Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
References to late Roman army???
#46
(05-05-2017, 05:55 AM)Steven James Wrote: I do not nor have I suggested the 4 myriads are correct.

Good. I thought that I must have misunderstood you.

(05-05-2017, 02:20 PM)Steven James Wrote: Maybe you need to sharpen your mathematical skills a little and understand how to apply ratios.

I cannot speak for Nathan's mathematical skills but mine are decidedly rusty since passing O-Level maths 58 years ago. Perhaps you could indulge me and explain how the ratios that you have mentioned help in your calculations.
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)
Reply
#47
(05-05-2017, 02:20 PM)Steven James Wrote: You can get emotional

You've mentioned these 'emotions' a few times - what do you mean?


(05-05-2017, 02:20 PM)Steven James Wrote: who said it is an extra sized Roman legion?

Surely 7700 men would be an extra-sized legion? That's bigger even than Vegetius's estimate.


(05-05-2017, 02:20 PM)Steven James Wrote: Did not Scipio deploy four cohorts wide in one engagement due to the terrain?

Deploying your cohorts on a battlefield is quite different to changing the number of cohorts in a legion on a battlefield.


(05-05-2017, 02:20 PM)Steven James Wrote: Do you even read what I write?

Of course. You were suggesting that Zosimus and Sozomen give different figures. Therefore you are suggesting that Zosimus was not mistaken in writing myriadori - 40,000 - rather than chilliadori - 4000 - which agrees with Sozomen and which most commentators take to be correct. My apologies if I've misunderstood your point, but that seemed to be what you're saying.



(05-05-2017, 02:20 PM)Steven James Wrote: By your calculations you end with a force of 3900 men or 4200 men.

Which seems fine for a force of 'about 4000'. However, I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that the numerus/arithmos did not have a single standard size, and so the six units could have been of varying number. This is why both authors also provide the approximate total number of troops - which they would not need to do if the individual unit had a fixed number.


(05-05-2017, 02:20 PM)Steven James Wrote: Further discussions on this will just be going around in circles again.

Aha, we agree on something at last! [Image: smile.png]
Reply
#48
Michael wrote:

Perhaps you could indulge me and explain how the ratios that you have mentioned help in your calculations.
 
No Michael, I have given you what you need, so I won’t be indulging you. I’ve learnt from experience with this forum not to bother. If one cannot tear the maths about, then I have to defend myself against comments like, the primary sources don’t say this etc. I still remember the 20 tribes crap people pulled and the hypocrisy that went with it.
 
What I have done is explained in the book chapter dealing with tagmata’s, arithmoi and numerii. Perhaps seeing you have been away from maths for awhile, a good maths book might refresh the mind.
 
There is also Zosimus’ reference of 5 tagmata numbering 6000 men that can be pulled into the mix. If I was to break this down into the ratio 3:2 this would amount to 3600 men to 2400 men. Could Soz’s figure of about 4,000 men represent 3600 men? Could the 6 arithmoi number 600 men?
 
Here’s what I have up my sleeves. I know the Romans use Pythagorean mathematical procedures, and I have taught myself how the Romans use it. However, when it comes to me mentioning Pythagoras, you all piss on it, but remember, he who laughs first laughs last.
Reply
#49
(05-05-2017, 03:37 PM)Steven James Wrote: No Michael, I have given you what you need, so I won’t be indulging you . . . What I have done is explained in the book chapter dealing with tagmata’s, arithmoi and numerii.

Oh dear! Then I shall have to wait patiently until your book comes out. I certainly don't understand how it works at the moment.

(05-05-2017, 03:37 PM)Steven James Wrote: Perhaps seeing you have been away from maths for awhile, a good maths book might refresh the mind.

Let me give you some friendly advice. If you want your ideas to stand any chance of being accepted, you owe it to your readers and to yourself to ensure that your arguments, including the mathematics, are clearly expressed in the book. If your would-be readership have to go out and buy another book to be able to understand yours, they won't bother and your book will sit on the shelf unread gathering dust. Some people find your theories difficult to accept. I am reserving judgment until I read your book but, if I can't understand it, I will inevitably be drawn into the ranks of the sceptics.

