01-12-2012, 01:15 PM
Macedon wrote: your whole post seemed to have to do with the Polybian Romans.
The Roman cosmos is divided into four parts, with each part being again divided into four parts. The foundations of the Roman cosmos system are very early, and everything is built on them. Polybius’ mention of four parts confirms they are adhering to the system in Polybius time. It’s a mile stone.
Macedon wrote: Even if the powers of 2 play a role at certain times, they obviously do not at others, as for example in the Polybian armies where indeed 3 seems to be the basis of the system.
You are correct about the power of 3. But there is more to it than that. I will say briefly, and I will not elaborate anymore as it is comprehensive in nature, but the number 3 represents the number of ages that have elapsed. When a new age begins, the new legion will have the power of 4 (representing the fourth age).
Macedon wrote: Now, this sounds as though you directly contrast the two systems. My question to you, though, had nothing to do with raw mathematics. It had to do with the issue at hand. I asked : "Where in their tactics do they use triangular numbers (apart from wedges and rhombuses obviously and then again not in all forms of arrangement)?".
Why do you associate triangular numbers with tactics? Some examples of triangular numbers are 1, 3, 6, 10. Some examples of square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25.
Macedon wrote: In your directing me to “Ancient Mathematics” by S. Coumo, Routledge (2001) it seems your comment had little to do with tactics but wasn't it the whole point to discuss the use of mathematical patterns in tactics? I remind you that the above comment was made in regard with the outline of the Roman camp.
I direct you to that book as it is informative and will give you and insight into ancient mathematics. And what has tactics got to do with the mathematics involved in laying out a camp? You’d be better off researching ancient surveying practices.
Macedon wrote: This was written by Proclus in the 5th century AD. What did you mean?
I got it from a Geminos fragment that was translated and sent to me. Some scholars believe Geminos lived in the 1st century BC.
Macedon wrote: And if so, what do their tribes and their numbers have to do with that?
I have explained this and I showed a relation between the number of zodiacs and the size of the cohort to arrive at the number of men in the 35 tribes and the number of men in a tribe. Hasn’t anyone realised the number of iuniores in a tribe is the same as a 4800 man legion. To arrive at that figure I used data from the primary sources which everyone is familiar with, so either its mathematical coincidence on a grand scale or I am onto something.
Going back to the your question, the order of the cosmos starts with the Earth, then the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, mars, Jupiter and Saturn. So if you forget about orbits, in its simplest form the cosmos is a straight line. The cosmos is bounded by the zodiac or the fixed stars. The zodiac should not be confused with the lunar zodiac, nor should it be associated with predictions of the future. Some people have a real difficulty separating this from stupid horoscopes.
Therefore, we have a straight line (the cosmos) encased in a circle (the zodiac). In its earliest form, the zodiac use to be a square. For some crazy reason, the Romans believe they are moving towards the zodiac. Please don’t ask me why as I don’t want to give ammunition to those close minded idiots who only post to mock. When the Romans create a tribe it marks the position in stadia to where they are in relation to the cosmos (the straight line). During the reign of Augustus the position is Saturn, and that is why they believe in the return of the golden age of which the first golden age was associated with Saturn. The cosmos moves at a certain number of stadia a year. The zodiac turns at a different number of stadia a year. Interconnect with all of this is a cycle of time which is set at a specific number of years. Virgil calls it the roll call of the centuries, so that will give you an idea of how slow it is. One scholar predicted it moved at one degree every 72 years. The cycle of time uses the Egyptian calendar. The whole cosmos, zodiac and time cycles are all presented in one table covering 1200 years. After the creation of the 35 tribes, the Romans use the progress of the zodiac when a time cycle has elapsed they increase the size of the tribes. After 495 BC, the Roman creates pairs of tribes and this is because a tribe equates to a certain number of degrees and minutes and two tribes equates to degrees (a round number). So from this you can discover the founding year of the tribes. The organisation of the legion therefore relates to the zodiac. The word signa can also represent a constellation, or group of stars, and as a cohort is a number of zodiacs….so the number of men in a signa can be determined.
Macedon wrote: You should not expect us to make the connection, since it obviously has demanded a great deal of synthesis from you.
The primary sources are full of data crying out to be connected. I label my research “joining the dots.”
Macedon wrote: So, does it predict or explain?
It explains. My example of defining how many men in a tribe which is determined by multiplying the cohort by how many stadia to a degree is an example.
Macedon wrote: What I can only say is that it is impossible for any of us here to make any real criticism since without knowledge of your system's mathematical details no checking and juxtaposition with these or other examples can be made.
