They didn’t ban weapons. They banned generals leading independent armies.
Roman military was, at that time at least, privatised. The generals were the elites and the rich who would often pay for their own armies. When Caesar for example wanted to go campaigning in Gaul, he’d pay for a lot of the cost or of his own pocket. This resulted in armies that were generally more loyal to their general than to Rome.
That could naturally be a problem, so to prevent a general from getting ideas, the law mandated that they would have to disband their armies before crossing into Italy proper (or at least leaving their army encamped outside the territory)
That point was traditionally just before the army would cross the Rubicon river, hence the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” denoting a kind of “red line” or “point of no return”.
When Caesar made the decision to March on Rome and incite a civil war, his army “crossed the Rubicon”.
I stand corrected. Learn something new every day. Thanks.
edit: I don’t know why you are getting downvotes. You corrected me with a proper source. and I stood corrected. That’s the proper civilized way of doing things.
I thought you had actually taken the time to look at my comment history, discovered that I majored in Near Eastern Classical Archaeology and was making a riff on that. I thought it was great!
But it was possible to sneak in daggers (the proverbial weapon for political violence; see sicarius). Since Julius Caesar’s assassination occurred outside this boundary, the senatorial conspirators could not be charged with sacrilege for carrying weapons inside the sacred city.
Seems banning weapons didn’t work back then. Gee, it surely wouldn’t happen today either. And only some people were charged with the crime while politicians could escape charges of literal murder.
If anything you’ve shown that we’ve done this before and restricting weapons only allows certain people to have weapons. No thanks, I’ll hold onto my rights before ICE tries to take them.
That is part of why US military members are always being moved around and transferred to different units. The US does not want independent militaries all over the place.
Depending on the time we are speaking of there were bans against citizens openly carrying swords or daggers within the boundaries of Rome. Though there were some exceptions to the law when it came to certain bodyguards or elites. A lot of people carried clubs or makeshift blunt force weapons as personal protection.
If you really pissed off the citizens the traditional weapon of choice were tiles thrown from the tops of roofs.
They didn’t ban weapons. They banned generals leading independent armies.
Roman military was, at that time at least, privatised. The generals were the elites and the rich who would often pay for their own armies. When Caesar for example wanted to go campaigning in Gaul, he’d pay for a lot of the cost or of his own pocket. This resulted in armies that were generally more loyal to their general than to Rome.
That could naturally be a problem, so to prevent a general from getting ideas, the law mandated that they would have to disband their armies before crossing into Italy proper (or at least leaving their army encamped outside the territory)
That point was traditionally just before the army would cross the Rubicon river, hence the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” denoting a kind of “red line” or “point of no return”.
When Caesar made the decision to March on Rome and incite a civil war, his army “crossed the Rubicon”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerium
“Weapons were prohibited inside the pomerium”
You right now:
I stand corrected. Learn something new every day. Thanks.
edit: I don’t know why you are getting downvotes. You corrected me with a proper source. and I stood corrected. That’s the proper civilized way of doing things.
I’m stun locked this has never worked for me before, sorry for being a bit of a sassy bitch
That was sassy? I thought it was hilarious.
I thought you had actually taken the time to look at my comment history, discovered that I majored in Near Eastern Classical Archaeology and was making a riff on that. I thought it was great!
Hahaha I had no idea lol, my meme truly transcended my original vision
Now kiss ;)
(But seriously, it’s nice to see people being awesome online.)
Haven’t brushed my teeth yet today. I’m gonna have to decline.
Seems banning weapons didn’t work back then. Gee, it surely wouldn’t happen today either. And only some people were charged with the crime while politicians could escape charges of literal murder.
If anything you’ve shown that we’ve done this before and restricting weapons only allows certain people to have weapons. No thanks, I’ll hold onto my rights before ICE tries to take them.
That is part of why US military members are always being moved around and transferred to different units. The US does not want independent militaries all over the place.
Depending on the time we are speaking of there were bans against citizens openly carrying swords or daggers within the boundaries of Rome. Though there were some exceptions to the law when it came to certain bodyguards or elites. A lot of people carried clubs or makeshift blunt force weapons as personal protection.
If you really pissed off the citizens the traditional weapon of choice were tiles thrown from the tops of roofs.