(05-05-2017, 03:37 PM)Steven James Wrote: However, when it comes to me mentioning Pythagoras, you all piss on it . . .

Not me, guv.
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)
Reply
#50
Michael wrote:

Oh dear! Then I shall have to wait patiently until your book comes out. I certainly don't understand how it works at the moment.
 
I provided a mathematical sample of arriving at 3600 men by using the ratio 3:2 and what this could mean in relation to Sozomens figure of about 4000 men, It’s the same old game, provide an example, this forum find it fits within the bounds of the reference, so forum ignores it, and then goes looking for a negative, which generally ends with me being the problem.
 
Michael wrote:
If you want your ideas to stand any chance of being accepted, you owe it to your readers and to yourself to ensure that your arguments, including the mathematics, are clearly expressed in the book. If your would-be readership have to go out and buy another book to be able to understand yours, they won't bother and your book will sit on the shelf unread gathering dust.
 
That is why I give it to people so I can feedback and make improvements. Is that your assessment of the first part of the book?
 
Michael wrote:
Some people find your theories difficult to accept. I am reserving judgment until I read your book but, if I can't understand it, I will inevitably be drawn into the ranks of the sceptics.
 
Some years back I sent you a copy of the first part of the book for comment, of which you offered to provide feedback. Never heard from you. There are 7 people on the forum who have a copy of the first part of the book. Never heard from 6 of them. Outside of this forum, I have been receiving helpful feedback from various people including some Napoleonic historians (published).
Reply
#51
Steven, do you have a publication date yet? While I do not profess to understand many of your posts here in this forum, I am very keen to purchase a copy of your research and delve deep into it in my own time. Maths not being my strong-suit (I was in the remedial class at school) I do struggle reading these posts to follow the underlying arguments. Are you in negotiations with a publisher and have a provisional date?
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
#52
Francis wrote:

Steven, do you have a publication date yet?
 
No, but at present I am finishing a major revision. For the first time I feel it is now time to stop the research.
 
Francis wrote:
While I do not profess to understand many of your posts here in this forum, I am very keen to purchase a copy of your research and delve deep into it in my own time.
 
I understand your dilemma with some things cannot be understood from just discussing bits and pieces here and there. In a nutshell, Pythagoras designed a system for the Romans that would last 1200 years. The system is based on Pythagoras theory of the harmony of the spheres. Pythagoras believed that the orbiting planets made musical notes, so his universe is a musical scale. Pythagoras calculated the distance of the planets from one planet to other planet based on distances of half tones or whole tones. He allocated 126,000 stadia to a tone and 63,000 stadia to a half tone. So from the Earth to Saturn is a distance of 756,000 stadia.
 
The Roman tribal system is a time clock that records the number of stadia travelled in relation to the Pythagorean cosmos and time. As you move along the tonal system (from one planet to the next planet), in synchronisation with this movement is an imaginary zodiac moving in a circle. At the end of a Pythagorean age, or as the Romans called it a saeculum, the tribes are increased in size with the number of stadia travelled for that Pythagorean age. The Roman legion is increased in size with the number of Pythagorean zodiacs that have pasted the apex. So if 16 zodiacs have past the apex, with each zodiac equal to 30 degrees, 16 zodiacs multiplied by 30 degrees equals 480 degrees which is translated to 480 men. Therefore, a cohort will amount to 480 men and by multiplying this by the Pythagorean perfect number 10, a legion will number 4,800 men without officers and supernumeraries. This legion occurred during the reign of Augustus and in accordance with the Pythagorean zodiac, this will occur at the end of 18 BC. If you check your history you will find that Augustus celebrated the Secular Games in 17 BC. At this time, the Pythagorean cosmos has travelled from the Earth to Saturn, and this is why the Romans believed in the return of the Saturnian golden age. In the Pythagorean cosmos, the planet Saturn makes the musical note C and its Pythagorean string length is 666.
 
