not think that there is a real relationship of shape or declension enter arma and armalis
I looked without finding the means indeed to separate sub in which indeed (as say our friends, we can find several senses) and armalis but this last word stays without relationship with arma in my opinion but with "armus"
Subarmalis,is, m.
Treb. Claud. 14,8; Vop. Aur. 13, 3: and subarmalis vestin, f., Capel. 5. 426 (sub, armus), (tunique qui ne recouvre pas les bras (Tunic which does not recover arms)
And for armus : jointure du bras et de l'épaule (épaule des animaux et de l'homme - Shoulder of animals and man).
interesting, marc. i have never looked at it this way, but I suppose you are right. armus is ethymologically related to the greek, but also to the germanic arm, via an indo-european origin.
this does not solve the problem of the meaning of the word subarmalis. the armus is the upper region of the arm / the region of the shoulder (it is very difficult to say what part of the body exactly, this is often the case with bodyparts, animals and plants in latin). it seems to be "something" (subarmalis or subarmale is an adjective) that is running UNDER the arm, i.e. not over the shoulder???!!! this would imply the subarmalis is not the garment we gernerally think it is in this thread???
The identification with a sleeveless tunic takes all its value if we resume the text of AELIUS SPARTIANUS, “Life of Septime Sévère, Chapter 6”, in which we can read that the emperor orders to the praetorians to appear in his presence without weapons :
(Cum Romam Seuerus uenisset, praetorianos cum subarmalibus inermes sibi iussit occurere. Eosdem sic ad court uocauit armatis undique circumdatis).
" Arrived at Rome, Severe ordered to the praetorians to come before him, dressed in a simple tunic and without weapons; and when they appeared according to his orders, they were surrounded with armed people, and so appeared before his court. "
If it was about a garment of the type thoracomachus, we could not understand why the emperor asks to the men of the Praetorium - which he wants to disarm - to appear in his presence dressed in this stuffed garment worn, usually, under the armor in action.
And, on the other hand, if it is indeed about a sleeveless tunic carried worn in civilian life, then the text takes all its sense because it is practically impossible to hide under it a weapon, knowing which role was the one Praetorians to make and unmake the emperors over the centuries of the empire.
For the thoromachus, here’s the full passage of DE REBUS BELLICIS, 16-17 (Anonymous), close of IV° AD.
“ Inter omnia quae adversuui bellicum provida posteriatatis cogitavit antiquitas, horacomachum quoque mira utilitate ad Ievamen corporis armorum ponderi et asperitati subiecit. Hoc enim vestimenti genus, quod de coactili ad mensuram et tutelam pectoris huraani conficitur, de mollibus lanis timori & sollicitudo sollertia magistra composuit, ut hoc inducta primum lorica vel clivanus aut his similia fragilitatem corporis asperitate non laederent: membra quoque vestientis inter armorum hiemisque discrimen tali solatio adiuta labori sufficiant.
Sane ne idem Thoracomachus pluviis verberatus ingravescente pondere adficiat vcstientem, de Libycis beneconfectis pellibus ad instar eiusdera Thoracomachi faciemconveniet superinducere. Hoc igitur ut diximus Thoraeomachoinducto, cui graeca appellatio ex tuitione corporis nomen assumpsit, soccis etiam hoc est calciamentis et ferratis ocreisinductis, superposita galea et scuto vel gladio lateri aptato
arreptis lanceis in plenum pedestrem subiturus pugnam railesarmabitur . "
Traduction, in french by the « Groupe de recherche d'Histoire romaine de l'Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, sous la direction d'Edmond Frézouls. »
Parmi toutes les inventions à usage militaire que les anciens, dans leur prévoyance, ont élaborées pour la postérité, ils ont aussi présentés, contre le poids et le frottement des armes, le thoracomachus, étonnamment commode pour soulager le corps. Car ce type de vêtement, confectionné en feutre, à la mesure et pour protection de la poitrine humaine, a été conçu, sous l'inspiration de la crainte et avec une ingéniosité magistrale, à partir de laines douces; Il évite d'abord, lorsqu'on le revêt, que la cuirasse, la cotte de mailles, ou leurs équivalents ne blessent les corps fragiles par les frottement dus au poids, et permet d'autre part aux membres du combattant ainsi vêtu de supporter leurs épreuves grâce à un tel allégement, au milieu des dangers de la guerre et du mauvais temps. Et pour éviter que le même thoracomacus, fouetté par la pluie, n'impose à son porteur une charge alourdie, il conviendra d'en revêtir la surface de peaux de Lybie, bien façonnées à la mesure de ce même thoracomachus. Quand donc, comme nous l'avons dit, il aura passé ce thoracomachus - qui tire son nom de l'expression grecque désignant la protection du corps - quand en outre il aura mis des "socques", c'est à dire des chaussures et des jambières ferrées, coiffé le casque, serré à son coté le bouclier ou le glaive, et qu'il tiendra bien en main ses lances, le soldat sera tout à fait armé pour affronter le combat d'infanterie."
Quote:If it was about a garment of the type thoracomachus, we could not understand why the emperor asks to the men of the Praetorium - which he wants to disarm - to appear in his presence dressed in this stuffed garment worn, usually, under the armor in action.
But the whole point of the Anonymous raising the issue of the thoracomachus is that he is proposing it be used as a defence in its own right. The SHA is reporting a gesture of humiliation imposed upon the Praetorians, whether you regard a subarmalis as such a garment or an elaborate armband. I am unclear why you discount the link with arma (as in weaponry or armour) since better men than me see no problem with it. The difficulty here lies in the imprecision of the Latin language, with too few substantives to embrace too many concepts. Yes, it could mean arms as a body part, but it can equally mean weaponry; there is no definitive solution.
