I only use the Macedonian/Successor pike-phalanx as an example, for that's what Polybius does. The argument applies equally against 'thinner' Hoplite/Spear phalanxes.
The Latins (including the Romans themselves - and we have Livy's early and pre-Polybian), Etruscans, Samnites and Carthaginians are all groups, cities ex-colonies on the Graeco-Roman model and, as far as I know, fought on the same principles and used the spear-phalanx with some supporting troops. The Gauls and Lusitanians are more on the 'barbarian' model.
Pyrrhus (and later armies on the Successor model) certainly adapted, but I do not see that the Romans needed to change their otherwise successful tactics and indeed suffered more when those tactics and similar troop types (perhaps let's call them 'Heavy Peltasts') were used against them to specifically counter the flank weaknesses of the more rigid pike-phalanx.
So, yes, the Romans had come up with a winning set of tactics - it's simply that I'm trying to understand.
Steven,
Yes, Livy does claim that the Romans (indeed Latins as I agree above) also used similar phalanx (spear-armed in this case) formation, but that they did indeed change to the manipular-legion as detailed by Polybius. The entire thrust of land-warfare in the period was aimed at over-coming the 'infantry phalanx'. I think "claim" is a bit strong, but I am certainly content in strongly suggesting that the Romans developed a style to counter just that. For that's what we see thereafter and indeed many others then adopted similar where they could.
For your 'fractions' comment, you are choosing to misunderstand entirely. There are no 'fractions' in a pace/double-pace. But, with reference also to Robert's comment above, Sean's very interesting aside on Peter Connolly's suggestion of a context (which is indeed what I am suggesting), and particularly to Christian's point about 'modern' practices not necessarily applying.....
My point is that 'man' has not changed at all in well over 5,000 years (in every way, but that's a digression for a wider forum!) when it comes to continuity. A man's pace is only so long and so is a man's arm (and the two are very similar). I will indeed think of challenging a measured 3ft when, with indeed having practical experience, there is no way to teach and practicably move around in lengths of 3ft - when a pace is definitely practical.
As to 'Base 60', no. That's not how I see the Roman army is formed, 60 is just a result of a 'centuriae' system and a combination binary/decimal system that does seem to be prevalent.
Christian,
Apart from, understandably, being relatively happy that Roman shield-widths at the start of their manipular-legion are 2.5ft (true horizontal, not initial arc); I am only currently aware of a couple of actual shields that can be examined; the 'Fayum shield', which seems to fit well; and that from 'Dura-Europas' which has possibly been interpreted as not necessarily being representative (it is certainly a lot shorter). If there are more, that would be useful information. I haven't seen any suggestions of any reconstructions that would account for deformation over the centuries.
Thank you for that useful comment on historical methods, which I happily accept - although noting that many historians will then rely entirely on that area that has become very specialist; but I will also defend someone who has had practical training and experience - for what (indeed I am quite happy you criticise) you might wish to dismiss as 'speculation' is attempting to determine what is missing in our sources, when they don't quite make sense.
Moving men around in formations and basic combat principles based upon the actual physique of 'man' has not changed at all.
Sean,
I must ask why "Polybius must have observed"? Polybius was a captive, then a tutor and then a trusted companion. I'm sure he saw a lot, but he was never trained (he's never claimed) by a Roman centurion to fight as the Romans did. No Roman Patrician General was - they were trained to wield armies and only fight as an individual. There are limits to what you can see on a dusty battlefield as a General (which is the closest that Polybius would have gotten).
---
For whilst it does seem fairly reasonable to suggest that the Romans thought in paces (their mile, their laying out of camps and the apparent width of their shield); the reason I have to query some of Polybius (in the main as he's our most reliable source) does come back to this issue of the '3ft separation' (ie each man in an unsupported 'bubble').
It simply is not credible. No line of spaced-out men, however armed, armoured or trained could resist even a minimally deep advancing phalanx, whether armed with spear or pike.
If so, then I will happily try to understand, interpret, interpolate and even speculate or actually guess - when we don't obviously know.
Finally, when it comes to this issue, we have Polybius with a 3ft separation per man and Vegetius with a 3ft occupation (shoulder-to-shoulder) and 6ft separation. Ignore the '3ft/pace' issue - which one is wrong?
Personally I think they're both right - except about the actual 'fighting bit' perhaps - it's just a matter of formation drill.
Actually I think you'll find that all military tactical formation training is 'thought of' from a 100% perspective - particularly (in our context) when it comes to deploying and moving on the battlefield, for that represents the 'maximum'.
When numbers are lower, for whatever reason, then you just 'cope'! And adapt and overcome, and all those other good phrases.
In addition I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the operational or strategic dominance element, for, especially in logistic terms, you have to have the tactical base.
If indeed you were to try and come up with an entire military doctrine from scratch, then you have to do a classic 'V' approach - drill from the initial military need down to the Tactical battlefield and then back up again. It's the tactics and thus the formations you are going to use that drive the answer - once you know who your enemy is.
Mark wrote: Yes, Livy does claim that the Romans (indeed Latins as I agree above) also used similar phalanx (spear-armed in this case) formation, but that they did indeed change to the manipular-legion as detailed by Polybius…I am certainly content in strongly suggesting that the Romans developed a style to counter just that. For that's what we see thereafter and indeed many others then adopted similar where they could.
Mark, it’s not about being spear armed. Livy comments that “the phalanx formation, similar to the Macedonian of the earlier days, was abandoned in favour of the distribution into manipuli.” You have the Romans and I quote “the manipular organisation came into being to defeat Greek phalanxes” does not make sense when Livy clearly states the Romans abandoned a formation that was similar to the Macedonian. Therefore, the Romans already had a formation capable of dealing with the Greek phalanx, so according to your reasoning, they had no reason to give it up?
And as they spent most of their time fighting the Etruscans and other Italiote peoples, and if your premise is the Etruscan had a Greek phalanx formation, then why change to a maniple formation if the Romans had been defeating the Etruscans long before the introduction of the maniple legion? I mean why throw away a winning formation?
Mark wrote: As to 'Base 60', no. That's not how I see the Roman army is formed, 60 is just a result of a 'centuriae' system and a combination binary/decimal system that does seem to be prevalent.