I gave the formula for the tribal size cohort multiplied by zodiac etc. etc. Therefore, you have some knowledge of the mathematical system. The whole book is 250,000 words and 108 diagrams. It is a continuous mathematical system. Taking selected pieces out and defending them means using more information, which will again result in more information being demanded? I might as well post everything up as an attachment.
Macedon wrote: What are the 700 stadia (about 118 km)? And what period are you with this referring to?
The zodiac works on 700 stadia for the whole period (1200 years). The cosmos is synched to the Sothic cycle so I have no idea when one degree equals 700 stadia made its debut. As to how many kilometres a degree is, it has no relevance to my research.
Macedon wrote: What question exactly does the formula 162 - 142 answer? I kind of fail to see any crucial connection of the number 60 with Polybius' description of the Roman camp...
As I have already stated, it’s associated with the square zodiac. Just because you or anyone else cannot see a crucial connection with Polybius’ camp does not mean it doesn’t exist. Before I told you, no one had any idea of a connection to the cohort and stadia could predict the number of men in a tribe. I also found another rule of thumb practiced by the Romans - “a single division must be able to be divided into very large parts with smaller spaces or into a very small number of parts, with large spaces.”
Macedon wrote: As for the cohorts of the Polybian Romans, aren't they normally 160 (dividable by 16 and not by 60) and 100 (not dividable by 60 or 16) man strong, when necessary reinforced to 200 and 110 respectively (both numbers not dividable by either 16 or 60)?
Following you premise, a Polybian legion at 10 cohorts of 160 men amounts to 1600 men. Polybius has one legion size numbering 4200 men so you are missing 2600 men. Polybius has the legions numbering 4000 men so you are now missing 2400 men, and Polybius legion of 5000 men means you have to find another 3400 men. I have no idea where you got you numbers from but Geminos does discuss in some length a 160 year cycle.
Macedon wrote: And since when is the Polybian camp a square itself divided in four equal squares or the consul quartered in its middle? I admit I have never sat down to draw one myself but the drawings I have seen and the reading I have done do not seem to shape such a pattern.
The Roman term a particular land boundary a century. But does that mean is actually holds within the space 100 men? The cosmos is also divided into four. Could the Romans have originally mirrored their camp on the cosmos? Until there is a thorough study done, we cannot say either way.
Robert wrote: I think I can call myself knowledgeable in the Late Roman army however, and the way you treated that discussion about unit strength did not make me happy.
Is this because I presented some theories about the Late Roman organisation? Is it because I disagreed with you and Campbell’s point of view that Isidore and the numbers for the Theban legion are untrustworthy? Did you get upset because I questioned some of your assumptions?
Robert wrote: However, what made me sad and a bit angry was how you dismissed researchers ‘en masse’ in your latest post. I thought that especially unfair, and almost always incorrect.
As to being en masse, this is taking it too far. I can’t afford the time to list all the good ones and the bad ones in a single posting. However, in the future I will be more careful and state “some” academics.
What made me sad and a bit angry was when you and Campbell claim Isidore and the numbers for the Theban legion are untrustworthy. You make these judgement calls without having conducted a proper analyst of the numbers. There is a common practice with some academics. They make statements without offering proof and I’ve posted examples of this over the past years.
Robert wrote: No matter if a cohort number 400, 500 or even 600, it’s always the zodiac or the tribal system underlying all this. Why not simple practical reasons? Such as available numbers?
If a 60-century legion is what is meant by a full strength legion, then why can’t a 40-century legion be under-strength, or in your words, they only have enough men to available to make a 40- century legion.
Robert wrote: That, Steven, is an outright misrepresentation of the facts.
No it is not! If a published academic claims a legion is 4800 men for a given time frame specified by them, then he/she should bring all other legion numbers for that specified time frame into the discussion. It is beneficial to any author to do this as it could lead the way to a better understanding of the legion’s organisation. One academic claims that in Caesar’s day the legion numbered 4800 men, but fails to address other sources going as low as 3000 men to 6000 men. If they published that smaller legion numbers represent missing detachments or they are under strength, then prove it. But first to do that you have to be completely sure of how the legion is organised. I was always taught if you are 99% sure then remain quite, but if you are 100% sure then state your case.
Robert wrote: Maybe you don’t like the answers because they do not fit your theory, but there have been plenty of discussions of such battles, and mostly the academics accept these numbers as *reality*, not as the result of some religions drive that caused the Roman military command to ALWAYS take into account the zodiac, the ancient tribal system or some other formula to determine the actual number of combatants.