So the history of the Roman legion started out at 2,400 men (8 zodiacs), then 3,600 men (12 zodiacs), then 4800 men (16 zodiacs), and then 6,000 men (20 zodiacs) and this is the end of the Pythagorean system. Notice that the increase in the legion occurs at the end of 4 zodiacs. At present we are living under the 54 Pythagorean zodiac, so it moves slowly. The movement of the cosmos tonal system and the Pythagorean zodiac produce the Pythagorean ratio of 3:2 (the perfect fifth). After 1200 years, which occurs a few years before Rome is sacked in 410 AD, at this point, the Romans should be united with the one god and the other gods will perish. The movement of the Pythagorean cosmos is also synchronised with Rome’s growth from an infant to old age as mention by some ancient historians. When Rome is united with the one god, Rome metaphysically in the life of a man is 84 years of age, divided into 12 ages each of 7 years (the hebdomad system). Saint Augustine’s six ages of the world is a copy of the Roman 12 ages.
 
Francis wrote:
Maths not being my strong-suit (I was in the remedial class at school)
 
Oh that made me laugh. We could have been in the same class at school for maths.
 
Francis wrote:
I do struggle reading these posts to follow the underlying arguments.
 
Francis wrote:
Are you in negotiations with a publisher and have a provisional date?
 
Well I wished you asked some questions. The Romans have some standard practices they follow. The vexillation organisation consists of all troops types whereas a numerus does not have all the troop types. If you want one particular troop type, use the maniple system.
 
Francis wrote:
Are you in negotiations with a publisher and have a provisional date?
 
No I have been rejected as being a nobody (that is what they said), and many a publisher has told me that if academics have not discovered that Rome was a Pythagorean city then it cannot be so, and thanks for your letter and good luck in the future.
 
To be honest I am not concerned, and have not put much effort into getting a publisher of late. I have looked at all these modern electronic publishing methods but many of them cannot cope with the type of diagrams I need. I can self publish if I get motivated, but then I think of all the things I would rather do with the money.
 
I think my apathy is a result of having to deal with too much negativity.
Reply
#53
(05-06-2017, 12:48 AM)Steven James Wrote: I provided a mathematical sample of arriving at 3600 men by using the ratio 3:2 and what this could mean in relation to Sozomens figure of about 4000 men

I must have missed that or misunderstood it. Can you provide a link to it, please?

(05-06-2017, 12:48 AM)Steven James Wrote: Is that your assessment of the first part of the book?

I told you, having read it, that I thought that it was a prerequisite that there should be an explanation of the Pythagorean system, so that your readers could more easily appreciate your theories. When something of that nature appeared in one of your other offerings, I commented favourably upon it. As far as I am aware, the explanation that you have given to Francis is the first time that you have done this on this forum. Had you done so earlier, perhaps people might have found your ideas more comprehensible. I still think that it does not go far enough, no doubt due to space considerations, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

(05-06-2017, 12:48 AM)Steven James Wrote: Some years back I sent you a copy of the first part of the book for comment, of which you offered to provide feedback. Never heard from you.

This is not true; see the above. I also told you that I had read it through and intended to do so again in greater detail but,  subsequently, that other calls on my time meant that I could not give it the attention that it deserved. I hope also that you will acknowledge that I have attempted to assist you in other ways. I have tried to be supportive, in my limited way, but am now beginning to wonder why I bother.
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)
Reply
#54
Michael wrote:

I must have missed that or misunderstood it. Can you provide a link to it, please?
 
Post 48 of this thread.
 
Michael wrote:
I told you, having read it, that I thought that it was a prerequisite that there should be an explanation of the Pythagorean system, so that your readers could more easily appreciate your theories.
 
And that has been done.
 
Michael wrote:
When something of that nature appeared in one of your other offerings, I commented favourably upon it.
 
I must have missed it. Can you please provide a link?
 
Michael wrote:
As far as I am aware, the explanation that you have given to Francis is the first time that you have done this on this forum. Had you done so earlier, perhaps people might have found your ideas more comprehensible.
 
I have given that same information on this forum more than once. I have detailed how to determine the size of the 35 tribes by dividing the cohort size by 700....more than once. The 5 elements and which property class they are associated with, then there’s the tribune cohort, my findings on the Roman fleet, discussions on my findings of Polybius’ methodology. I’ve also posted when I put a paper on academia. edu, of which I have done 3 times. There is lots of information given in this forum in various threads that I even have forgotten. Please don’t make the problem mine alone.
 