How is it a “result of a 'centuriae' system?” This is a very general answer which does not explain anything. Can you give a nuts and bolts answer that is not based on assumption? I’m asking for empirical data here. In this thread you commented that my research is based upon “assumed tribal relationships and cosmological alignments along with Pythagorean numerics,” while you come from “a firm structural and logical approach based upon military and management theory and practice and believe in Darwinian evolution and managed change, not 'whims' and 'wishes' of ancient beliefs.” So who has the more insightful approach? So far you have presented a lot of guesswork and the reason why I presented those questions on Cannae was to show you cannot answer them. The plain truth is you have no idea of why Appian allocates 1000 cavalry to each of the three Roman commanders.
Your “firm structural and logical approach based upon military and management theory and practice” as you put it Mark is, in looking from my side of the fence, very reliant on guesswork. You can have your subtle digs at my research but my discovery the Roman military organisation is Pythagorean, has eliminated so much of the guesswork that you are drowning in. And when you call my research based on assumption” you insult every person of renown who has studied it. I have a set of mathematical principals that dictate what is what and by following these mathematical principles, I find they also conform to the primary sources. I use all the data in the primary sources Mark, I do not run from them nor do I have to ignore some and only use others that are easy to digest. Also I do not have to disparage an ancient historian by making him wrong to support my theory as opposed to your Polybius is wrong here but right here approach. I will state my research does show the manner of error (mathematical) an ancient historian has made. However, I will strongly point out that these mistakes have been arrived at from a mathematical truth.
And that’s the crutch of the matter Mark…a mathematical truth and that alone makes them so valuable. What is Appian writing about when he allocates 1000 cavalry to each of the three Roman commanders? He’s telling us about the distribution of the bodyguard cavalry. His mistake is he has used the total number of the Roman cavalry instead of the bodyguard numbers. You give the Roman cavalry at 2400 men, Appian has 3000 men. So does the difference of 600 men represent the bodyguard cavalry? Let’s also not forget that Ammianus mentions Julian accompanied by 200 cavalry. Could it be that when the monarchy was overthrown the 600 sex suffraige were not abandoned as modern historians believe? Can your “firm structural and logical approach” answer that question? I have a whole history of the bodyguard cavalry beginning with the Servian constitution and ending with Zosimus. It is the most comprehensive study ever undertaken on this matter.
I imagine you “firm structural and logical approach” can tell us why the Roman tribes are paired? My research, as you put it “assumed” can easily answer the question by using the primary sources to show it. If you want to know anything about the tribes just use the Pythagorean tetrachord 6:8:9:12.
Again by following simple numbers it all comes back to Pythagorean doctrine. But for the record Mark, the Servian constitution can reveal the structure and number of the tribes so you don’t need Pythagorean doctrine. Once you apply the time frame to the zodiac, you will be very surprised to see how close the creation of the tribes is to the dates in the primary sources. As to the time frame, you can get an idea of how slow the Pythagorean greater zodiac moves when I state we are now living in the 54th Pythagorean zodiac.
Mark wrote: for what (indeed I am quite happy you criticise) you might wish to dismiss as 'speculation' is attempting to determine what is missing in our sources, when they don't quite make sense.
That is open to interpretation about what does and doesn’t make sense. Claudian (Gothic War 26 265-320), “Then they reckoned up the years and, cutting off the flight of the twelfth vultures, tried to shorten the centuries of Rome’s existence by hastening the end.”
The above passage is extremely enlightening for me and is textual evidence that lends supports to the rest of my research. I imagine for others it doesn’t make any sense.
My book is now in the design stage, and the people involved are very experienced and because they belong to the old school, they know proper typography. The so called graphic artists today don’t know a lot when it comes to typography. It would be good Mark if both our works were released at the same time. I really would like to go head to head with you. My honest belief is Mark your “firm structural and logical approach” will never tell us anything new. Also your “firm structural and logical approach” cannot tell us how many tribes were levied for Cannae, and how much of the tribes manpower was required because you don’t have sufficient evidence to make such calculations. I guarantee you cannot give a breakdown of all the legion numbers found in the primary sources. You are writing about the early republic to the late Roman yet you fail to cover the pre-maniple period. Without a grasp of Rome’s early military foundations how can you even think you know what they are doing in the mid republic? From my experience Mark, I found that in order to write about the maniple legion of Livy, I had to cover the whole history of the Romans from the Servian constitutions to Vegetius. There is no getting around it. Without knowing one period, you cannot know the next, nor can you understand the how and why and when the changes occurred.
I must ask why "Polybius must have observed"? Polybius was a captive, then a tutor and then a trusted companion. I'm sure he saw a lot, but he was never trained (he's never claimed) by a Roman centurion to fight as the Romans did. No Roman Patrician General was - they were trained to wield armies and only fight as an individual. There are limits to what you can see on a dusty battlefield as a General (which is the closest that Polybius would have gotten).
Polybius spent decades in Italy researching his history and speaking to military men such as Scipio Aemilanius and his friends. He was part of an active debate about how Greeks should respond to Roman military methods, prided himself on observation and technical knowledge of warfare, and was in a position to watch mock battles on the Campus Martius or at Carthage and to speak to people like the nameless tribune at Pydna. A dated summary of the evidence is here.
So if one wanted to argue that he never saw Roman infantry fighting and never questioned anyone who had, one would need to justify that. Greek generals had been fascinated with tactics since the age of Xenophon and Plato, and a general needed to be able to give orders for formation changes and judge whether a line was too crowded or too thin. (From extant Hellenistic drillbooks, we know that it was routine to close from an open to a close order before combat, yet Polybius is convinced that Romans do not usually do this).
Quote:Finally, when it comes to this issue, we have Polybius with a 3ft separation per man and Vegetius with a 3ft occupation (shoulder-to-shoulder) and 6ft separation. Ignore the '3ft/pace' issue - which one is wrong?
One likely answer is that both are right for the places, times, and contexts they describe. Polybius 18.28-32 describes a legion around the time of the Battle of Pydna in hand to hand combat with a Macedonian phalanx, while Vegetius 3.15 describes a legion at some unspecified time in the past drawn up for battle in an unknown context. (Vegetius, incidentally, is clear that his feet are the kind of foot which goes 5,000 times into a mile passus). Polybius agrees with you that Roman infantry in open order could easily be driven back by a Macedonian phalanx, but his account of the Macedonian and Syrian wars shows that a Roman army could still beat a Macedonian army by attacking things other than the unbroken front of a phalanx.
If you want to convince people, one thing which you need to do is to show that you understand your sources and their contexts as a whole, and address the difficulties (such as Polybius acknowledgement that a Macedonian phalanx with its front even will usually drive back Roman infantry in open order [and his many specific examples of this happening], or Vegetius' belief that 1666 files go into a mile).
