10-28-2013, 08:29 AM
Renatus wrote:
Are you familiar with this article? G. V. Sumner, 'The Legion and the Centuriate Organisation', JRS 60 (1970), 67-78. I haven't read it myself but it looks interesting.
It’s not one of my favourites. It’s one of those academic papers I dislike because the author only uses data that supports his theory, while leaving out information that would destroy his theories credibility. That’s not to say his paper didn’t influence me, because it did. After rereading it some eight years ago, I decided to adopt the opposite approach to Sumner.
Sumner page 67: “The method of approach to be adopted here is that of reversing the historical process and working backwards from the relatively more certain data of the Middle Republic to the period where hypothesis and conjecture reign It is perhaps a clumsy method. But, given the nature of the evidence, it appears to offer a better hope of illumination than an attempt to start from the Servius Tullius rex. It is appropriate therefore to begin with Polybius”
The Servian constitution outlining the voting assembly and therefore the army, is the most comprehensive data that it is the best place to start. There is nothing comparable to it in the Middle Republic. When I began my research, after realising that no one throughout the ages had worked on the concept of Polybius being wrong about his legion, or just plain unreliable, I adopted that policy and disregard anything written by Polybius until I could prove it to be correct. I treated Polybius as the fly in the ointment.
Sumner page 68: “The manipular arm of Polybius shows no significant correspondence with the organization of the Comitia Centuriata in any of its forms.”
Establishing a connection between the Comitia Centuriata and the maniple legion will not happen by looking at the legion of Polybius and the Comitia Centuriata. You have to be prepared to crunch the numbers.
Sumner page 69: “It would seem almost impossible to believe that Livy’s legion ever existed in reality…It would be over-optimistic to suppose that the residue would have any claim to authenticity”
Let's look at Polybius, especially in light of his comment (6 24) “The velites are divided equally among all the companies; these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla, and their officers are called centurions or ordinum ductores.” Regardless of how this is translated, Polybius is not sure what these units are. Would you trust someone who is not sure?
Sumner page 69: “But if we regard the legion as consisting of 60 centuries (as stated by Cincius), there is an anomaly, A century being half a maniple, a century of the 1200 hastati in the Polybian legion would amount not to 100 men, but only 60 men, and the same goes for the principes. As for the triarii, a century of them would number a mere 30 men.”
Well what can I “suffer yee all who follow Polybius.” I find it fascinating that people still gravitate to Polybius like a moth to light. Then they go about bashing squares into holes and come up with the 1200 hastati organised into maniples of 120 men, as are the principes, but then have the 600 triarii in maniples of 60 men. So when is a maniple a maniple? Polybius seems to believe a maniple numbered over 100 men. So how do the disciples of Polybius deal with this? They simply add in the velites. Yeah that solves the problem…well so they think.
Sumner page 71: “In other words, Livy’s information concerns the fact that the election of the 24 military tribunes, 6 to each of the four legions, as known from Polybius, actually began about 311 BC. This would make it probable that the increase to four legions was recent in 311 BC, and would be in line with the other indications that the four manipular legions were introduced during the Second Samnite War.”
At this point Sumner fails to draw the reader’s attention to Livy (6 22), for the year 382 BC, 71 years earlier, four legions were enrolled each of 4000 men.” With six military tribunes allocated to a legion, this amounts to 24 military tribunes. So what is Sumner on about? Also “indications” is not evidence…empirical data is.
Sumner page 71: “In other words, from 405 to 367 BC there was a single legio with six military tribunes. By 362 BC, a second legion had been created, so that each of the two consuls….commanded a legion, and there were six military tribunes to each legion.”
Following Sumner that between 405 BC and 367 BC, there was a single legion, how would Sumner explain the following?
In 401 BC, four campaigns were simultaneously undertaken, two consular tribunes maintained the siege of Veii, while another two consular tribunes campaigned against Falerii and Capena. A fifth consular tribune attacked the Volscian hill town of Anxur. The sixth consular tribune acted as the city prefect.
They did this with one legion!
In 395 BC and 391 BC, of the six consular tribunes, four consular tribunes conducted simultaneous military campaigns against Falerii and Capena. In 389 BC, one year after the sack of Rome, Camillus (dictator) held a levy of the iuniores and seniores and divided the army into three divisions. One division marched against the Veientes, the second division encamped in front of Rome, while the third division campaigned against the Volscians.
One legion divided into three divisions….Sumner proved the Romans are supermen. And what about the four legions reported at the battle of the Allia in 386/7 BC?
Sumner is so obsessed with his theory he is blind to the primary sources, but this doesn’t stop him. Again on page 71, which must be the most famous paper in academia for lacking common sense, Sumner writes:
“In the 360’s they were surely in no position to create 6000 new hoplites out of thin air, or out of the earth. We may assume that each legion had scarcely more than 3000 hoplites, with centuries containing only 50 men.”
In replying to your question Renatus I have forgotten how ridicules this paper is. It is utter garbage. If I had the inclination, which I don’t, I could pull apart most of what is written, simply by referring to the primary sources.