Michael wrote:
I still think that it does not go far enough, no doubt due to space considerations, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
 
What exactly do you want? I keep the material relevant to the military aspect. I have a lot to choose from. The first chapter, Rome’s Infancy alone consists of:
 
A False Perception of the Past
Between Good and Evil
The Will of the Gods
The Pythagorean Religion of Numbers
The Divine Ratios
The Harmony of the Womb
The Hebdomad System
Pythagorean Influence on Rome
The Sibylline Books
The Pythagorean Saeculum
The Secular Games
Rome as a Man
The 12 Ages of Rome
Rome’s Founding Date
The Early Roman Calendar
The Pythagorean Cosmos
The Harmony of the Spheres
The Pythagorean Zodiac
The Song of the Celestial Sirens
The Soul of the Cosmos
The Roman Tribes
The 35 Tribes and the Tetrachord
The Tribal Century
The Tribes and the Pythagorean Cosmos
The Century Assembly of Tarquinius Superbus
The Fiscal Wealth of the Six Property Classes
The Birth of the Republic
The Republican Tribal Century
The Republican Tribe and the Five Elements
The Republican Century Assembly
 
The Roman Army section consists of:
The Pre-Maniple Legion
Organisation of the pre-maniple legion
Arms and Armour
Battle Array of the pre-maniple legion
The Roman Cavalry of the pre-maniple legion
The First Pythagorean Legion
The Military Age of the Iuniores and Seniores
The Military Levy
The Consular Army
The 40 Century Legion
The Century
The Maniple
The Cohort
The Tribune Cohort
The Legion Standards
The Roman Cavalry
The Consul’s Bodyguard
Battle Array of the 40 Century Legion
Cavalry Placement
The Serra Formation
Cavalry Lanes
Open order/Closed Order
The Light Armed Infantry
The Heavy Armed Infantry
The Camp Guards
The Artificers and the Musicians
Dictatorship and the 60 Century Legion
The Organisation of the 60 Century Legion
The Cavalry of the 60 Century Legion
499 BC: The Battle of Lake Regillus
Political Instability and Succession
The Tribal Assembly
Stipendium
494 BC: The Year of Great Danger
480 BC: The Battle of Veii
Political Flux and Organisational Flexibility
444 BC: The Consular Tribunes
 
There is quite a lot in the first chapter. I’ve been told it is the most extensive military study of this period. From my years here, most on this forum are not interested in this period, which is a shame as the foundations of the legion are to be found in this period.
 
Michael wrote:
This is not true; see the above.
 
Yes that was the length of it.
 
Michael wrote:
I also told you that I had read it through and intended to do so again in greater detail but, subsequently, that other calls on my time meant that I could not give it the attention that it deserved.
 
I offer the material to people because I respect their opinion. If they are interested and are happy to provide feedback I provide them with the first chapter. In the meantime, I do not rewrite or add new information to this chapter so when I do get the feedback, I have the same format and information as the reader. While I wait, I make separate notes of new material and rewrite ideas, or format changes for that chapter. After 6 months of silence or longer, I give up waiting.
 
Michael wrote:
I hope also that you will acknowledge that I have attempted to assist you in other ways.
 
Yes, and vice versa.
 
Michael wrote:
If your would-be readership have to go out and buy another book to be able to understand yours, they won't bother and your book will sit on the shelf unread gathering dust.
 
How can anyone go out and buy another book to be able to understand mine, when in fact mine is a one of a kind? You won’t find anyone else connecting Pythagoras to Rome, and that the tribes and the Roman legion are all interconnected with the Pythagorean harmony of the spheres.
Reply
#55
I have been trying to follow this thread all along. I'm not all that into things Roman (let's rock the Peloponesian War!), but your premise has always intrigued me. Post 52 was the first time a brief, succinct explanation of Pythagoras' ideas and the intertwining you see with the Romans lit a light bulb in my head. I see where you are trying to go. I also understand I will have to educate myself on Pythagoras, his theories, and his life and times. I accept that my knowledge gap is mine to fill, but some will want spoon feeding... Or at least a big honkin' reading list on Mr. P and the Harmoniacs.
Cheryl Boeckmann
Reply
#56
(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: Post 48 of this thread.