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Quote:Finally, when it comes to this issue, we have Polybius with a 3ft separation per man and Vegetius with a 3ft occupation (shoulder-to-shoulder) and 6ft separation. Ignore the '3ft/pace' issue - which one is wrong?
Possibly none of them. They may well have used different spacing between men for different threats and/or tactical options.
I know a lot of you guys hate modern examples being brought up in these discussions but we train units to move from cordon (side by side, shields touching) into open order (an arm length, plus a baton length, plus six inches) and back again into cordon within the same frontage. With only a couple of hours of practice they can do that in just a couple of seconds.
I agree with what you have said about giving troops an actual distance to work to as being impractical. They need something simple that not only soldier A can use to judge his distance from soldier B (like sticking his arm out) but that Centurion X can use to quickly judge if his planned frontage will work (such as 'that is 20 paces wide therefore it needs ? shield men to fill it therefore I need to deploy the century in ? ranks).
Adam
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
[A 2 part answer - firstly on phalanxes and Polybius to answer both Steven and Sean.]
Steven,
I'm not sure entirely what you're getting at as your "Mark, it’s not about being spear armed" paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I'm afraid.
As far as I am aware (and happily stand to be corrected) the main infantry line of all the ancient, relatively, civilised cultures around that portion of the Mediterranean at the time had developed into a contiguous phalanx structure, mostly based upon the 'Greek/Hoplite-style', some of them also using the Macedonian-Successor pike/sarissa-armed style. And then there are the 'barbarians', the main early experience of both Greeks and Romans being 'Celts', who we are are told fought in a much less structured and freer style, often characterised by lots of screaming and wild charges. In short, mostly a 'hoplite' style, but also some developed deep pike-phalanxes. These troops supported by smaller numbers of 'light troops' and even smaller numbers of cavalry.
So, I'm afraid I do not understand your agreement that the Romans did have a similar structure, but then changed it, coupled with a query that why did they change it when they already had a winning style. :unsure:
What I do believe is the case, is that the Romans did indeed change from a similar 'hoplite' (spear-armed heavy infantry main line operating in a classic phalanx) towards the more tactically flexible manipular and co-ordinated centuria break down of the main infantry line that we see in the 'Polybian' legion structure. The Heavy infantry now mainly armed with a large shield and short sword, supplemented by a heavy throwing weapon, but also still having some spear-armed for their defensive usefullness.
And they did that because in developing it, they found it to be a much better way of disrupting and breaking up the 'phalanx'. That desire being the thrust of all battlefield tactics for a few hundred years - to break up the solid phalanx and/or out manoevre it and/or turn its flanks.
Sean,
Please understand that I am not querying Polybius' standing, nor his experience, nor his veracity; he is, far and away in the area I have been particularly studying, seemingly the most reliable reporter and the earliest and closer to the events historian. I will, however, potentially query his point of view in trying to understand why there may be some anomalies.
One such is the thread's suggestion that 3ft may actually be one pace. I see no other evidence in context (as I detailed) of measurements in 3ft increments in the Romans military measuring. In trying to understand exactly how they fought, I also believe that, in their densest close-phalanx formation, they stand shield-to-shield and that shield is one pace wide.
When viewing the Romans (and without going up and measuring himself, probably because he never thought it necessary) I simply suggest that he saw them spaced out and naturally assumed that it was 3ft as he himself had been trained. At even a modest distance away there is little difference.
I am most certainly prepared to query some of those elements based upon a genuine, practicable and practical science, mathematics and physical belief that an unsupported line of troops all separated by about a pace/3ft is simply not a credible formation to resist any dense formation of opposing spear- or pike-armed phalanx - or even a charging barbarian horde - however rough the ground is. Let alone suggesting that the tactical need would also have required success on terrain of parade-ground flatness!
It's why, and indeed back to the previous thread I so titled, that I do believe that there is a need to interpret and interpolate (with some deduction and reasoning and not just guesses) our sources; especially if they don't seem to make sense.
The Romans divided their legions into 'centuriae', but I also understand they laid out colonies and divided land similarly and, (where I am sure you have much greater detailed knowledge than I at this time), they also divided their people for voting and other civil activities into 'centuria'.
In none of the above, from the evidence we see, is there any actual equating of 'centuriae' to be exactly 100 of anything.
The Roman infantry portion of a Consular Army (8,000 line infantrymen), however, seems (from my understanding of Polybius Bk VI) to be divided into 100 'centuria', each of 80 men. I will also note that, in reference to the original aim of this thread, that a maniple when working out how to deploy it, probably occupies exactly 1/100th of a Roman mile. Some 300 years later we also have written and archaeological evidence that the century was still 80 men strong and I will always assume a simple straight-line approach as a first order assumption.
(As an aside, whilst I have not been able to find easily any detailed account of the land-centuria system, I have seen grid-patterns that might look like 10x10 grids, with each portion being 1/100th, but I'm not asserting that as fact - all comments welcome if anyone knows).
I do, in fact as it's been pointed out, have an idea as to why Appian allocates 1,000 cavalry to each of the 3 Roman commanders - but you won't like it!
Firstly, I would point out that Appian's account (written some 350 years after the event) is rather at odds with Polybius' and Livy's, and possibly Plutarch's indeed. In the others, let alone that Appian has the Generals allocated the other way round and misses out the 2nd commander of the centre, and allocates the light infantry to different positions, no reserve cavalry is mentioned at all. In fact, given they were outnumbered in cavalry and didn't allocate any infantry to the wings to support those they did have and that's one good reason that Hannibal trounced them, then I'm surprised that any could be available for such duties. Appian also gives the Carthaginian commanders such troops too.
What I do know is that a 'bodyguard/reserve' of the size of a milliarae alae did become more common in the 150 years prior to Appian writing, but is certainly not commonly mentioned in Polybius' time. Here I will note that I not believe 'milliare' equates to 1,000 men either - but that will have to wait a bit. In short, however, and given the discontinuities between Appian and the others - I think he made it up! I don't dismiss it, but I certainly question it strongly. In the context of the battle, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any reserve cavalry. If there had been, things may have been different....
Now some comments on your diagram - where I will note first and foremost that I recognise that you have pulled this out of context from your work and thus some of the things I note may be without that context, but I can do maths, was a straight-A student, know heaps about statistics and have a Masters in a hard-engineering subject:
- you quite rightly queried me on 'fractions', but I do not see the validity of 35 Tribes = 360 degrees
- I assume the wheel is a cosmological one and set to some time-baseline and that the 60 degrees showing Rome's traditional founding date makes some sense?
