EUREKA - Roman army troops

[antiochus]

Phil wrote: While tying in with the 500th anniversary of the first book published on the Roman army, I respectfully suggest that you might be shooting yourself in the foot if you let this dictate your decisions regarding publishers for two reasons:

I set this deadline because people are advising me to have a deadline. Professor Ridley has pointed out to me in this field you can research all your life but sometime you need to get it out. I have others who want to use my work on their various projects and are holding off until I publish. One involves a book on the history of Livy's work including some Italian who saved many of the original transcripts. My work gives him the climax of his book. The three major areas that are corrupt in the primary sources are the Servian constitution, Livy's legion and Polybius' legion. They are not major distortions but an incorrect word or a number here or there makes a huge difference.

In 2000 I spent a year full time studying electronic pre-press, so am very aware of the publishing procedures. If I go self publishing I have at my finger tips my pre-press teachers and editors. Before I stumble on deciphering the Roman system, I always thought if I ever did a book, I would like it in the same format as Connollys Greece and Rome at War. I like colour illustrations, but I will not use Connollys illustrations in my book as too many have and it makes the book feel "tired." At present I am more concerned with understanding Vegetius legion and although I give myself a 2010 date for publishing, I am not going to try and kill myself to make it. The quality of the research comes first. However, do not be surprised if I do contact you one day about publishing. I have a few friends who have published with you and they speak highly of their experience with Pen and Sword.

I have also placed an order for all your ancient books with Melbourne University. Not sure how the system works but they said if Pen and Sword are not connected with thier buyer, they don't make an effort to get them. Will let you know what happens.

[Epictetus]

If you are still doing research then a release date in the next 13 months seems very unlikely to me. But anyway, as others have said I look forward to it whenever it is actually published.

[D B Campbell]

Putting Milner aside, there is no double strength first cohort. ... The supposed evidence for the double cohort is Vegetius, ...

Incorrect. Hyginus, De munit. castr. 3: Cohors prima ..., et quoniam duplum numerum habet, duplam pedaturam accipiet, ... ("The first cohort, because it has double strength, will receive a double area" sc. in the camp).

Hyginus is refering to other legion organisation.

Perhaps you just expressed yourself poorly, then? You seemed to claim that there was no basis for the enlarged first cohort. I was demonstrating to you that such a claim would be incorrect. So exactly what point were you making? :?

[mcbishop]

To my knowledge the first book published on the Roman army was by Lipsius (spelling) in 1510 AD. So Livy bashing is now close to its 500th year anniversary.

At the risk of being pedantic (when has that ever stopped me?!), not that close ;-) ) Just (or Joost) Lips' (Iustus Lipsius) dates are 1547-1606 with his de Militia Romana being published in 1595/6 (I only got to see a 1610 edition in the National Library of Scotland, which of course made no reference to earlier impressions, but the British Library has one from 1596). Alberico Gentili slipped in with de Armis Romanis in 1599 (one of the dullest books I have ever read - even duller than some recent works on the Roman army - but then it was written by a lawyer!) and the publishing revolution on the Roman army was off...

I thought Livy bashing, along with the judicious use of Vegetius when he conveniently proves a point, was obligatory in Roman military studies :-) )

Mike Bishop

[antiochus]

I would like to offer my apologies to one and all on this forum about my comment there is no double first cohort. For the record, I wish to withdraw my previous comment and state a double first cohort does exist, but not on the battlefield which was my focus. The first cohort exist in the camp structure, and the extra men are time expired veterans. I had completely forgotten about them. Veteran cohorts can be found in the Servian legion and their role is to act as camp guards. Veteran cohorts are very common in Tacitus and Paterculus, but I completely forgot to investigate whether this doctrine was still being applied, due as I stated, being singly focused on the battlefield legion. When on the battlefield, a double first cohort does not and cannot fit the legion’s battlefield command structure. So I guess I was partially right, but still it’s is an oversight that should not have happened. However, every cloud has a silver lining and it now puts more light on Vegetius’ legion.

Again, my sincerest apology.

[antiochus]

(Iustus Lipsius) dates are 1547-1606 with his de Militia Romana being published in 1595/6 (I only got to see a 1610 edition in the National Library of Scotland, which of course made no reference to earlier impressions, but the British Library has one from 1596).

This is great news. I now have another 100 years to finish the book. D D

I thought Livy bashing, along with the judicious use of Vegetius when he conveniently proves a point, was obligatory in Roman military studies

Has this methodology proven anything? Has it given us the tools to reconcile Polybius' legion with the rest of the primary sources? Has it proven that Caesar is down sizing his army numbers or is he actually telling the truth? I have better results by trying to understand the primary sources than to find fault with them.

[antiochus]

If you are still doing research then a release date in the next 13 months seems very unlikely to me. But anyway, as others have said I look forward to it whenever it is actually published.