Sorry. Doesn't help me a lot.

(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: And that has been done.

Good.

(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: I must have missed it. Can you please provide a link?

E-mail 31st October 2015.

(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: I have given that same information on this forum more than once.

If you say so but, if so, not as clearly.

(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: The first chapter, Rome’s Infancy alone consists of:

Much expanded from what you sent me originally, it seems.

(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: Yes that was the length of it.

Sorry to have been a disappointment to you. At least I gave you some response and explained why I might not be able to do more. I see, also, that we have had quite an extensive e-mail correspondence on a variety of topics. Not exactly 'Never heard from you', as you originally claimed.

(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: Yes, and vice versa.

?

(05-06-2017, 03:59 PM)Steven James Wrote: How can anyone go out and buy another book to be able to understand mine, when in fact mine is a one of a kind?

You suggested that I buy a book on mathematics to be able to understand your calculations, nothing to do with the subject matter of your book as a whole.
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)
Reply
#57
Steven, thanks for your reply. It was illuminating and only makes me lament the situation where you have not been able to find a publisher as of yet. I self-publish via Amazon and find it quite intuitive and easy to use. A couple of academics have also used that route but as you have aptly noted these do not rely too much on diagrams and are therefore easy to format. 

I see the Pythagorean system underlying Roman practise as you describe it being elegant and adaptive. It appeals to me as a former Structuralist (before I stumbled into Post Modernism at University and the 'Already-Made') while also lifting the study of Roman military history onto a cultural and social level I don't think I have come across before. Again, it is a shame your work will not see the light of day in the near future as I think it deserves to be shown in its full depth, as it were.

Have you considered 'Pen and Sword' as a possible publisher? I know one poster here - Adrian - has used them to publish his own history research and might be able to advise if that organisation might be interested? 

A quick question which did occur to me as you outlined the Pythagorean system and its modulation through time which is more cultural than military: if the Romans as a societal organisation operated a military ethos based around this system, how was it maintained through the climatic post-Severan period which saw large scale break down in Roman rule and cohesion? Was this manner of thinking now so embedded in their mind-set that it was 'second-nature' to adapt and organise the legions and vexillations using that model so that in a manner of speaking it was no longer a conscious model? Or was this model held as sacred knowledge by a select group and passed on through learning? If the latter, I wonder if it became corrupted or misunderstood as this period moved on into the Tetrachic period and then on into the later Christian period of Rome and Constantinople? I guess what I am really wondering is how robust is this model and have you discovered corruptions or adaptions to it later on which reflect the social upheavals of these troubled times.

 I suppose what I am questioning here is the synchronic nature of the model and how it organises and accounts for military formations along a massive diachronic frame. The Structuralist in me applauds it but the Post Modernist sees a Janus split here and wants to pull at the threads . . .
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
#58
Athena wrote:

I have been trying to follow this thread all along. I'm not all that into things Roman (let's rock the Peloponesian War!), but your premise has always intrigued me.
 
Anything I can do to lure you to the dark side? Or is the power of the Corinthian helmet and Aspis to strong.
 
Athena wrote:
I see where you are trying to go. I also understand I will have to educate myself on Pythagoras, his theories, and his life and times.
 
During my early days of research, I could not understand why everything in the Roman military was divisible by four. Then one day I read in Varro that Pythagoras used divisions of four.
 
“Pythagoras the Samian " says that the primal elements of all things are in pairs, as finite and infinite, good and bad, life and death, day and night...12. Therefore it comes about that for this reason all things, in general, are divided into four phases.”
 
That is why legions are paired and a consular army has 4 legions. After reading a dozen books about Pythagoras, none of them were really that helpful in answering my questions. It was Censorinus that provided the answers and the information to the Pythagorean doctrines that are employed in the Roman system.
 