- You have picked 4 of the common denominators of 360 to hang this 175 degrees on. What happened to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 etc? They didn't fit? What really is this 'Pythagorean tetrachord'?
- Your 175 degrees is divided by 35 to get 5 degrees, when the top of the diagram would suggest 10 (and 10/35ths). You want to pair the Tribes to get the 'sacred number' of 10 degrees, but you have an odd number of tribes
- 20 tribes - 185 degrees (not using either 5 or 10 degrees) and now no mention of 35
In short, based upon that diagram alone, it seems that the multiplication and division of simple numbers may be accurate, but the overall use of the 'equals/equating' symbol is not. Even shorter - it doesn't make much sense I'm afraid.
For the record, if I ever get the chance to look at your work when published, then I assure you that I would never simply dismiss it. But I do firmly believe that a militarily reasonable and relatively simple organisational structure to the Roman Army is much more likely. I'm sure that Pythagoras would agree with the simplified aphorism that the shortest distance between things is normally a straight line - even when the line is curved.
Mark wrote: So, I'm afraid I do not understand your agreement that the Romans did have a similar structure, but then changed it, coupled with a query that why did they change it when they already had a winning style.
Ah, now we are deflecting the argument away by making me the one who cannot be understood. You are the one who claimed the Romans developed the maniple legion so as to face the Greek hoplite. Livy has the Romans abandon a formation similar to the Macedonian in favour of the maniple. So this similar Macedonian formation the Romans had would also be ideal to face the Greek hoplite formation. So in your analogy, why have a maniple formation to deal with the Greek hoplite when they already has such a formation?
So far Mark, you are still just making general statements.
Mark wrote: Firstly the relatively easy bit...The Romans divided their legions into 'centuriae', but I also understand they laid out colonies and divided land similarly and, (where I am sure you have much greater detailed knowledge than I at this time), they also divided their people for voting and other civil activities into 'centuria'. In none of the above, from the evidence we see, is there any actual equating of 'centuriae' to be exactly 100 of anything.
Mark, have you ever considered a career in politics. Politicians are trained to say a lot but actually say nothing.
Mark wrote: What I do know is that a 'bodyguard/reserve' of the size of a milliarae alae did become more common in the 150 years prior to Appian writing, but is certainly not commonly mentioned in Polybius' time.
Now what if Appian’s figure of 3000 cavalry had been rounded? Where does that leave your supposed “milliarae alae?” Again, as to be expected you have again avoid answering a direct question, which was could Appian’s figure of 3000 cavalry consist of 2400 Roman cavalry and 600 bodyguard cavalry. This would allocate 200 bodyguard cavalry to each of the three commanders. I used the Julian example of having 200 bodyguard cavalry to show this could be possible. You avoided the question by going on about the history of a miliariae alae.
Mark wrote: Here I will note that I not believe 'milliare' equates to 1,000 men either - but that will have to wait a bit. In short, however, and given the discontinuities between Appian and the others - I think he made it up!
It is very common for historians who cannot understand a source, to disparage the source. This is the cop-out approach.
Mark wrote: In the context of the battle, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any reserve cavalry. If there had been, things may have been different....
So you think a personal bodyguard of cavalry would have saved the day? Of go charging the gallant 200 into the valley of death. Plutarch’s comment about the cavalry around Paulus during the last stages of the battle could indicate Plutarch is referring to Paulus’ bodyguard cavalry.
“It is said, further, that a strange calamity befell the Roman cavalry also. The horse of Paulus, as it appears, was wounded and threw its rider off, and one after another of his attendants dismounted and sought to defend the consul on foot. When the horsemen saw this, supposing that a general order had been given, they all dismounted and engaged the enemy on foot.”
Mark wrote: I assume the wheel is a cosmological one and set to some time-baseline and that the 60 degrees showing Rome's traditional founding date makes some sense?
I did state in my last posting it was the ZODIAC. And why now does the 60 degrees for Rome’s founding date make sense when you disparage the rest?
Mark wrote: - you quite rightly queried me on 'fractions', but I do not see the validity of 35 Tribes = 360 degrees
I never said the 35 tribes do not equal 360 degrees. You must really enjoy making me repeat myself over and over. The creation of the tribes starts at 185 degrees and ends at 360 degrees, which amounts to 175 degrees, and was obtained from the tetrachord. The tribes begin in the 7th zodiac and end in the 12th zodiac. The 35 tribes cover six zodiacs, with the number six representing the Pythagorean number of creation. The tribes start in the seventh zodiac and are therefore governed by the hebdomad system (intervals of 7). The 35 tribes represent the five ages of man (35 divided by five = 7). If you want to learn more about the ages of man, see Hippocrates (On the Nature of the Child 19).
How did all this come about? One day I sat down and divided 360 degrees by 35 tribes and got 10.285, which I dismissed because of the fractions. I then did an experiment and divided each of the four integers of the Pythagorean tetrachord by 360 degrees and got the combined result of 175 degrees. This still didn’t mean anything to me except for the fact I got no fractions. However, I do know what the movement rate of the zodiac is and what time frame a degree represents. With this information the 185 degrees corresponded to the same year that the tribes were created that I had earlier established from the Servian constitution, the 6:8:9:12 tetrachord, the five elements and the tonal system of the Pythagorean cosmos. In fact because the zodiac can work in degrees and minutes, it gives not only the year but the month the 20 tribes were created. Yes, I know it sounds too good to be true, but that is the way it is.
Mark wrote: You have picked 4 of the common denominators of 360 to hang this 175 degrees on. What happened to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 etc? They didn't fit?
Are you really serious? You pick a whole set of numbers then expect them to comply with the Pythagorean zodiac, thereby implying if they do not something is wrong with my research. Remind me to do this to your military numbers next time. I also notice I have not used the number 805 or 111, or 666 or 234, or 8 or 9 or 7 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 16. Does that make it wrong? This line of questioning is stupid and an act of desperation.
Mark wrote: What really is this 'Pythagorean tetrachord'?
Well hello! Here you are arguing against me and you do not know what it is you are arguing about. So let’s begin the lesson. In his study of the numerical laws of music, according to Censorinus, Pythagoras discovered the universal harmony and music of the spheres by stretching strings of equal length and thickness with different weights and by plucking them and changing the weights:
“he discovered that two strings produce an interval of a musical fourth when their weights had the same ratio as three does to four…The harmony called the fifth was discovered when the weights were half as much again, which is the ratio of two to three. Finally when one string was stretched with twice the weight of the other, the ratio called double, it sounded the octave.”