Well that completely ignores Livy’s reference to a levy formula he mentions for the allies. I seem to recall it had some Latin name. If there is a levy formula there is a system behind it. The levy dictates the smallest to the largest number of men that can be called up and equipped. The number of legions assigned to a campaign would be decided on by the senate. However, in my defence, when I discussed the possibility of 40-centuy legions, 50 and 60 century legions I did NOT associate them with the zodiac. It was entirely separate. It is you that is now doing this. I know when the zodiac comes into play and when military dictates come into play. Please go back and read the paragraph you yourself highlighted and you will see it is free of the zodiac.
Robert wrote: Like my fellow-academics, I do not look for a continuous system determining these numbers throughout Roman military history.
Then why not try something new? Academia has been at it for some hundreds of years and still cannot come to a consensus on many aspects of Roman military history. New tools and a new methodology might provide new insights. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Robert wrote: is it better to accept that insufficient data exist, then to invent your own proof? Is misusing the primary sources the answer, to ignore common reason?
So I am inventing my own proof. Well I am doing one hell of a good job at it. I take the 480 man cohort and with the degree plus the 35 tribes I get the 4800 man legion per tribe, and then I introduced Livy’s comment the tribes had doubled since Servius Tullius and I get 2400 iuniores and then provide a reference to four cohorts numbering 600 men which amounts to 2400 men. And I did this using data from the primary sources. So what is it I have invented? Seems when I give some of my research away, like the cohort zodiac thing, because it cannot be debunked, it gets ignored, and people going fishing for something else to go after. How about addressing that cohort zodiac formula? Think it has some merit? Or is it difficult for many to admit I could be breaking new ground?
Robert wrote: You give your own answer, without providing any proof whatsoever. That’s not research.
I made it a question Robert. As to research, it is all in the book, campaign year by campaign year by campaign year, giving all the army and legion numbers, which all interconnect with the Servian constitution. That’s right! I worked out the levy system from the Servian constitution, which I then later discovered is interconnected with the cosmos.
Robert wrote: Then tell us, is your understanding of this battle based on sources who tell us the exact order of battle plus the numbers of the units (I’m no expert, so I don’t know), or is it based on what you assume must be the numbers based on your theory? If the latter, I don’t see the problem: two sources tell us different things. You can blame the researchers for being stupid and bash them for it, or you can accept that we have two sources telling us different things.
Oh come on Robert, it’s ok for academics to bash the ancient writers. Academia has been doing this for centuries. You have stated that the numbers for the Theban legion are untrustworthy. Don’t you think comments like that erode a reader’s confidence in the primary sources if most academics are making the same claim? And considering academic cannot prove such legion numbers are wrong, how can they then claim the source to be untrustworthy. On the other hand, if someone attacks academia, academia cries foul. I’ve supplied enough examples in the past about this issue. I also ask you to reread my statement again. I did not say researchers were “stupid” I said “I still cannot understand how it is so grossly misunderstood.”
Robert wrote: One of them is obviously wrong (or both, we weren’t there), but it’s not done to blame researchers for not being able to determine who.
And you wonder why I bash academia. You have with your own words described the most common practice associated with academics in the field of Roman military history. If the numbers between two ancient writers on the same battle conflict, academia immediately presumes one must be right and the other must be wrong. Trust me Robert, it’s not very productive. My methodology is to try and determine how both ancient writers arrived at their numbers. As I wasn’t there, I have no reason to brand them as untrustworthy. Let’s use Asculum as an example of how I approach the primary sources. For this time period, Orosius claims the Romans had eight legions. Strangely enough, my tribal system shows the tribes for this period can levy eight legions. The numbers present at Asculum by Dionysius are 70,000 infantry of which 20,000 are Romans, and over 8000 cavalry. The figure of 70,000 infantry equate to 14 legions at 5000 men per legion. So are we to believe that of the 14 legions at Asculum, only 4 legions are Roman (20,000 men)? What happened to the two Roman two allied legion structure? And isn’t the army at Asculum getting pretty close in number to Cannae?