Are you familiar with this article? G. V. Sumner, 'The Legion and the Centuriate Organisation', JRS 60 (1970), 67-78. I haven't read it myself but it looks interesting.
It’s not one of my favourites. It’s one of those academic papers I dislike because the author only uses data that supports his theory, while leaving out information that would destroy his theories credibility. That’s not to say his paper didn’t influence me, because it did. After rereading it some eight years ago, I decided to adopt the opposite approach to Sumner.
Sumner page 67: “The method of approach to be adopted here is that of reversing the historical process and working backwards from the relatively more certain data of the Middle Republic to the period where hypothesis and conjecture reign It is perhaps a clumsy method. But, given the nature of the evidence, it appears to offer a better hope of illumination than an attempt to start from the Servius Tullius rex. It is appropriate therefore to begin with Polybius”
The Servian constitution outlining the voting assembly and therefore the army, is the most comprehensive data that it is the best place to start. There is nothing comparable to it in the Middle Republic. When I began my research, after realising that no one throughout the ages had worked on the concept of Polybius being wrong about his legion, or just plain unreliable, I adopted that policy and disregard anything written by Polybius until I could prove it to be correct. I treated Polybius as the fly in the ointment.
Sumner page 68: “The manipular arm of Polybius shows no significant correspondence with the organization of the Comitia Centuriata in any of its forms.”
Establishing a connection between the Comitia Centuriata and the maniple legion will not happen by looking at the legion of Polybius and the Comitia Centuriata. You have to be prepared to crunch the numbers.
Sumner page 69: “It would seem almost impossible to believe that Livy’s legion ever existed in reality…It would be over-optimistic to suppose that the residue would have any claim to authenticity”
Let's look at Polybius, especially in light of his comment (6 24) “The velites are divided equally among all the companies; these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla, and their officers are called centurions or ordinum ductores.” Regardless of how this is translated, Polybius is not sure what these units are. Would you trust someone who is not sure?
Sumner page 69: “But if we regard the legion as consisting of 60 centuries (as stated by Cincius), there is an anomaly, A century being half a maniple, a century of the 1200 hastati in the Polybian legion would amount not to 100 men, but only 60 men, and the same goes for the principes. As for the triarii, a century of them would number a mere 30 men.”
Well what can I “suffer yee all who follow Polybius.” I find it fascinating that people still gravitate to Polybius like a moth to light. Then they go about bashing squares into holes and come up with the 1200 hastati organised into maniples of 120 men, as are the principes, but then have the 600 triarii in maniples of 60 men. So when is a maniple a maniple? Polybius seems to believe a maniple numbered over 100 men. So how do the disciples of Polybius deal with this? They simply add in the velites. Yeah that solves the problem…well so they think.
Sumner page 71: “In other words, Livy’s information concerns the fact that the election of the 24 military tribunes, 6 to each of the four legions, as known from Polybius, actually began about 311 BC. This would make it probable that the increase to four legions was recent in 311 BC, and would be in line with the other indications that the four manipular legions were introduced during the Second Samnite War.”
At this point Sumner fails to draw the reader’s attention to Livy (6 22), for the year 382 BC, 71 years earlier, four legions were enrolled each of 4000 men.” With six military tribunes allocated to a legion, this amounts to 24 military tribunes. So what is Sumner on about? Also “indications” is not evidence…empirical data is.
Sumner page 71: “In other words, from 405 to 367 BC there was a single legio with six military tribunes. By 362 BC, a second legion had been created, so that each of the two consuls….commanded a legion, and there were six military tribunes to each legion.”
Following Sumner that between 405 BC and 367 BC, there was a single legion, how would Sumner explain the following?
In 401 BC, four campaigns were simultaneously undertaken, two consular tribunes maintained the siege of Veii, while another two consular tribunes campaigned against Falerii and Capena. A fifth consular tribune attacked the Volscian hill town of Anxur. The sixth consular tribune acted as the city prefect.
They did this with one legion!
In 395 BC and 391 BC, of the six consular tribunes, four consular tribunes conducted simultaneous military campaigns against Falerii and Capena. In 389 BC, one year after the sack of Rome, Camillus (dictator) held a levy of the iuniores and seniores and divided the army into three divisions. One division marched against the Veientes, the second division encamped in front of Rome, while the third division campaigned against the Volscians.
One legion divided into three divisions….Sumner proved the Romans are supermen. And what about the four legions reported at the battle of the Allia in 386/7 BC?
Sumner is so obsessed with his theory he is blind to the primary sources, but this doesn’t stop him. Again on page 71, which must be the most famous paper in academia for lacking common sense, Sumner writes:
“In the 360’s they were surely in no position to create 6000 new hoplites out of thin air, or out of the earth. We may assume that each legion had scarcely more than 3000 hoplites, with centuries containing only 50 men.”
In replying to your question Renatus I have forgotten how ridicules this paper is. It is utter garbage. If I had the inclination, which I don’t, I could pull apart most of what is written, simply by referring to the primary sources.