To further his investigation, Pythagoras experimented with four flutes of equal diameter but varying lengths, the six-finger flute, the eight-finger flute, the nine-finger flute, and the twelve-finger flute. By comparing the sound of the six-finger flute with the eighth, nine and twelve-finger flutes, Pythagoras came to the belief that the harmonic intervals such as the octave, the perfect fourth and the perfect fifth, corresponded to numerical ratios, and these divine ratios of harmony govern the heaven and the earth. These mathematical ratios are known as the 6:8:9:12 tetrachord.
Mark wrote: Your 175 degrees is divided by 35 to get 5 degrees, when the top of the diagram would suggest 10 (and 10/35ths). You want to pair the Tribes to get the 'sacred number' of 10 degrees, but you have an odd number of tribes
What are you on about Mark? What is this odd number of tribes about? Firstly, I did not pair the tribes, that is how the tribes are created after 386 BC as found in the primary sources. That is what I do, I follow the primary sources. By pairing two tribes the number established was 10 degrees. The Romans created 20 tribes, then added one, then after a period of over 109 years, which Mark, is one year short of a Roman saeculum of 110 years, they add another four tribes. So it goes 21+1 +4 = 25 tribes. Now we have 10 tribes remaining created at five intervals of +2 +2 +2+2 +2 = 35. By creating 21 tribes, then after 109 years the Romans start creating the remaining 14 tribes. By doing this, the Romans are conforming to the ratio 3.2, so when 21 and 14 are proportioned to the integer 7, the ratio is 3.2 (the fifth), and it is this ratio that governs the Roman military system. Also notice the release of the four additional tribes conforms to the Pythagorean tetractys - an ensemble of four units (a quaternary). The tetractys symbolized the four elements fire, air, earth and water. In Pythagorean theology everything is divisible by the tetractys and many attributes are made up of four elements such as the four seasons (autumn, winter, spring and summer), the four aspects of the soul (intelligence, understanding, opinion and sense) and the four ages of man (infancy, youth, manhood and old age). On Pythagoras, Varro writes:
“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. Therefore, likewise there are the two fundamentals, station and motion, each divided into four phases...therefore it comes about that for this reason all things, in general, are divided into four phases…because the primal classes of things are four in number.”
Mark wrote: 20 tribes - 185 degrees (not using either 5 or 10 degrees) and now no mention of 35
Again, what are you on about Mark? The 20 tribes are started at 185 degrees and have 175 degrees for the remainder to be created. I put on the diagram the 20 tribes are started at 185 degrees and that the 20 tribes technically represent 185 degrees to 285 degrees, leaving 75 degrees for the remaining 15 tribes to be created. There is further information in the book that ties this together and why it was done, the evidence being found in the primary sources, and not just Livy, Plutarch etc, but those of Censorinus, Aristotle, Boethius, Iamblichus, Pliny, Theon of Smyrna, Nicomachus, Diogenes Laertius, Plato, Aristides Quintilianus, Euclid, Hippolytos, Macrobiuis, Porphyry, Aristoxenus, Aetius, Philolaus, Manilius, Geminos, etc. etc., of which I am sure Mark, many of them I am confident you have not read.
Mark wrote: In short, based upon that diagram alone, it seems that the multiplication and division of simple numbers may be accurate, but the overall use of the 'equals/equating' symbol is not. Even shorter - it doesn't make much sense I'm afraid.
It was merely an exercise to show that by using the 6:8:9:12 tetrachord, and nothing more, each tribe represents five degrees with the number five being the Pentad (the marriage number, the polyhedra), and two tribes makes the decad. In Pythagorean number lore, the following integers represent the following:
Number Attribute
1 Monad (the point, the source of all numbers)
2 Dyad (the line, diversity, duality)
3 Triad (the plane, unity and diversity = harmony)
4 Tetrad (the solid, the number of the square, justice)
5 Pentad (the marriage number, the polyhedra)
6 Creation (the first perfect number)
7 Heptad (the virgin number)
8 The first cube
9 The first masculine square
10 Decad (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10)
27 The first masculine cube
28 The second perfect number (1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14)
35 The sum of the first feminine and masculine cubes (8+27)
36 The sum of the first three cubes (1 + 8 + 27)
I’ve had my work examined by more qualified people than you Mark, and will continue to do so before it is published. It makes sense to them and that is what I consider to be important.
Mark wrote: For the record, if I ever get the chance to look at your work when published, then I assure you that I would never simply dismiss it. But I do firmly believe that a militarily reasonable and relatively simple organisational structure to the Roman Army is much more likely.
In other words, your Roman system conforms to your sensibilities. And what “relatively simple organisational structure” are you referring to? For one, I have the maniple legion organised into cohorts, centuries and maniples. Is that any difference from your legion? And what makes you think what I have is complex? Again, you are putting two and two together and getting seven. Why? Because you have not read everything I have written.
Mark wrote: I'm sure that Pythagoras would agree with the simplified aphorism that the shortest distance between things is normally a straight line - even when the line is curved.
Regardless of you being a straight A-student in maths Mark, it does not make you qualified to know what Pythagoras did and did not agree with. Again, you base so much on assumption.
I really had to think 3 times about 'responding', especially now that we have gone so far off topic - a topic started to present details for discussion - and 'assuming' absolutely nothing.
I wanted to present an argument as to why I believed the Roman legion covered a frontage of 500ft, to answer the main point about your query in the thread on Cannae.
When it comes to Cannae, however, all you really wish to do, it seems, is present numbers - with the asserted belief, it also seems, that numbers once written cannot be wrong. Equally, when I explained why I genuinely doubted Appian's account, were you entirely desirous of not even wishing to discuss the real possibility that Appian is inaccurate or perhaps even wrong - given his account disagrees in many ways with the much more comprehensive accounts written much earlier. He's just an author writing a book - it doesn't make him infallible just because he's an 'ancient'.
It's the concentration on numbers that also seems to blind you to wishing to comment on tactics and formations (to my, perhaps limited intellect, probably much more based upon how units are used, but then I am a military man). I will admit, however, to having an 'assumption' on the, I thought, wide acceptance on phalanx tactics and formations - perhaps I was wrong to do that, but nothing I have ever learned has lead me to query what I thought had been long agreed - perhaps I shall ask and see.