Now let me now introduce a third school of thought. What I have worked out is that Dionysius is giving the numbers of legions raised for that year and these legions are geographically position throughout Italy to anticipate the movements of Pyrrhus. Dionysius 14 legions would equate to 8 legions at Asculum (four Roman and four allied), another proconsul army in reserve before Rome, (two Roman and two allied) and two urban Roman legions. From this I get 70,000 infantry and over 8000 cavalry. Maybe Dionysius’ words were lost in translation and what he meant to say was of the 70,000 infantry, 20,000 Roman infantry were at Asculum. Frontinus 40,000 men equates to eight legions at Asculum (four Roman and four allied at 5000 men per legion), but Frontinus omits the cavalry numbers for the eight legions. What is interesting is to research the year before Asculum and you will see three armies, two consular armies in the field and one army to protect Rome commanded by Calvinus, who interestingly enough had the power of a dictator. The last time I can remember when the Romans had two consuls and a dictator for the same year was in 494 BC. My research for this period shows a dictator commands double the number of legions as a consul. It is their rule of thumb. So with each consul having four legions, the dictator would have eight legions, which gives a total of 14 legions. If I remember correctly, wasn’t Pyrrhus that year feinting towards Rome? This would clarify why Clavinus was given dictatorial powers. It gave him legitimacy to command eight legions. Ok, be my guest and tear the 14 legion interpretation apart.
Robert wrote: First of all, I really think that this last statement is not based on any facts at all. It flies in the face of all the evidence, as I think was clearly shown by the discussion here on RAT.
I’m not sure how to answer this. What is your exact meaning? However, I will note a large proportion of my research flies in the face of that discussed by academia.
Robert wrote: I think you have been cherry-picking from Vegetius and other sources, ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Again you accuse me of cherry picking. I have already shown you I have done no such thing. The mistake was you ignored or failed to notice what I had written. Why are we going over this issue again? This is getting to feel like hitting your head against a brick wall.
Robert wrote: Secondly, a question: from the Punic wars to late Roman times? Why jumping all over the Principate? There must be a lot of primary sources to discuss?
I discuss them all. But I am not sure of your line of questioning. I quickly condensed the last part of the posting as I was pushed for time.
Robert wrote: Nobody says that you did, but I’m not so sure about the other way around.
I know I am not the type to bend data to fit a preconceived theory. I never had a theory to start with. And I knew little about the cosmos, whether it be Greek, Aztec or Babylonian that would lead me to think I can make some theory about this connecting it with the Roman military. If you look at my past threads over the years you will see how I am curious about why the mathematical triad was so dominate in Italy. You will see an investigating mind at work. Although uncovering the cosmos as given me so many answers, it added three years to the project; a project I thought was well and truly finished.
Nik wrote: Of course, he then lost 3 in Germany and did not replace them (despite large scale emergency levies IIRC), leaving the legion strength at 25 - which may well cast doubt on how special the number 28 actually was.
Losing the three legions does not “cast doubt on how special the number 28 actually was.” You need to know more about ancient astronomy and their religious philosophy. A good starting point is to research the primary sources about how man is connected to the cosmos. To give you a kick start, here is the following:
“in the third hebdomad, a man concludes growth in terms of length, and in the fourth hebdomad, a man concludes growth in terms of breadth, and a man stops growing at 28 is a complete number. In the fifth hebdomad, due to the manifestation of the harmonic 35, all increase as regards strength is checked, and after these years it is no longer possible for people to become stronger than they are. The six and seventh hebdomad determine when a man is no longer required for military service, with those in the seventh hebdomad suited to be military officers.”
Has anyone every pondered why the Romans only created 35 tribes? Now read Florus introduction and draw parallels to the above reference. You will answer your own question. There are other sources that will confirm your findings. Warning…first adopt a Roman point of view.
Nik wrote: Does the numbers theory predict or explain the varying number of legiones after the reign of Augustus, or the change in size such as the larger 1st cohort later in the C1st?
From the mathematics it is easy to define what they are doing. But reread the fifth hebdomad…play around with it and see which hebdomad the number of legions created could belong to.
I’ve been busy lately trying to understand about intercalation for the Roman calendar (lunar and solar). Caesar and Augustus both tackled this problem. The Roman calendar is mentioned as running at 455 days a year, and Augustus bans intercalation for 12 years. The cosmos calendar does not use intercalation. I’ve been trying to sync them both (the cosmos calendar with solar) by introducing intercalation to the cosmos calendar without success. So I changed my strategy and took the premise the Romans are synchronising the solar calendar to the cosmos. This could explain why there is a 455 day year, and why intercalation is associated with a few people in the primary sources, over differing spans of time. The end result is to get it to be in sync, I have to stop intercalation for 12 years, the same number of years as stated by Augustus. I simply put the numbers into the calculator, hit the equal button and there was the figure of 12. So I guess it must be another one of those mathematical coincidences that frequently pop up from time to time. This reminds me of one of those arcade games where the puppet face pops up and you have to hit it on the head. No sooner than you do, another head pops up from another hole. Every time you hit one, another pops up from a different hole. In the end there is so many popping up you are overwhelmed.