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
Quote:But the whole point of the Anonymous raising the issue of the thoracomachus is that he is proposing it be used as a defence in its own right.
Ah, but is he? The whole raison d'être of the thoracomachus in DRB 15 is that it acts as a protection for the body against the pressure and abrasiveness of armour. It would be absurd if the Anonymus, having extolled its virtues in this function, went on, without further explanation, to describe the soldier girding himself for battle with the thoracomachus acting as armour in its own right. What he does say is that the soldier put on his thoracomachus 'ut diximus', 'as we have said', i.e., under armour. He mentions the soldier's other equipment - helmet, boots, greaves, shield, sword and spears - because it has not been mentioned before. The armour has been and there is no need to refer to it again because its use is implicit in the wearing of the thorachomachus.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
mcbishop post=307446 Wrote:But the whole point of the Anonymous raising the issue of the thoracomachus is that he is proposing it be used as a defence in its own right.
Ah, but is he? The whole raison d'être of the thoracomachus in DRB 15 is that it acts as a protection for the body against the pressure and abrasiveness of armour.
Is it? The whole reason for it being mentioned in DRB is that the author in some way thought that he was inventing something new, or at least a new use for a known object. IF the thoracomachus was indeed nothing more than a subarmalis, something that was around for centuries, and used in that very same way as the anonymous described it, how could he see it as an invention?
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
mcbishop post=307446 Wrote:But the whole point of the Anonymous raising the issue of the thoracomachus is that he is proposing it be used as a defence in its own right.
Ah, but is he? The whole raison d'être of the thoracomachus in DRB 15 is that it acts as a protection for the body against the pressure and abrasiveness of armour.
Is it? The whole reason for it being mentioned in DRB is that the author in some way thought that he was inventing something new, or at least a new use for a known object. IF the thoracomachus was indeed nothing more than a subarmalis, something that was around for centuries, and used in that very same way as the anonymous described it, how could he see it as an invention?
The Anonymus specifically states that the thoracomachus is an invention of the ancients to counteract the effect of armour upon the body. If he intended to extend its use to being armour in its own right, he would have to be considerably more explicit than he is. Indeed, we would expect this of him, given his meticulousness in his other descriptions. The invention here may actually be the waterproof covering to be used in conjunction with it.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Quote:As far as I know the "subarmalis" appear in no text as element of armament.
It appears - it seems to me - only in two texts without relation with the very armor.
Apparently, "subarmalis" does appear in the sources as a weapon. According to R. S. O. Tomlin, "Roman Manuscripts from Carlisle: The Ink-Written Tablets," Britannia 29 (1998): 31-84, excavations of Roman fort at Carlisle unearthed a report dated prior to A.D. 105 and written by the decurion Docilis to his commanding officer, the prefect Augurinus. The decurion reported the names of the riders in his turma, who were missing their lanciam pugnatoram and/or their subarmales duas:
'Docilis to Augurinus his prefect, greetings. As you ordered, we have attached below all the names of lancers who were missing lances, either who did not have fighting lances, or who (did not have) the smaller subarmales, or who (did not have) regulation swords. Troop of Genialis senior: Verecundus, (one) fighting lance and two subarmales. Troop of Albinus [whole page lost. Troop of name]: Docca, two subarmales. Troop of Docilis: Pastor, two subarmales; Felicio, (one) fighting lance. Troop of Sollemnis: [...]atus, (one) fighting lance and two subarmales. Troop of Mansuetus: [ ]s, (one) fighting lance; Victorinus (?)son of [. ..]ra, (one) fighting lance. Troop of Martialis: [. . .]so, (one) fighting lance. Troop of Genialis: Festus, two subarmales; Maior, two subarmales; [name], [two] subarmales; [name] (one) fighting lance. Troop of Victor: [. . .]. (2nd hand) May you fare well, Augurinus, with your family, (my) lord.'
The author suggests that the riders of the ala were each armed with a 'fighting lance' and two smaller subarmales, i.e., javelins, as well as the 'regulation' sword, which accords to the report of Josephus in BJ 3.96: "The cavalry have a long sword on their right side, a long pike in one hand, a shield slanted across the horse's flank, and in a quiver slung alongside three or more javelins, broad-pointed and as big as spears."
In a commentary, the author further points out that the equivalent Greek phrase υπο μαλης, "under the arm-pit" suggests using of a concealed weapon, and, since the Latin subarmalis is less restrictive (arm is less restrictive than arm-pit), subarmalis can be taken as a weapon easily carried under the arm. That makes me think whether in the phrase "Praetorianos cum subarmalibus inermes sibi iussit occurere" the subarmales can actually be referring to weapons? That is, I am wondering wether the phrase could be interpreted as "he ordered the Praetorians to appear before him not armed with subarmales," or, in other words, "not armed with concealed weapons" or "not armed with weapons carried under arms" - swords or daggers.
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER (Alexander Kyrychenko) LEG XI CPF
As mentioned in the previous thread. Speidel rejects Tomlin's theory and argues that the Carlisle tablets refer to two types of garment used in training.
To further add weight to the garment theory, as also mentioned in the previous thread, a subarmalis is included in a list of clothing in the Vindolanda tablets.
Severus intended to disband the Guard but obviously wanted to conceal that fact until the last minute. Therefore allowing them to carry any type of weapon does not seem like a good idea to me. However allowing them to wear their training gear as argued by Spiedel, might have aroused less suspicion and they may have believed they were about to carry out an exercise before the new emperor.
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