What I shall not further comment on, especially as I am apparently 'unqualified' to do so, is the Pythagorean diatribe you spewed out afterwards - and please note I gave you the excuse of seeing something out of context as to why I 'might not get it'. No, you chose to belittle instead, not helped by making statements such as "So it goes 21+1 +4 = 25 tribes", which doesn't help your case at all, but which I will believe was a simple mistake.
I don't particular care if you have a whole number of senior academics encouraging you with this thesis of yours; you have a theory based upon assumed number relationships and you are attempting to prove it. That is your assumption. I may think your assumption is unlikely, but that is all. Bear in mind that dealing with complex theories and reviewing them is their job.
Which of my 'assumption(s)' is it you have so much difficulty with? I don't think I'm making that many, if any.
What I will take, however, is an idea and develop it, but it's not an 'assumption'.
Hence, having thought to query the 3ft and wondered simply about the pace, because that seems to be what the Romans used; noted that the Romans shield is exactly one pace wide and hence a shield-to-shield 'phalanx' will occupy a certain width; then I can reasonably point out, if true, something that is now very likely....
That the 'testudo' is no longer a complex contraction and a specialised formation requiring hours of practice; but could well be the simple expedient of having the rear ranks of the formation hold their shields over their heads and thus present a 'wall and roof' to incoming fire - just as it seems the Romans did at Carrhae - not individual little 'turtles' scattered across the, now intact, line.
That's a likely extrapolation - not an assumption. I do believe, however, that the Romans scutum is one pace wide for a reason; I'm just trying to suggest an understanding of the reason.
So, we're both probably clever chaps, but I am unqualified, so I will not query your number fixation. Please, however, feel free to ask how I would make my theory fit certain numerical examples, but don't counter with your own theory.
On Cannae - I think that there were 2,400 Roman Cavalry for their 8 legions and 4,800 Socii cavalry for their 8, which is 1/3rd under-strength, the reason for the Socii allies not being able to produce the full number is that trained cavalry were harder to replace given the losses earlier in the war. These figures and reasoning are fully supported by Polybius and Livy (writing much earlier) and are simply rounded by Plutarch. Appian's account, however, contains a whole number of anomalies and, in statistical terms, represents therefore rather an outlier. He may well be mistaken. I'm not asserting he's wrong, but he might be.
As an aside, I would be interested in any examples of particular bodyguard cavalry pre-Caesarian period, especially if they are around 300 - I have found very few, if any. My reading has tended to the belief that the Romans discouraged personal troops and normally, as Polybius, assigned 'armies' to Consuls (two of), even when they were replaced by the Dictator and Master of Horse.
I'd have to say I disagree with the pace Argument when regarding shield widths:
The Shields at Dura Europos were over 2.5 feet wide (between 3 and 3.5 ft), and Late Roman shields were also 3-3.5 feet in width.
Just my 2 cents. Both sides have compelling arguments, and I can say I can't pick a side right now, but the Pace is making a strong case. However, when it comes to Vegetius, I have to say he's talking about the cubit, based on Late Roman tactics and formations.
Mark wrote: I really had to think 3 times about 'responding', especially now that we have gone so far off topic - a topic started to present details for discussion - and 'assuming' absolutely nothing.
I also had to think about not responding to your earlier posting which was laced with your subtle insults. As you can see in my previous posting I got sick of them, and I got tired of being misquoted.
Mark wrote: When it comes to Cannae, however, all you really wish to do, it seems, is present numbers - with the asserted belief, it also seems, that numbers once written cannot be wrong.
You are incorrect. I have always maintained the ancients do make mistakes. My research method is not to dismiss them but try to understand how the mistake was made. I have also stated every mistake is built on a mathematical truth.
Mark wrote: Equally, when I explained why I genuinely doubted Appian's account, were you entirely desirous of not even wishing to discuss the real possibility that Appian is inaccurate or perhaps even wrong - given his account disagrees in many ways with the much more comprehensive accounts written much earlier. He's just an author writing a book - it doesn't make him infallible just because he's an 'ancient'.
Here Mark you fail to understand Appian. That is my driving force, trying to understand their mistakes rather than write them off with comments that Appian made it up. At Cannae Appian allocates 1000 cavalry to each of the three Roman commandeers. Appian’s 3000 cavalry is 600 greater than the normal complement of 2400 for Cannae as you have indicated. Not saying you’re wrong here. But the question has to be asked is why at Zama does Appian states Hannibal and Scipio “having a body of horse with them, in order to send reinforcements wherever they might be needed. Of these Hannibal had 4000 and Scipio 2000, besides the 300 Italians whom he had himself armed in Sicily.”
As at Cannae, Appian has repeated the same mistake by allocating the whole Roman cavalry attached to Scipio and the whole Carthaginian cavalry allocated to Hannibal. Clearly Appian is erroneously following the same doctrine but not properly understanding it. Appian gives the Roman cavalry at 1500 men then 1600 men. By subtracting the figure of 1600 or 1500 cavalry from 2000 cavalry the difference is 400 or 500 men. The question now is Appian’s figure of 2000 cavalry rounded up or down? Livy gives a figure of 2200 cavalry for Scipio’s army and by deducting Appian’s 1600 cavalry, the difference is 600 cavalry, or 700 cavalry using the 1500 cavalry figure. So out of the numbers, the figure of 600 additional cavalry rears its head…again. Therefore Appian is consistent in repeating the same mistake. That is what grabs my attentions and this is how I work Mark, identifying mathematical patterns and Appian is again being consistent in his mistake.
Appian claims at Zama Appian had about 23,000 infantry. As I’ve done on a previous thread it can be confirmed whether Appian is correct or “making it up.” Livy cites one source has Scipio’s army at 35,000 men. So if we subtract Massinissa’s 10,000 men and Livy’s 2200 cavalry, the result is 22,800 men. Now does this not approximate to Appian’s figure of about 23,000 men? I know how to use the empirical data in the primary sources Mark.
Mark wrote: perhaps I was wrong to do that, but nothing I have ever learned has lead me to query what I thought had been long agreed - perhaps I shall ask and see.
A good researcher should question everything, and not just agree because everyone else does. I have been on this forum and directed by a member to a site that is an accumulation of papers about Livy being anachronistic. One paper that supposedly was to prove Livy’s legion was wrong just provided hearsay evidence from the author. And that was it, Livy’s legion did not exist because an academic said so. What I have found I am facing is this notion that because everyone believes it to be this way, it must be right. This is nothing more than sheep mentality. I examine and re-examine everything because I know if I have a wrong premise, I will have a wrong conclusion.