The Roman cosmos is divided into four parts, with each part being again divided into four parts. The foundations of the Roman cosmos system are very early, and everything is built on them. Polybius’ mention of four parts confirms they are adhering to the system in Polybius time. It’s a mile stone.
Macedon wrote: Even if the powers of 2 play a role at certain times, they obviously do not at others, as for example in the Polybian armies where indeed 3 seems to be the basis of the system.
You are correct about the power of 3. But there is more to it than that. I will say briefly, and I will not elaborate anymore as it is comprehensive in nature, but the number 3 represents the number of ages that have elapsed. When a new age begins, the new legion will have the power of 4 (representing the fourth age).
Macedon wrote: Now, this sounds as though you directly contrast the two systems. My question to you, though, had nothing to do with raw mathematics. It had to do with the issue at hand. I asked : "Where in their tactics do they use triangular numbers (apart from wedges and rhombuses obviously and then again not in all forms of arrangement)?".
Why do you associate triangular numbers with tactics? Some examples of triangular numbers are 1, 3, 6, 10. Some examples of square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25.
Macedon wrote: In your directing me to “Ancient Mathematics” by S. Coumo, Routledge (2001) it seems your comment had little to do with tactics but wasn't it the whole point to discuss the use of mathematical patterns in tactics? I remind you that the above comment was made in regard with the outline of the Roman camp.
I direct you to that book as it is informative and will give you and insight into ancient mathematics. And what has tactics got to do with the mathematics involved in laying out a camp? You’d be better off researching ancient surveying practices.
Macedon wrote: This was written by Proclus in the 5th century AD. What did you mean?
I got it from a Geminos fragment that was translated and sent to me. Some scholars believe Geminos lived in the 1st century BC.
Macedon wrote: And if so, what do their tribes and their numbers have to do with that?
I have explained this and I showed a relation between the number of zodiacs and the size of the cohort to arrive at the number of men in the 35 tribes and the number of men in a tribe. Hasn’t anyone realised the number of iuniores in a tribe is the same as a 4800 man legion. To arrive at that figure I used data from the primary sources which everyone is familiar with, so either its mathematical coincidence on a grand scale or I am onto something.
Going back to the your question, the order of the cosmos starts with the Earth, then the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, mars, Jupiter and Saturn. So if you forget about orbits, in its simplest form the cosmos is a straight line. The cosmos is bounded by the zodiac or the fixed stars. The zodiac should not be confused with the lunar zodiac, nor should it be associated with predictions of the future. Some people have a real difficulty separating this from stupid horoscopes.
Therefore, we have a straight line (the cosmos) encased in a circle (the zodiac). In its earliest form, the zodiac use to be a square. For some crazy reason, the Romans believe they are moving towards the zodiac. Please don’t ask me why as I don’t want to give ammunition to those close minded idiots who only post to mock. When the Romans create a tribe it marks the position in stadia to where they are in relation to the cosmos (the straight line). During the reign of Augustus the position is Saturn, and that is why they believe in the return of the golden age of which the first golden age was associated with Saturn. The cosmos moves at a certain number of stadia a year. The zodiac turns at a different number of stadia a year. Interconnect with all of this is a cycle of time which is set at a specific number of years. Virgil calls it the roll call of the centuries, so that will give you an idea of how slow it is. One scholar predicted it moved at one degree every 72 years. The cycle of time uses the Egyptian calendar. The whole cosmos, zodiac and time cycles are all presented in one table covering 1200 years. After the creation of the 35 tribes, the Romans use the progress of the zodiac when a time cycle has elapsed they increase the size of the tribes. After 495 BC, the Roman creates pairs of tribes and this is because a tribe equates to a certain number of degrees and minutes and two tribes equates to degrees (a round number). So from this you can discover the founding year of the tribes. The organisation of the legion therefore relates to the zodiac. The word signa can also represent a constellation, or group of stars, and as a cohort is a number of zodiacs….so the number of men in a signa can be determined.
Macedon wrote: You should not expect us to make the connection, since it obviously has demanded a great deal of synthesis from you.
The primary sources are full of data crying out to be connected. I label my research “joining the dots.”
Macedon wrote: So, does it predict or explain?
It explains. My example of defining how many men in a tribe which is determined by multiplying the cohort by how many stadia to a degree is an example.
Macedon wrote: What I can only say is that it is impossible for any of us here to make any real criticism since without knowledge of your system's mathematical details no checking and juxtaposition with these or other examples can be made.