However, Censorinus’ description of the Pythagorean cosmos and the 6 tones is only part of the system. Pliny states there are 7 tones and in his lifetime this is correct. The period of the 7 tones is also when the book of Revelations were written because it has borrowed the Pythagorean system. So the 6 tones are divided into 2 cycles each of 3 tones, which represents the song of the celestial sirens being repeated twice. The 3 tones represent the 3 daughters of fate named Lachesis, Clotho and Atropos. Lachesis sang about “things that were,” Clotho, “things that are,” and Atropos “things that are to be,” which represent the past, present and future. Missing from Censorinus are the 8 celestial sirens with each siren standing on the rim of a circle uttering one musical note and the 8 musical notes making a concord of a single harmony, referred to as the song of the sirens. The sirens are providing the choir.
 
The full version of the Pythagorean harmony of the spheres can be found in Plato’s Timeaus, which is a plagiarised version of Pythagorean harmony of the spheres. Also if you do a character profile on all that is written on the traits of Numa (Rome’s second king), and Pythagoras, you will find they are one and the same person, and the fact that Numa, who lived 150 years before Pythagoras, was also a disciple of Pythagoras, indicates a fabricated story based on facts.
 
Michael wrote:
You suggested that I buy a book on mathematics to be able to understand your calculations, nothing to do with the subject matter of your book as a whole.
 
No it wasn’t so to understand my calculations. As you stated it has been awhile since you have studied maths at school, I recommended getting a book on maths as a refresher. I did this some time back because, like yourself, it had been a long time since I had to do some real maths. So I was referring to your long absence about maths.
 
Michael wrote”
Much expanded from what you sent me originally, it seems.
 
It is always expanding with new material found. I have opened a flood gate and still am dealing with the material. Also there are things about the system I have not recognized the connection. Only this week did I realise the number of centuries in a tribe are connected with the Roman generation system of time. As the system is based on six separate mathematical systems that make the whole, sometimes it takes me time to find how they interact on the various levels.
 
Michael wrote:
Sorry to have been a disappointment to you. At least I gave you some response and explained why I might not be able to do more. I see, also, that we have had quite an extensive e-mail correspondence on a variety of topics. Not exactly 'Never heard from you', as you originally claimed.
 
Michael, I don’t really want to go into offline stuff, not if I had to, but after a considerable amount of time, I had to chase you to find what was going on. That is all I am saying on the matter.
 
Francis wrote:
Steven, thanks for your reply. It was illuminating and only makes me lament the situation where you have not been able to find a publisher as of yet.
 
I’m not really fazed, and basically I am not concerned. You may find this hard to believe or understand but I never wanted to write this book. You see for over 20 years I had a hunch something was controlling the Roman military system. It was a hunch that never went away. When I broke into the Livy legion of 340 BC, I kept at it to see where it would go. Basically I was driven by curiosity and to be honest, I liked the challenge. I was sharing my findings with a friend who was at the time a librarian at the Melbourne University. This friend introduced me to Professor Ridley and during our discussion about showing him how to turn the Servian Constitution into the tribal system he asked me to present him the information on paper. And that is where the problem lays, once I accomplish a challenge, I am bored and I want to move on, and I had no interest in writing about it. I had personally found out what I wanted to know and that was that. But he convinced me to write about what I had found, and I did, and if it wasn’t for him, I would not have bothered. When I prove something to myself, I don’t see the need to prove it to the world, but alas look at where I am now, doing what I did not want to do.
 
Francis wrot:
I see the Pythagorean system underlying Roman practise as you describe it being elegant and adaptive.
 
It is adaptive, but sometimes the Romans found new ways of getting around some of its limitations.
 
Francis wrote:
It appeals to me as a former Structuralist (before I stumbled into Post Modernism at University and the 'Already-Made') while also lifting the study of Roman military history onto a cultural and social level I don't think I have come across before.
 
A socialist went over my material and had not problem accepting it. As he believed the Romans were a superstitious people, it all made sense to him.
 
Francis wrote:
Again, it is a shame your work will not see the light of day in the near future as I think it deserves to be shown in its full depth, as it were.
 