Sometimes Mark I find you too quick to dismiss, and over the past many of my questions I presented to you have been to give you a nudge in trying question your beliefs and methodology in the hope you might explore another line of direction.
Mark wrote: What I shall not further comment on, especially as I am apparently 'unqualified' to do so, is the Pythagorean diatribe you spewed out afterwards
Come on Mark, it good diatribe. Jasper once called my work “too good to be true.” Oh he was so right, because the more I explored and understood it, the more amazed I was at the number of answers it was providing. I never thought for a moment, the system would detail what the frontage of the legion is based on the fact the depth is determined by the number of centuries on a tribe. I guess the Romans needed to know how much space the army would occupy on the field of Mars. Well, that is m logic.
Mark wrote: No, you chose to belittle instead, not helped by making statements such as "So it goes 21+1 +4 = 25 tribes", which doesn't help your case at all, but which I will believe was a simple mistake.
Ooops, made a mistake there at 21, should be 20 +1. However, I can go to my grave knowing full well I was not trying to belittel you. In all honesty I was giving an example of how the 3:2 ratio was employed by the Romans in regard to the tetractys and the Pythagorean philosophy of having things in pairs. If I wanted to belittle you I would have made it quite clear that was my intent.
Mark wrote: I don't particular care if you have a whole number of senior academics encouraging you with this thesis of yours;
Oh they are not encouraging me in any shape or form. I give it to them to tear apart. The last thing I want to do is release something that is full of holes.
Mark wrote: Which of my 'assumption(s)' is it you have so much difficulty with? I don't think I'm making that many, if any.
I’ve stated them in many a post before. For example, what makes you think Polybius’ legion of 4200 men is correct? I don’t want you to answer the question, but isn’t it a little odd it does not tally with so many figures given for the Roman legion. To increase to 5000 men must mean 800 additional troops are added, not the 1000 as stated. So it must be a 5200 man legion. Now there are examples of 5200 man legions so this could be what is going on. So if Polybius is right, why then do others mention legions of 5000 men? And why does Polybius contradict himself by mentioning legions of 4000 men? Maybe the 4200 legion is wrong, and the 4000 man legion is right. Then by adding 1000 men, the 4000 man legion is now 5000 men. But where does that leave the 5200 man legion or the 5400 men legion? So you see, the whole thing can go around in a circle. For me, the prove Polybius’ 4200 man legion is right, I will need to prove what is right and what is wrong, or maybe they are all right. Whichever road is travelled, any author should provide proof. Bland statements of anachronistic or the numbers are rounded is not proof but merely an assumption.
Mark wrote: Hence, having thought to query the 3ft and wondered simply about the pace, because that seems to be what the Romans used; noted that the Romans shield is exactly one pace wide and hence a shield-to-shield 'phalanx' will occupy a certain width; then I can reasonably point out, if true, something that is now very likely....
When you take a step back, what is really being talked about here? Nothing much really except a difference of 3 inches on either side of the shield. A distance of 3ft works for me because it conforms to Polybius one Roman soldier faced 10 pike, plus all my battle studies of the Romans and the enemies they face work on 3ft. Can’t you allow an additional 6 inches in order to have the soldiers given some leeway?
Mark wrote: So, we're both probably clever chaps, but I am unqualified, so I will not query your number fixation. Please, however, feel free to ask how I would make my theory fit certain numerical examples, but don't counter with your own theory.
Oh, so how are we supposed to have a debate oh untouchable one? :eek: Ok, I will act like one of those toy dogs people put near the back window of their car, which nods up and down from the motion of the car.
Mark wrote: These figures and reasoning are fully supported by Polybius and Livy (writing much earlier) and are simply rounded by Plutarch.
While writing my book, there was times when I wished I could just say a number was rounded. Unfortunately, without proving such a claim, I felt I would be short changing the reader.
Mark wrote: My reading has tended to the belief that the Romans discouraged personal troops.
After the 600 sex-suffriage (there’s that number again), my research starts with this:
“Separated those who were of military age (iuniores) from the older men (seniores), and distributing the former into centuries, he formed four bodies of foot and horse. He kept one, the best, about his person while of the remaining three bodies, he ordered Cloelius, who had been his colleague in the consulship, to choose the one he wished. Spurius Cassius, the Master of the Horse, to take the third, and Spurius Larcius, his brother, the remaining one; this last body together with the older men was ordered to guard the city, remaining inside the walls.”
They sometimes are referred to as “the flower of the horse, or a chosen body, or the best about his person, and the best of the centuries.” I have traced the existence of bodyguard cavalry from 501 BC to the around 400 AD and found a good number of references.
Whilst the specific shield width I am starting from is direct from Polybius' description, when he first details the 3ft round parma and then the 4ft x 2.5ft (which I understand to be the physical width of the finished shield and not the outside measurement of the curve and therefore the original non-curved wood) scutum and noting that both these are from the 'Middle' Republican period rather than the Middle Imperial....
When you say "Shields at Dura Europas" - firstly I thought there was only one shield, found in 13 parts - and secondly, what is the source you are using for it being between 3-3.5ft wide?
Relatively quick searching seems to suggest that the shield was found in those 13 flattened pieces and has been reconstructed. The re-constructed one is given to be (Yale and related sites) as 105.5 x 41 x 30 cm (41 9/16 x 16 1/8 x 11 13/16 in.). Whilst not always a fan of Wiki' the same shield (supposedly) there said to be 1.06 m (42 in) in height, a chord of 0.66 m (26 in), with a distance around the curve of 0.86 m (34 in), and a thickness of 5 mm to 6 mm.
In either case, although particularly with the former measurements and the picture (showing a much more cylindrical shape than one might expect), is anyone aware of any studyies into how much distortion may have taken place in the intervening centuries?
Certainly if the Wiki' details are in fact correct, then the 26in is fairly close (indeed smaller) than you mention, but quite possibly still one pace, especially if the wood has distorted.
Steven,
I'm thinking I will indeed answer your question on the Polybian 4,200 legion, for I would like to expose that portion of my research/theory basis to criticism to see if it holds up and/or what people think - but I will do it in a new thread to keep it from this one.
However, I thought I would continue with the reasoning why I might not be so content with simply giving soldiers some 6in of leeway, for it is a bit fundamental to why I'm thinking the way I am. Firstly, however, I have no problem why Polybius states that one Roman soldier faced 10 pikes - that's because he has his Roman soldiers with 3ft gaps (ie each man covers a 6ft frontage) and thus would face the 10 horizontal pikes of a 32 man double-file of phalangites.