I gave the formula for the tribal size cohort multiplied by zodiac etc. etc. Therefore, you have some knowledge of the mathematical system. The whole book is 250,000 words and 108 diagrams. It is a continuous mathematical system. Taking selected pieces out and defending them means using more information, which will again result in more information being demanded? I might as well post everything up as an attachment.
Macedon wrote: What are the 700 stadia (about 118 km)? And what period are you with this referring to?
The zodiac works on 700 stadia for the whole period (1200 years). The cosmos is synched to the Sothic cycle so I have no idea when one degree equals 700 stadia made its debut. As to how many kilometres a degree is, it has no relevance to my research.
Macedon wrote: What question exactly does the formula 162 - 142 answer? I kind of fail to see any crucial connection of the number 60 with Polybius' description of the Roman camp...
As I have already stated, it’s associated with the square zodiac. Just because you or anyone else cannot see a crucial connection with Polybius’ camp does not mean it doesn’t exist. Before I told you, no one had any idea of a connection to the cohort and stadia could predict the number of men in a tribe. I also found another rule of thumb practiced by the Romans - “a single division must be able to be divided into very large parts with smaller spaces or into a very small number of parts, with large spaces.”
Macedon wrote: As for the cohorts of the Polybian Romans, aren't they normally 160 (dividable by 16 and not by 60) and 100 (not dividable by 60 or 16) man strong, when necessary reinforced to 200 and 110 respectively (both numbers not dividable by either 16 or 60)?
Following you premise, a Polybian legion at 10 cohorts of 160 men amounts to 1600 men. Polybius has one legion size numbering 4200 men so you are missing 2600 men. Polybius has the legions numbering 4000 men so you are now missing 2400 men, and Polybius legion of 5000 men means you have to find another 3400 men. I have no idea where you got you numbers from but Geminos does discuss in some length a 160 year cycle.
Macedon wrote: And since when is the Polybian camp a square itself divided in four equal squares or the consul quartered in its middle? I admit I have never sat down to draw one myself but the drawings I have seen and the reading I have done do not seem to shape such a pattern.
The Roman term a particular land boundary a century. But does that mean is actually holds within the space 100 men? The cosmos is also divided into four. Could the Romans have originally mirrored their camp on the cosmos? Until there is a thorough study done, we cannot say either way.
Robert wrote: I think I can call myself knowledgeable in the Late Roman army however, and the way you treated that discussion about unit strength did not make me happy.
Is this because I presented some theories about the Late Roman organisation? Is it because I disagreed with you and Campbell’s point of view that Isidore and the numbers for the Theban legion are untrustworthy? Did you get upset because I questioned some of your assumptions?
Robert wrote: However, what made me sad and a bit angry was how you dismissed researchers ‘en masse’ in your latest post. I thought that especially unfair, and almost always incorrect.
As to being en masse, this is taking it too far. I can’t afford the time to list all the good ones and the bad ones in a single posting. However, in the future I will be more careful and state “some” academics.
What made me sad and a bit angry was when you and Campbell claim Isidore and the numbers for the Theban legion are untrustworthy. You make these judgement calls without having conducted a proper analyst of the numbers. There is a common practice with some academics. They make statements without offering proof and I’ve posted examples of this over the past years.
Robert wrote: No matter if a cohort number 400, 500 or even 600, it’s always the zodiac or the tribal system underlying all this. Why not simple practical reasons? Such as available numbers?
If a 60-century legion is what is meant by a full strength legion, then why can’t a 40-century legion be under-strength, or in your words, they only have enough men to available to make a 40- century legion.
Robert wrote: That, Steven, is an outright misrepresentation of the facts.
No it is not! If a published academic claims a legion is 4800 men for a given time frame specified by them, then he/she should bring all other legion numbers for that specified time frame into the discussion. It is beneficial to any author to do this as it could lead the way to a better understanding of the legion’s organisation. One academic claims that in Caesar’s day the legion numbered 4800 men, but fails to address other sources going as low as 3000 men to 6000 men. If they published that smaller legion numbers represent missing detachments or they are under strength, then prove it. But first to do that you have to be completely sure of how the legion is organised. I was always taught if you are 99% sure then remain quite, but if you are 100% sure then state your case.
Robert wrote: Maybe you don’t like the answers because they do not fit your theory, but there have been plenty of discussions of such battles, and mostly the academics accept these numbers as *reality*, not as the result of some religions drive that caused the Roman military command to ALWAYS take into account the zodiac, the ancient tribal system or some other formula to determine the actual number of combatants.
Well that completely ignores Livy’s reference to a levy formula he mentions for the allies. I seem to recall it had some Latin name. If there is a levy formula there is a system behind it. The levy dictates the smallest to the largest number of men that can be called up and equipped. The number of legions assigned to a campaign would be decided on by the senate. However, in my defence, when I discussed the possibility of 40-centuy legions, 50 and 60 century legions I did NOT associate them with the zodiac. It was entirely separate. It is you that is now doing this. I know when the zodiac comes into play and when military dictates come into play. Please go back and read the paragraph you yourself highlighted and you will see it is free of the zodiac.
Robert wrote: Like my fellow-academics, I do not look for a continuous system determining these numbers throughout Roman military history.
Then why not try something new? Academia has been at it for some hundreds of years and still cannot come to a consensus on many aspects of Roman military history. New tools and a new methodology might provide new insights. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Robert wrote: is it better to accept that insufficient data exist, then to invent your own proof? Is misusing the primary sources the answer, to ignore common reason?
So I am inventing my own proof. Well I am doing one hell of a good job at it. I take the 480 man cohort and with the degree plus the 35 tribes I get the 4800 man legion per tribe, and then I introduced Livy’s comment the tribes had doubled since Servius Tullius and I get 2400 iuniores and then provide a reference to four cohorts numbering 600 men which amounts to 2400 men. And I did this using data from the primary sources. So what is it I have invented? Seems when I give some of my research away, like the cohort zodiac thing, because it cannot be debunked, it gets ignored, and people going fishing for something else to go after. How about addressing that cohort zodiac formula? Think it has some merit? Or is it difficult for many to admit I could be breaking new ground?
Robert wrote: You give your own answer, without providing any proof whatsoever. That’s not research.
I made it a question Robert. As to research, it is all in the book, campaign year by campaign year by campaign year, giving all the army and legion numbers, which all interconnect with the Servian constitution. That’s right! I worked out the levy system from the Servian constitution, which I then later discovered is interconnected with the cosmos.
Robert wrote: Then tell us, is your understanding of this battle based on sources who tell us the exact order of battle plus the numbers of the units (I’m no expert, so I don’t know), or is it based on what you assume must be the numbers based on your theory? If the latter, I don’t see the problem: two sources tell us different things. You can blame the researchers for being stupid and bash them for it, or you can accept that we have two sources telling us different things.
Oh come on Robert, it’s ok for academics to bash the ancient writers. Academia has been doing this for centuries. You have stated that the numbers for the Theban legion are untrustworthy. Don’t you think comments like that erode a reader’s confidence in the primary sources if most academics are making the same claim? And considering academic cannot prove such legion numbers are wrong, how can they then claim the source to be untrustworthy. On the other hand, if someone attacks academia, academia cries foul. I’ve supplied enough examples in the past about this issue. I also ask you to reread my statement again. I did not say researchers were “stupid” I said “I still cannot understand how it is so grossly misunderstood.”
Robert wrote: One of them is obviously wrong (or both, we weren’t there), but it’s not done to blame researchers for not being able to determine who.
And you wonder why I bash academia. You have with your own words described the most common practice associated with academics in the field of Roman military history. If the numbers between two ancient writers on the same battle conflict, academia immediately presumes one must be right and the other must be wrong. Trust me Robert, it’s not very productive. My methodology is to try and determine how both ancient writers arrived at their numbers. As I wasn’t there, I have no reason to brand them as untrustworthy. Let’s use Asculum as an example of how I approach the primary sources. For this time period, Orosius claims the Romans had eight legions. Strangely enough, my tribal system shows the tribes for this period can levy eight legions. The numbers present at Asculum by Dionysius are 70,000 infantry of which 20,000 are Romans, and over 8000 cavalry. The figure of 70,000 infantry equate to 14 legions at 5000 men per legion. So are we to believe that of the 14 legions at Asculum, only 4 legions are Roman (20,000 men)? What happened to the two Roman two allied legion structure? And isn’t the army at Asculum getting pretty close in number to Cannae?
