12-17-2013, 09:58 AM
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.
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.
Flutes Intervals Tones Ratio
12:6 Octave 6 2:1
12:9 Fourth 2½ 4:3
8:6 Fourth 2½ 4:3
12:8 Fifth 3½ 3:2
9:6 Fifth 3½ 3:2
It’s all about music Mark…the Roman legion rocks.12:6 Octave 6 2:1
12:9 Fourth 2½ 4:3
8:6 Fourth 2½ 4:3
12:8 Fifth 3½ 3:2
9:6 Fifth 3½ 3:2
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.