Well if you want a copy, just ask. It comes with a catch, I need feedback. If you think it is shit, tell me, if you think the numbers do not work, tell me, I need to know how it stands up. If you have any ideas as to adding clarity, tell me, I need this sort of information. Comments like “its really great etc, is just useless. The Pythagorean system maintains continuity for 1,200 years, and that is why I have structured the book in chronological order. The first deals with Pythagorean system and the Roman military to 406 BC. This chapter is called Rome’s Infancy, which follows the Roman 12 ages of man.
 
Francis wrote:
A quick question which did occur to me as you outlined the Pythagorean system and its modulation through time which is more cultural than military: if the Romans as a societal organisation operated a military ethos based around this system, how was it maintained through the climatic post-Severan period which saw large scale break down in Roman rule and cohesion?
 
Because the Roman system was based on the life of a man, the Romans had to conquer the known world by the end of manhood. They can do some expansion in the sixth hebdomad, but I believe this belief in the early republic was a major driving force. It sometimes gives me the impression that Rome, like a football team that wins the Superbowl, the next year has lost some of its drive and determination.
 
Francis
Or was this model held as sacred knowledge by a select group and passed on through learning?
 
Good question. Censorinus state the Romans did not know how long a secular lasted. Some claim it was 110 years, others 100 years. Yet I have found the Romans are using the correct time for a saeculum, so I am curious as to why they claim they did not know? Were officials being misleading? As Christianity comes to the rise, and gains power, information as to the Pythagorean system seems to be widely available. St Augustine has plagiarised a lot it as have other early Christian writers. The Book of Revelations has drawn on it and used it for its own purpose.
 
It seems the Romans believed the Pythagorean system gave them harmony and favour with the gods and to violate this would bring ruin upon them. It is interesting that after Rome was sacked in 386 BC, the Romans conducted, not a military investigation, but according to Livy, a religious investigation. They must have been concerned that the prophecy that after 120 years of Rome’s founding, if they were not destroyed, they would last for 1200 years without harm. This must have been the reason as to why they conducted a religious investigation. The result was the consul got the blame for not conducting the auspices correctly.
 
In the second chapter, Rome’s Youth, you see how conforming to the Pythagorean religion of numbers was causing them some distress. You will read how the Romans designed different legions that would be better adapted to the enemy they were facing, instead of a the standard legion for all occassions.
 
Francis wrote:
If the latter, I wonder if it became corrupted or misunderstood as this period moved on into the Tetrachic period and then on into the later Christian period of Rome and Constantinople? I guess what I am really wondering is how robust is this model and have you discovered corruptions or adaptions to it later on which reflect the social upheavals of these troubled times.
 
The original legion or the first Pythagorean legion has the same organisation as the Late Roman legion, so the foundation for the Vegetius legion was already in place. The one think I would say was added was the numerus and cuneus organisation. However, they may not be something new but already there. When some troops types are detached from the legion, the vertical organisation, which has the largest numbers of men, can then be left with the same number of men as the horizontal organisation, so sometimes it can be hard to tell. This is why I have been at it for years....learning the difference.
 
There are changes to the system, first is in 509 BC, when the Romans returned to the original Pythagorean system as designed in 513 BC, the second in 406 BC, with the removal of the counter earth from the Pythagorean system, which reduced the number of planets from 10 to 9 planets. The third change occurs in 228 BC, when they switched to the Pythagorean zodiac as the tonal system which the tribes were based on was not allowing the Romans to fully use their manpower system. The tonal system in 228 BC, only allowed them to levy 10 legions, whereas the zodiac system allowed them to levy 35 legions at one time. Another change to the system occurred in 18 BC, which persisted to the end of the system. The legion of 18 BC should have consisted of 4800 men organised into 10 cohorts each of 480 men, 40 maniples each of 120 men, and 80 centuries each of 60 men. Instead they went for 10 cohorts each of 480 men, 30 maniples each of 160 men, and 60 centuries each of 80 men. A 120 maniple represents 4 zodiacs each of 30 degrees, so a cohort of 480 men represents 16 zodiacs each of 30 degrees and should have been organised into 4 maniples of 120 men, as a 120 man maniple represents a tetrad (4) of zodiacs. The 480 cavalry allocated to a 4800 man legion should have been organised into 10 squadrons each of 48 men, instead of 512 men. I think they were trying to cut down the number of cavalry officers by going to the 512 system. The next legion, that is the 6,000 man legion should have been organised into 50 maniples of 120 men and 100 centuries each of 60 men (2 zodiacs).
 