To me, and this apertains as to my current understanding of phalanxes (be they spear, pike or 'sword' armed), the mechanics of phalanx warfare are relative simple (anyone please jump in):
- That the Greek City State militias evolved their heavy line infantry (becoming the Hoplite) into a cohesive formation that relied mainly on the rigid wall structure of the proto-phalanx
- That, spear, shield, armour and secondary sword-armed troops fought, effectively, by holding their line against the enemy; there being limited actual initial trading of physical blows as the lines are held at distance by protruding spears
- That the main aim of each side was to hold their own line, whilst attemtping to disrupt the enemy's; each line being supported by other troops, such as psiloi, peltasts and cavalry (cf Asclepiodotus, et al); but the main focus being the heavy infantry
- That, practicably, the main reason the Spartans gained much of their reputation, due to their training regime, is that their discipline and stamina gave them the advantage in achieving that simple aim as they simply outlasted anyone else and were able to sustain their pushing the longest
- That, to all intents and purposes, the clash of similar phalanxes was a long slog until an advantage could be gained, at which point the eventual 'loser' would have their formations disrupted so that reserves or other troops could exploit the gaps and break the army - indeed that's where the entire 'break their line' concept likely originates
- That the Macedonians (Philip and then Alexander and subsequent Successors) adopted the pike phalanx as a simple expedient of increasing the spear length and the sheer momentun of a deeper formation in order to break the Hoplite (more standard spear al la Roman hasta) phalanx more easily
- But that the 'Romans' as they then developed a system would achieve the same effect, but would be efficacious against both spear and pike armed phalanxes; by using larger shields as their main 'weapon'
- That, whilst the counter to a spear-phalanx was originally another similarly armed one (and this how all the 'civilised' Greek and similar cities and colonies and off-shoots started)
- That the counter to a pike-phalanx was also a similarly armed one (the wars of the Successors and others)
- But that by using, effectively, a shield-wall of larger than normal shields, where the shield covers from eyes to ankle and is just as wide as the person behind it, and, most importantly the shield is the focus and then men stand shoulder-to-shoulder; let alone that the ranks behind can use their shields to directly support the man in front; then a smaller Roman formation can hold their 'phalanx' against any spear or pike, or indeed any weapon at all that they face.
- That the Roman tactics were then fairly simple, but greatly enabled by using smaller tactical formations under control; that they were to (if used, and not always it seems) firstly cause damage to cohesion with pila; then to hold the line; then manipulate (and I use the adverb deliberately) to break up the line; and then exploit those gaps
- That broken (sic) ground would help a lot, but was not essential, in disrupting those lines
All that said, I note that being able to hold that line (against any enemy) is not practicable (IMHO)if the troops stand apart (ie 3ft gaps), neither against a phalanx, nor any more flexible troop type - the gaps would simply be exploited and the Roman 'line' would come apart.
And that finally the one-pace-wide shield is constructed to enable just that.
As a 'thought-piece', however, having been thinking whilst writing, I would note that a one-pace-wide shield would indeed enable the brave and belligerent type to protect himself whilst he passed up between 2 sets of 5-parallel pikes shafts (~3ft apart) to get at the enemy then in front, but I think that is more part of the breaking up and exploiting - I simply find it almost impossible to credit that this was the idea in every case and thus 8 Romans could face off against a pike-syntagma and expect to win, before they were simply pushed out of the way.
All comments, especially if there's anything in the concept of phalanx warfare I'm not getting having mis-read it before, most welcome.
The pace argument, however, has lead me to thinking and believing that the deployment (and this links to the camp layout elements) of troops on the battlefield is so much simpler in paces. The idea that a Legion Tribune (perhaps the one in charge that day), goes to his right-mark and then simply marches across the frontage, leaving a man every 20 paces (50ft - at 10 double paces he has even enough fingers!) until he has covered 200 - at which point the 10 maniples of the front line simply march up - does appeal greatly.
Quote:When you say "Shields at Dura Europas" - firstly I thought there was only one shield, found in 13 parts - and secondly, what is the source you are using for it being between 3-3.5ft wide?
There were twenty-four whole or fragmentary shield boards found at Dura, of which three were rectangular and the rest oval. There were also twenty-one shield bosses and six fragments of iron reinforcing bars from the backs of shields.
The width of those surviving boards with accurate measurements is as follows:
Mark wrote: I'm thinking I will indeed answer your question on the Polybian 4,200 legion, for I would like to expose that portion of my research/theory basis to criticism to see if it holds up and/or what people think - but I will do it in a new thread to keep it from this one.
For the record Mark, I did state you do not have to answer the question. I fully understand the need to protect one’s research. What I wanted to point out and should have just made the point is for years I have been extremely frustrated with academics making claims without providing evidence. Academics are getting away with murder. I don’t make this statement lightly. I have since the 1980’s read too many academic papers (and books) and seen this methodology become common practice. The problem is this mediocre standard is now the benchmark and amateurs have picked up the same bad habit. When an academic dismisses a source or number I know it is because they cannot explain it and as a result they resort to disparaging the ancient historian, or claim it is rounded or corrupt, or anachronistic. They tell us the cohort did not appear before 210 BC, but they cannot nor have they provided any real evidence.
Academics are also notorious for dismissing sources because it will contradict their theory. Years back before I discovered the Pythagorean connection, a professor handed my work back to me and said “this will put a lot of books on the scrapheap.” During the conversation I found out one of her tutors when she was a university student was Lily Ross Taylor who was considered an authority on the Roman tribes. She felt a little melancholic that Lily Ross Taylor’s work would be one of those books going on the scrapheap. Personally I don’t care. The problem is Lily Ross Taylor had a theory that the Roman tribal assembly did not occur until 241 BC, when the last tribes were added. To make this theory work, Lily Ross Taylor dismissed Dionysius account of the tribal assembly being around in 491 BC. Lily Ross Taylor dismissed Dionysius account (some two pages) without any scrutiny. To accept it would mean her whole theory was in ruins, and so was here book. Lily Ross Taylor manipulated the primary sources to suit her means, and in order to do so she infested her work with conjecture. If you had to describe some academic works, they resemble a car, they look good on the surface, but when you fully examine them, the car is full of body filler.
This brings me to the point. If you believe Plutarch’s 88,000 men at Cannae is rounded, then I hope you will prove your point, and not just tell us it’s rounded. There’s an old saying, “if your theory is right insights will follow. If your theory is wrong, you will always be defending it.”
And adapt and overcome, and all those other good phrases.