Back in the early 80's, with some collegues, over dinner one night we decided to make a documentary about a New Zealand drug cartel. Four months later the documentary was finished. It remained up to the network when they decided to air it. The research I have left concerns Vegetius, the rest of the book is written. I am getting close to the next phase which involves bringing more academics into the circle to scrutinize it. I am very confident about my work. And I will state my mantra of only following the primary sources. I only use numbers in the primary sources, and for their period they fit. Only last week, someone else examined it and had no idea how to attack it, or discount any of it. When you step back and look at it, the Roman legion averages in size from 3000 to 6000 men, therefore, they are following a mathematical system that has an overall structure that does not change much. It's only the internal structures the Romans modify....how?........well if the Romans have 12 standards, and they drop six, you have a different legion structure happening instantly. Doesn't Livy tell us at Zama the cohort standards were replaced with maniple standards.

Look to Josephus' account of what the Jewish army should copy from the Romans. He makes an important statement that other historians have also made.

[M. Demetrius]

Look to Josephus' account of what the Jewish army should copy from the Romans. He makes an important statement that other historians have also made.

Josephus said quite a few things about the Roman army...to which statement do you refer?

[Cheyenne]

I'm interested in hearing more about this venture - I am however, always a little dubious when I hear that someone has ascertained a mathematical equation that claims to solve specific questions about what is essentially, an ecologically emergent and culturally contingent issue.

Systems & middle range theory (which, if I am not mistaken - you are using to answer some of these questions) has its limitations when dealing with indeterminacy in human aspects of the socially constructed environment. Are we to assume that the ways in which these legions were organised for over 400 years were a rigid as you suggest?

Archaeology has, in reality has been calling for an interdisciplinary approach to its material ever since post-processualists rejected the inherently reductionist attitudes of people such as Binford, Clarke et all. in the 1970's. I'm not saying that such an endeavor would be met with hostility, but drawing on maths and maths alone to explain an issue which is considered through complexity of cultural frameworks (such as the variations in religious or cultural practices between romanised and non-romanised peoples) would present problems we have been trying to work through in Prehistoric archaeology for a number of years

I'm still interested in how you would overcome variations in regional and local attitudes and how you would account for risk analysis in historically contingent conditions

I hope this doesn't sound too negative - I'm just considering the theoretical and philosophical implications of what you are trying to achieve

Cheers

Claire

[philsidnell]

Yeah, I was just going to say that... actually a lot of that went over my head. While I wholeheartedly agree with what I think was the underlying point, that human affairs never neatly and consistently fit a mathematical formula, I don't think Stephen is using 'maths and maths alone' - his starting point is to trust the ancient sources to know what they were talking about (at least for their own time, if not for the time they were describing), to use them and then use the maths to look for a unifiying system. If such a formulaic organizing principle existed and persisted across the lifespan of the empire, that would be a really cool thing to identify, especially if in the process it resolves apparent inconsistencies among the surviving sources without resorting to saying 'x' must have made a mistake. But such a system would not preclude wide variations in actual practice at any given point in time, with local expedience overriding the theoretical ideal, and it certainly doesn't devalue any light the archaeology or any other discipline can throw on specific instances of those wide variations.

Probably I have just missed the point of what everyone was saying!

Phil Sidnell

[antiochus]

David wrote: Josephus said quite a few things about the Roman army...to which statement do you refer?

Josephus II 20 578

Claire wrote:
I'm interested in hearing more about this venture - I am however, always a little dubious when I hear that someone has ascertained a mathematical equation that claims to solve specific questions about what is essentially, an ecologically emergent and culturally contingent issue.

Not sure I’m with you about a mathematical equation. :?: :?: The Romans have more than one.

“Hence all the other things too are held together by number, loans, testimonies, votes, contracts, times, periods. And in general it is feasible to find anything about life that does not participate in numbers.” Sextus Empiricus

The three Romulean tribes use a simple decimal system of dividing the centuries into ten parts. Romulus had three tribes each of 1000 men, therefore the Roman army numbered 3000 men, it is that simple. Even Cicero writes

“with the Greeks geometry was regarded with the utmost respect, and consequently none were held in greater honour than mathematicians, but we Romans have delimited the size of this art to the practical purpose of measuring and calculating.”

The Roman method is to keep it simple and practical; whereas the Greeks had a tendency to lean towards what the Romans believed was non-practical mathematics.

Claire wrote:
Systems & middle range theory (which, if I am not mistaken - you are using to answer some of these questions) has its limitations when dealing with indeterminacy in human aspects of the socially constructed environment.

I have no idea of what a middle range theory is, and in all honesty, sounds like one of those theories of the month that promise to answer everything but deliver nothing. :?

Claire wrote:
Are we to assume that the ways in which these legions were organised for over 400 years were a rigid as you suggest?