Francis wrote:
I suppose what I am questioning here is the synchronic nature of the model and how it organises and accounts for military formations along a massive diachronic frame.
 
The legion is designed to expand with movement of the cosmos and do the tribes. That is why the legion starts at 2400 men, then 3600 men, then 4800 men and finally 6000 men. The organisation remains the same, and all legions will consist of cohorts, maniples and centuries. Behind the system, and the heart beat of the system is the 5 elements, which the ancients believed was the building blocks of the universe. The 5 elements is the mathematical generator of the other Pythagorean systems used by the Romans. All roads lead to the 5 elements and their geometric shapes. That is why the Roman legion is a geometric element made up of squares and rectangles.
 
Heaven 6480 degrees
Fire 720 degrees
Air 1440 degrees
Earth 2160 degrees
Water 3600 degrees
 
Francis wrote:
The Structuralist in me applauds it but the Post Modernist sees a Janus split here and wants to pull at the threads.
 
Having expectations leads to disappointment. I was hoping you would ask about Zosimus’ 6 tagmata numbering 4 myriads, and Sozomen’s 6 arithmoi totalling about 4000 men. Just for the sake of it, let’s say Sozomen’s 6 arithmoi amount to 3600 men, with an arithmoi numbering 600 men. Let’s say each arithmoi consisted of 10 centuries each of 60 men. That gives a total of 60 centuries for the 6 arithmoi.
 
Let’s say that the source Zosimus is reading is describing the organisation and structure of an arithmoi or tagmata. Maybe Zosimus and Sozomen have done this because the original text they have only mentions the number of units involved, and not the number of men.
 
Let’s say Zosimus has mistook the total of 60 centuries as belonging to one tagmata, and he believes a century has 100 men, so he ends up with 6 tagmata each of 6000 men for a total of 36,000 men. Then Zosimus divides the 36,000 men by 4 to arrive at each tagmata having 9000 men, of which he rounds to 10,000 men.
 
The question is why the number 4? And this is what I like about this, it opens new doors. As Zosimus believes a single tagmata has 60 centuries, Zosimus has taken a tagmata of 600 men, which has an organisation consisting of 4 parts. This would mean each of the 4 parts has 150 men, and when combined, has two parts of 300 men, and I find it interesting that our Christian martyr stories also reproduce these numbers, as does Ammianius references to 300 men.
 
 
 
Reply
#59
(05-09-2017, 08:15 AM)Steven James Wrote: the organisation and structure of an arithmoi or tagmata

My hobby-horse again, I'm afraid - singulars and plurals, Greek this time: arithmos (sing.), arithmoi (plur.); tagma (sing.), tagmata (plur.).
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)
Reply
#60
(05-09-2017, 08:15 AM)Steven James Wrote: Well if you want a copy, just ask. It comes with a catch, I need feedback. If you think it is shit, tell me, if you think the numbers do not work, tell me, I need to know how it stands up. If you have any ideas as to adding clarity, tell me, I need this sort of information.

When you first said that you would send me a copy of your book, it was without preconditions. Perhaps I should hold you to that. I can give no guarantee but, if I think that I have any useful comments to  make, I will do so. My feedback to you so far has been on matters of presentation, so if those have been satisfactorily addressed I may have little to add, as I am not entirely sure that I am qualified to speak on the content. I shall need to see the whole thing before I can judge that. The trouble is that the book seems to be a constantly evolving entity, so I may have to wait until there is a definitive version available, whenever that may be, as any comments I make before then may be irrelevant by the time I get them to you.
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)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius Longovicium 172 31,939 07-09-2017, 06:59 PM
Last Post: Nathan Ross
  Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores Robert Vermaat 34 9,883 04-19-2017, 04:38 AM
Last Post: Steven James
  Late Roman Army Questions Legate 22 6,497 12-01-2015, 05:10 PM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs

Forum Jump: