Isn’t the first mention of them during Hannibal’s Campanian campaign?
-
Ah, this is a tricky one. I am mostly with
@ProfPaul_J as seeing Liv. 26.4 as the first evidence for the velites as such. The issue, of course, is that Livy's sense of older Roman armies is often absolutely lousy with anachronisms. Liv. 8.8 is just a mess.
At the same time 'just so' stories about the introduction of a given tactic are inherently suspect. There seem to be light troops functioning with the legions earlier than this (Liv 8.8.5), and I tend to think the more mature formation of velites evolved out of that gradually.
-
-
Oakley suggests that the velites might just be the rorarii with a new name, which is tempting, but raises all sorts of questions. The one thing I don't buy is the suggestion - Michael Sage, I think - that the velites are a consequence of a 2nd-punic-war manpower shortage.
-
Yes, I don't buy that one either. I think they're more likely an out-growth of increased experience in warfare and money to fund arms production. Similarly I suspect the scutum (as Polybius describes it) did not replace the more common thureos until the late 3rd century.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.