All legions adhere to the Servian constitution; therefore they are based on the same model. When it changes the legion changes. I have three changes to the system, one with the introduction of the maniple legion, the second change complies with Hyginus and Arrian’s legion description under the emperors, while the third produces the Vegetius model. Three changes since 530 BC to Vegetius isn’t that great. These changes are slight and are driven by the increase in the number of centuries in a tribe. Even Livy tells us this. In his summary of the Servian constitution, Livy (I 43) states “the fact the present organisation, as it exists since the increase in the number of tribes to thirty-five and the doubling of their members of iuniores and seniores, does not correspond to the total established by Servius Tullius need cause no surprise.”

There is a paper written in one of the journals about how strict the Romans were to protocol. If something was not done the way it should, the whole process had to be done again. This happened to a consul, his consulship was cancelled because the Romans realised after the ceremony, a special chair was not in the correct position. This paper list such incidents that they seem absurd by our standards, yet these were vitally important to the Romans. One historian who reviews everything I write stated “one gets the impression the Romans kept this system (Servian) because they knew it worked for their forefathers, so felt assured it would work for them.”

The internal structure of the legion is where the flexibility is created. In summary, the tribe dictates the organisation of the legion as it did in the time of Romulus. However, other outside influences have an effect, like devaluation in their monetary system can and does alter the number of men registered in each property class. There is a shift, and overtime, some of the infra classem are now in the same battle line as the classis, until eventually, the class system had an entirely new meaning, but was not abandoned.

Claire wrote:
I'm not saying that such an endeavor would be met with hostility, but drawing on maths and maths alone to explain an issue which is considered through complexity of cultural frameworks

If you do not know what the Roman system is, how can you believe it would be complex?

Claire wrote:
I'm still interested in how you would overcome variations in regional and local attitudes and how you would account for risk analysis in historically contingent conditions

I’m writing about Roman military organisation. Sorry, but...you’re completely lost me. Don’t take it personally... I’m a blonde... a bit slow on the uptake.

Claire wrote:
I hope this doesn't sound too negative - I'm just considering the theoretical and philosophical implications of what you are trying to achieve.

Well that’s simple...exposing Roman military organizational methodology, which when published you will realize I have achieved. This has all transpired because I research both Roman mathematics and religion and found how they all go hand in hand with the military system. By trying to understand their methodology, I found their laws on prior numbers and posterior numbers and most importantly how prior numbers and posterior numbers interact with each other due to prior numbers being based on station and posterior numbers centred on motion, both being related to the (universal) cycle they refer to. When applied to the military, the posterior centurion is always senior to the prior centurion. This is contrary to the traditional view, but the traditional view is just guesses based on guesses. Further on I came to learn a military century consists of monads (the Roman’s ultimate unit of being), all having their roots in their religion. It is this monad system that defines why a double cohort came into being when in camp, and why it is not utilised all the time. Because of these monads, I found the how and why behind the changes, all through the language of mathematics.

[M. Demetrius]

David wrote: Josephus said quite a few things about the Roman army...to which statement do you refer?

Josephus II 20 578

For the benefit of those who don't have that volume, would you please post a short excerpt?

[D B Campbell]

Josephus said quite a few things about the Roman army...to which statement do you refer?

Josephus II 20 578

For the benefit of those who don't have that volume, would you please post a short excerpt?

It's the bit about Josephus placing his own army under the command of dekadarchs, hekatontarchs, and chiliarchs, "in the Roman manner". Which proves what?

[Alexandr K]

David wrote: Josephus said quite a few things about the Roman army...to which statement do you refer?

Josephus II 20 578


For the benefit of those who don't have that volume, would you please post a short excerpt?

Look here:
http://pace.mcmaster.ca/york/york/showT ... yout=split

Greetings
Alexandr

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote:
It's the bit about Josephus placing his own army under the command of dekadarchs, hekatontarchs, and chiliarchs, "in the Roman manner". Which proves what?

The reference to Josephus and my omission of providing the text, which you have done, was an exercise in determining what people, like yourself, fail to notice. You are correct in citing that Josephus placed his “own army under the command of dekadarchs, hekatontarchs, and chiliarchs,” but you failed to mention the most important component, and that is Josephus first “distributed the soldiers into various classes.” The Roman army is all about class structure. Most academics think this system belongs to bygone days.

Walbank once wrote an article “Naval Triarii” about Polybius naming the fourth squadron Triarii. Walbank believes Polybius has picked up a nickname for the fourth squadron. It is no such thing. Polybius tells us a legion consisted of four classes, and funny enough, the Roman fleet is divided into...four squadrons. Therefore, each squadron contains one of the four classes. At the time of the First Punic war, class segregation still existed, which meant the infra classem are not merged with the classis, that comes later. Now Dionysius uses the term antesignani in some of his battle accounts of the Servian army, which has been judged as anachronistic. Vegetius uses such terms as principes and hastati, signifying to academia, Vegetius is employing sources from an early period. However, such terms merely designate the class. There’s a reference somewhere in Tacitus about Parthian (???) envoys at Rome asking about the class system and how it works. The Historian Augustus has passing comments to the classes. It’s all about the class system, dekadarchs, hekatontarchs, and chiliarchs are of a secondary nature.