Valentinian III revoking ban on citizens bearing arms

[barca]

Page 48 of Ward-Perkins:

 

"In Italy it was only in 440, in the face of a new seaborne threat from the Vandals, that the emperor Valentinian III formally revoked the law that banned Roman citizens from bearing arms."

 

It seems to me that with the reduction of the tax base, the empire could no longer afford to maintain the army on its own.

 

Can someone tell me how long had the law banning citizens from bearing arms been in effect?

 

PS: sorry about the spelling error in the title. I don't know how to correct it.

Edited December 27, 2009 by barca

[Majorianus Invictus]

This seems to be just what I need. I asked of such laws in my anti-barbarian thread. Who invoked this law?

[The Roadie]

This seems to be just what I need. I asked of such laws in my anti-barbarian thread. Who invoked this law?

 

I think it was an actual law from Republican times. No one was supposed to carry weapons in the city of Rome. The Praetorian Guard was the only exception.

[Caius Maxentius]

I'm confused: was there a ban on bearing arms in the city of Rome, or a ban on Roman citizens bearing arms, no matter where they were?

[caldrail]

It was a legal tradition that no-one should bear arms in the city of Rome. The Praetorians did but bear in mind they did not show them in open view. On duty they were dressed in togas with weapons concealed, rather like those black-suited security guards that hover around VIP's today.

 

I doubt there was any requirement for territories beyond, but - And this is hypothetical because I haven't seen any evidence - it might be possible that from the Augustan Franchise onward, certain colonies or towns may have emulated Roman tradition in that way as well as impress the Senate with civic works. Any ban was unlikely to be across the entire empire but rather focused on local urban control.

 

In fact, there is a story realted by one Roman who was drinking in a tavern when he heard a violent commotion outside. He grabs a sword - please note he was socialising with a weapon handy - and rushed outside to see if he could help or sort things out. Unluckily for him, an off-duty legionary was also doing the same thing, and spotted the gentleman carrying a sword.

 

"What are you supposed to be then?" HE demanded.

 

"Err... Oh.. I'm a legionary too."

 

"Wearing slippers? Who are you trying to kid? Hand over that sword now!"

 

And with that the embarrased storyteller does exactly as the soldier demands. He does so because the legionary might well turn on him - he's certainly acting in a threatening manner, and more than likely meant to sell the blade if it wasn't any use to him, but notice that there appears no actual bar on the ownership of weaponry by the public.

Edited July 3, 2010 by caldrail

[Caius Maxentius]

Thanks.

 

I was asking partly because I read somewhere (I`ll have to look it up) that late emperors did not like the idea of citizen militias being formed, fearing they`d lead to breakaway states, violent taxation revolts, or something like the Bagaudae. I wasn`t sure if the this was related to Valentinian`s reluctant revoking of the ban.

[caldrail]

Let us know if you find the reference - I'd like to know how true this is as well.

[Princeps Prior]

Could this prohibition not simply being a way of trying to stop citizens inflicting serious wounds or death on each other. Their version of gun control and stopping thugs carrying knives?

 

From what I have read of the gangs in Rome, it would not be a good idea for them to be allowed to openly carry arms.

[caldrail]

I don't know. Their morals and ethics were different to ours, and whilst their society certainly had no constitutional right to bear arms, they certainly tolerated violence far more than we do, especially so when you bear in mind that military virtue was ingrained into Roman society right from their earliest days of tribal raiding. I've had a quick browse of the internet but so far nothing conclusive.

[Yehudah]

Thanks.

 

I was asking partly because I read somewhere (I`ll have to look it up) that late emperors did not like the idea of citizen militias being formed, fearing they`d lead to breakaway states, violent taxation revolts, or something like the Bagaudae. I wasn`t sure if the this was related to Valentinian`s reluctant revoking of the ban.

 

Weren't the limitani a citizen militia?

[sonic]

Thanks.

 

I was asking partly because I read somewhere (I`ll have to look it up) that late emperors did not like the idea of citizen militias being formed, fearing they`d lead to breakaway states, violent taxation revolts, or something like the Bagaudae. I wasn`t sure if the this was related to Valentinian`s reluctant revoking of the ban.

 

Weren't the limitani a citizen militia?

 

No. The limitanei were members of the regular army. It was only later that they were granted land for service and might be called a 'citizen militia'.

 

The original - although probably not the first - law was passed in 364:

[Trajan]

Seems to me like Valentinian III revoked the ban in order to allow the Roman citizens to protect themselves in case of a sudden Barbarian invasion. Valentinian's time as emperor was a really chaotic one in Roman history, with the threat from all sides. In addition, the Legions were spread pretty thin, so the citizens couldn't really rely on them for protection. I don't think that the emperor was trying to reform a citizen militia, just that he was giving the people the right to defend themselves.

[sonic]

Seems to me like Valentinian III revoked the ban in order to allow the Roman citizens to protect themselves in case of a sudden Barbarian invasion. Valentinian's time as emperor was a really chaotic one in Roman history, with the threat from all sides. In addition, the Legions were spread pretty thin, so the citizens couldn't really rely on them for protection. I don't think that the emperor was trying to reform a citizen militia, just that he was giving the people the right to defend themselves.

 

The ban was revoked in 440, when the news arrived in Italy that the Vandals had taken Africa and equipped a fleet for a raiding expedition. Valentinian didn't know where it would land, so ....

 

In the same law he states that the generals are doing what they can for the emergency, and that help was expected from the East.

 

I agree that he probably wasn't attempting to resurrect the 'citizen militia', simply hoping that the citizens in Italy and Sicily would take the hint and defend themselves.