Now let me now introduce a third school of thought. What I have worked out is that Dionysius is giving the numbers of legions raised for that year and these legions are geographically position throughout Italy to anticipate the movements of Pyrrhus. Dionysius 14 legions would equate to 8 legions at Asculum (four Roman and four allied), another proconsul army in reserve before Rome, (two Roman and two allied) and two urban Roman legions. From this I get 70,000 infantry and over 8000 cavalry. Maybe Dionysius’ words were lost in translation and what he meant to say was of the 70,000 infantry, 20,000 Roman infantry were at Asculum. Frontinus 40,000 men equates to eight legions at Asculum (four Roman and four allied at 5000 men per legion), but Frontinus omits the cavalry numbers for the eight legions. What is interesting is to research the year before Asculum and you will see three armies, two consular armies in the field and one army to protect Rome commanded by Calvinus, who interestingly enough had the power of a dictator. The last time I can remember when the Romans had two consuls and a dictator for the same year was in 494 BC. My research for this period shows a dictator commands double the number of legions as a consul. It is their rule of thumb. So with each consul having four legions, the dictator would have eight legions, which gives a total of 14 legions. If I remember correctly, wasn’t Pyrrhus that year feinting towards Rome? This would clarify why Clavinus was given dictatorial powers. It gave him legitimacy to command eight legions. Ok, be my guest and tear the 14 legion interpretation apart.
Robert wrote: First of all, I really think that this last statement is not based on any facts at all. It flies in the face of all the evidence, as I think was clearly shown by the discussion here on RAT.
I’m not sure how to answer this. What is your exact meaning? However, I will note a large proportion of my research flies in the face of that discussed by academia.
Robert wrote: I think you have been cherry-picking from Vegetius and other sources, ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Again you accuse me of cherry picking. I have already shown you I have done no such thing. The mistake was you ignored or failed to notice what I had written. Why are we going over this issue again? This is getting to feel like hitting your head against a brick wall.
Robert wrote: Secondly, a question: from the Punic wars to late Roman times? Why jumping all over the Principate? There must be a lot of primary sources to discuss?
I discuss them all. But I am not sure of your line of questioning. I quickly condensed the last part of the posting as I was pushed for time.
Robert wrote: Nobody says that you did, but I’m not so sure about the other way around.
I know I am not the type to bend data to fit a preconceived theory. I never had a theory to start with. And I knew little about the cosmos, whether it be Greek, Aztec or Babylonian that would lead me to think I can make some theory about this connecting it with the Roman military. If you look at my past threads over the years you will see how I am curious about why the mathematical triad was so dominate in Italy. You will see an investigating mind at work. Although uncovering the cosmos as given me so many answers, it added three years to the project; a project I thought was well and truly finished.
Nik wrote: Of course, he then lost 3 in Germany and did not replace them (despite large scale emergency levies IIRC), leaving the legion strength at 25 - which may well cast doubt on how special the number 28 actually was.
Losing the three legions does not “cast doubt on how special the number 28 actually was.” You need to know more about ancient astronomy and their religious philosophy. A good starting point is to research the primary sources about how man is connected to the cosmos. To give you a kick start, here is the following:
“in the third hebdomad, a man concludes growth in terms of length, and in the fourth hebdomad, a man concludes growth in terms of breadth, and a man stops growing at 28 is a complete number. In the fifth hebdomad, due to the manifestation of the harmonic 35, all increase as regards strength is checked, and after these years it is no longer possible for people to become stronger than they are. The six and seventh hebdomad determine when a man is no longer required for military service, with those in the seventh hebdomad suited to be military officers.”
Has anyone every pondered why the Romans only created 35 tribes? Now read Florus introduction and draw parallels to the above reference. You will answer your own question. There are other sources that will confirm your findings. Warning…first adopt a Roman point of view.
Nik wrote: Does the numbers theory predict or explain the varying number of legiones after the reign of Augustus, or the change in size such as the larger 1st cohort later in the C1st?
From the mathematics it is easy to define what they are doing. But reread the fifth hebdomad…play around with it and see which hebdomad the number of legions created could belong to.
I’ve been busy lately trying to understand about intercalation for the Roman calendar (lunar and solar). Caesar and Augustus both tackled this problem. The Roman calendar is mentioned as running at 455 days a year, and Augustus bans intercalation for 12 years. The cosmos calendar does not use intercalation. I’ve been trying to sync them both (the cosmos calendar with solar) by introducing intercalation to the cosmos calendar without success. So I changed my strategy and took the premise the Romans are synchronising the solar calendar to the cosmos. This could explain why there is a 455 day year, and why intercalation is associated with a few people in the primary sources, over differing spans of time. The end result is to get it to be in sync, I have to stop intercalation for 12 years, the same number of years as stated by Augustus. I simply put the numbers into the calculator, hit the equal button and there was the figure of 12. So I guess it must be another one of those mathematical coincidences that frequently pop up from time to time. This reminds me of one of those arcade games where the puppet face pops up and you have to hit it on the head. No sooner than you do, another head pops up from another hole. Every time you hit one, another pops up from a different hole. In the end there is so many popping up you are overwhelmed.
